HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 12-19-05 L~
$7270-121905
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR SESSION
DECEMBER 19, 2005
2:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
AGENDA
1. Call to Order--Roll Call.
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:
Today's Council meeting will be replayed on Channel 3 on Thursday,
December 22, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, December 24, 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 SERVICE ICON, CLICK ON COUNCIL
AGENDAS, TO ACCESS THE APPROPRIATE AGENDA AND COUNCIL MEETING
TO DOWNLOAD THE ADOBE TO ACCESS THE AGENDA.
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO REGISTER
WITH THE STAFF ASSISTANT WHO IS LOCATED AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE
COUNCIL CHAMBER. ON THE SAME AGENDA ITEM, ONE TO FOUR SPEAKERS
WILL BE ALLOI-I'ED FIVE MINUTES EACH, HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE MORE
THAN FOUR SPEAKERS, EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOI-I'ED THREE MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO IS INTERESTED IN SERVING ON A CITY COUNCIL
APPOINTED AUTHORITY, BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE 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:
Government Finance Officers Association Distinguished Budget Presentation
Award.
File #1-60-80
3. CONSENT AGENDA
C-1
C-2
C-3
Approved (7-0)
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 special meetings of Council held on Tuesday,
November 1, 2005, and Thursday, November 3, 2005, and the regular
meeting held on Monday, November 7, 2005.
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, and to interview
an applicant for a vacancy on the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in the request.
File #110-178
A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council
schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, January 3, 2006, at 2:00 p.m., or as
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to execute a lease with Elias
Azar d/b/a Azar Jewelry, Inc., for space located in the City Market Building.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in the request.
File #42-373
REGULAR AGENDA
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
5. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
A request of Ginny Harden, Director of Prevention for Blue Ridge
Behavioral Healthcare, and Chair, Roanoke Prevention Planning Team,
to present youth data- Roanoke Youth Advocates. (Sponsored by the
City Manager.)
File #304-335
6. REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
a. CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS: NONE.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
Acceptance of Western Virginia Workforce Development Board
Workforce Investment Act funds, in the amount of $581,933.00,
for Program Year 2005.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 37270-121905 and
Resolution No. 37271-121905. (7-0)
File #60-72-236-246
Amendment of the City Code to revise parking regulations in
order to increase the availability of downtown on-street parking
and to increase the efficiency of parking enforcement fine
collection efforts.
Adopted Ordinance No. 37272-121905. (7-0)
File #5-20-24
b. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
Authorization to issue up to $5,500,000.00 in Bond Anticipation
Notes to be reimbursed from bond proceeds from the upcoming
bond sale.
Adopted Resolution No. 37273-121905. (7-0)
File #53
4
7. REPORTS OF COMMI'I-I'EES:
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. 37274-121905. (7-0)
File #60-467
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
9. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES
AND RESOLUTIONS: NONE.
10. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
a. Inquiries and/or comments bythe Mayor and Members of City Council.
Council Member McDaniel commended those City
employees who serve the citizens of Roanoke during
inclement weather, especially during times of snow and ice
removal.
File #80-184
Council Member Wishneff advised that the problems of
Roanoke's youth have nothing to do with construction of
stadia at the two high schools.
File #467
Council Member Dowe expressed appreciation for the
opportunity to represent the City of Roanoke at the National
League of Cities on December 6 - 10, 2005, in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
File #228
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'I-I'ERS REQUIRING REFERRAL TO THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE REFERRED
IMMEDIATELY FOR RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT TO COUNCIL.
Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., advised that a
tremendous amount of time has been spent on the Victory
Stadium issue and it is time to turn the City's focus in other
directions in order to address more pressing matters.
File #122
Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., spoke with regard to
the renovation of Victory Stadium and the construction of stadia
at the two high schools.
File #122-467
Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, spoke in
support of the renovation of Victory Stadium.
File #122
Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29th Street, N. W., spoke with regard
to various issues of concern.
File #66
12. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
The City Manager advised of a project sponsored by the City's Service
Excellence Committee to provide Christmas gift bags to kindergarten
students in Gulfport, Mississippi.
File #80-184
The City Manager highlighted achievements by City departments
during the calendar year 2005.
File #80-184
CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION. (7-0)
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
DECEMBER 19, 2005
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
AGENDA
Call to Order -- Roll Call.
The Invocation was delivered by Council Member Sherman P. Lea.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor C. Nelson Harris.
Welcome. Mayor Harris.
NOTICE:
Tonight's Council meeting will be replayed on Channel 3 on Thursday,
December 21,2005, at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, December 24, 2005, at
4:00 p.m. Council meetings are offered with closed captioning for the
hearing impaired.
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
First Annual Fire Prevention Week Art Contest - Recognition of winners.
File #70
Recognition of H. David Hoback, recipient, 2005 Governor's Award for
Outstanding EMS Administrator.
File #70-354
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Request of Fielden and Mary Bayne that a portion of Laura Road, N.W.,
be permanently vacated, discontinued and closed. Fielden Bayne,
Spokesperson.
Adopted Ordinance No. 37275-121905. (7-0)
File #514
Proposal of the City of Roanoke to amend Vision 2001-2020, the City's
Comprehensive Plan, to include the Roanoke Library Comprehensive
Study. R. Brian Townsend, Agent, City Planning Commission.
Adopted Ordinance No. 37276-121905. (7-0)
File #323-424
Proposal of the City of Roanoke to amend the City Charter to add new
Section 19.1, authorizing advisory referenda in the City of Roanoke on
"any proposed question or group of questions relating to the affairs of
the City." William M. Hackworth, City Attorney.
Adopted Resolution No. 37277-121905. (6-1, Council
Member McDaniel voted no.)
File #24-175
9
B. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR CITIZENS TO RE HEARD.
MA~-FERS REQUIRING REFERRAL TO THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE REFERRED
IMMEDIATELY FOR RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT TO COUNCIL.
Ms. Theresa Gill-Walker, 2807 Ordway Drive, N. W., advised that
stadia at the two high schools will separate the community.
File #122
Mr. Shaheed Omar, 1219 Loudon Avenue, N. W., spoke with
regard to alleged police brutality.
File #5
Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, spoke in
support of the renovation of Victory Stadium.
File #122
10
AGENDA
Audit Committee of Roanoke City Council
December 19, 2005
CALL TO ORDER:
Roll call - Mrs. England
FINANCIAL KPMG AUDIT REPORTS - JUNE 30, 2005
A. Report to the Audit Committee of City Council
B. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and Auditor's Opinion
C. Management Letter
· Management Response
D. Pension Plan Report to the Board of Trustees
E. Pension Plan - Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
m
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
None
4. NEW BUSINESS:
None
5. ADJOURNMENT
ROANOKE
December 14, 2005
Municipal Auditing
215 W. Church Avenue, Room 502
Roanoke, VA 24011-1517
(540) 853-2644
FAX (540) 853-6395
E-mail: auditor@roanokeva.qov
Mayor C. Nelson Harris
Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.
Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.
Sherman P. Lea
Brenda L. McDaniel
Brian J. Wishneff
Dear Committee Members:
This is to advise you of a meeting of the Audit Committee of Roanoke City Council
to be held Monday, December 19, 2005, in City Council's Conference Room at 1:00
p.m. A copy of the agenda for this meeting and related materials are attached.
In order to expedite the meeting, please review these items and contact Municipal
Auditor, Drew Harmon, in advance if you have any questions. We will also have an
opportunity for questions during the meeting.
Sincerely,
M. Rupert Cutler
Chair, Audit Committee
Attachments
C:
Drew Harmon, Municipal Auditor
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Larry Brown, Public Information Officer
Evelyn W. Powers, City Treasurer
Sherman A. Holland, Commissioner of Revenue
~,- Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Tim Conner, KPMG LLP
AGENDA
Greater Roanoke Transit Company
Audit Committee
December ! 9, 2005
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. EXTERNAL AUDITS:
KPMG Audit Reports:
A. GRTC - Transit Operations Financial Statements -June 30, 2005 and 2004
B. GRTC - Report to the Board of Directors - Year ended June 30, 2005
C. Southwestern Virginia Transit Management Company, Inc. Retirement Plan
and Trust Financial Statements - December 31,2004 and 2003
D. Southwestern Virginia Transit Management Company, Inc. Retirement Plan
and Trust Report to the Board of Directors - Year ended December 31, 2004
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
None
4. NEW BUSINESS:
None
5. ADJOURNMENT:
ROANOKE
December 14, 2005
Municipal Auditing
215 W. Church Avenue, Room 502
Roanoke, VA 24011 -! 517
(540) 853-2644
FAX (540) 853-6395
e-mail: auditor@roanokeva, ov
Mayor C. Nelson Harris
Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.
Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.
Sherman P. Lea
Brenda L. McDaniel
Brian J. Wishneff
Dear Committee Members:
This is to advise you of a meetinq of the Greater Roanoke Transit Company Audit
Committee of Roanoke City Co;,ncil to be held Monday, December 19, 2005, in City
Council's Conference Room at 1:00 p.m. A copy of the agenda for this meeting is
attached.
Please contact Municipal Auditor, Drew Harmon, in advance if you have any questions.
We will also have an opportunity for questions during the meeting.
Sincerely,
M. Rupert Cutler
Chair, Audit Committee
Attachment
C:
Drew Harmon, Municipal Auditor
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
David A. Morgan, General Manager, GRTC
Larry Brown, Public Information Officer
Evelyn W. Powers, City Treasurer
Sherman A. Holland, Commissioner of Revenue
~"'"Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Tim Conner, KPMG LLP
Government Finance Officers Association
203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2700
Chicago, Illinois 60601 - 1210
312.977. 9700 ~fax: 312.977.4806
September 23, 2005
The Honorable C. Nelson Harris
Mayor
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, SW
Room 452
Roanoke, VA 240t 1-1595
Dear Mayor Harris:
I am pleased to notify you that City of Roanoke, Virginia has received the Distinguished Budget
Presentation A~vard for the current fiscal year from the Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA). This award is the highest form of recognition in governmental budgeting
and represents a significant achievement by your organization.
When a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award is granted to an entity, a Certificate of
Recognition for Budget Presentation is also presented to the individual or department designated
as being primarily responsible for its having achieved the award. This has been presented to:
Sherman Stovali, Director of Management and Budget
We hope you will arrange for a formal public presentation of the award, and that
appropriate publicity will be given to this notable achievement. A press release is
enclosed for your use.
We appreciate your participation in GFOA's Budget Awards Program. Through your
example, we hope that other entities will be encouraged to achieve excellence in
budgeting.
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Gauthier, Director
Technical Services Center
Enclosure
wxs w. gfi~a.org
(;-1
331
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
November 1,2005
4:00 p.m.
A special meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke was called to
order on Tuesday, November 1, 2005, at 4:00 p.m., in Room 159, Noel C.
Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with
Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.,
Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff
and Mayor C. Nelson Harris ............................................................................ 7.
ABSENT: None .................................................................................... O.
The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum.
At 4:05 p.m., the Mayor declared the special meeting in recess to be
immediately reconvened in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor
Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke.
At 4:10 p.m., the special meeting reconvened in the City Council
Chamber, with all members of the Council in attendance, Mayor Harris
presiding.
The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum.
The invocation was delivered by Council Member Sherman P. Lea.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was
led by Mayor Harris.
The Mayor read the following letter calling the special meeting of Council:
"Pursuant to Section 10, Meetings of Council Generally, Charter of
the City of Roanoke, this is to advise you that I am calling a special
meeting of the Council on Tuesday, November 1, 2005, at
4:00 p.m., in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 2~5
Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke.
The purpose of the special meeting is to receive the report of
HEERY International Corporation with regard to Victory Stadium."
332
Mayor Harris advised that the Council would be briefed on the Stadium
Study Report prepared by Heery International, Inc., and the Victory Stadium
Market and Financial Analysis report prepared by Conventions, Sports & Leisure
International ("CSL"), copies of which would be available for review by the public
at the Main Library and all branch libraries, and personal copies could be
obtained for approximately $35.00.
Mayor Harris stated that representatives of Heery International, Inc., and
CSL International would present their report without interruption, followed by a
brief recess and Council Members would then make comments and ask
questions of the consultants. He further stated that the meeting was not
considered to be a public hearing and the Council would not entertain public
comments.
The City Manager advised that Charles Anderson, Architect, representing
the Engineering Division of the City's Department of Public Works, served as
lead staff person on the project, which included issuance of the original
Request for Proposals (RFP), review of responses to the RFP, and he served with
two City Council Members on a committee to select consultants.
Mr. Anderson introduced Michael Holleman, Vice-President, Heery
International; Brian Parker, representing Conventions, Sports & Leisure
International ("CSL International"); and John Garland, representing Spectrum
Design, and specializing in Historic Tax Credits.
Mr. Holleman stated that the purpose of the Victory Stadium Study was
tO:
· Evaluate existing conditions of Victory Stadium
· Develop five options requested by Council
· Review the project on the Victory Stadium site
· Prepare a comparative analysis.
He further stated that the consultant would not make a recommendation, but
would provide Council with the facts on which to make a decision.
He stated that the agenda would cover the following main issues:
· The floodplain
· An assessment of the existing stadium
· Historic Tax Credits
· Five specific options
· Discussion with regard to revenue potential and market analysis
· Financial discussion
333
Mr. Holleman advised that the floodplain is a major and costly issue and
called attention to pictures of the floodwater up to the vomitory height of the
stadium; and floodplain issues have been discussed with URS, a consulting firm
from Norfolk, Virginia, and with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. He stated
that a levy system is being constructed, but there is no guarantee that the
system will be completed, and funding has been allocated for the first section.
Levels and elevation of Stadium
I III
He advised that:
The above diagram contains lines which show the floodplain
areas that go from the two year, three year, 30-year, all the way
up to the 100-year floodplain.
The good news about the levy is that the area of the site will be
protected through the ten year floodplain, and beyond that the
site will continue to flood.
Some of the wall is built for the 30-year floodplain, but water
comes in from the back side and will flood the site when it
reaches above the ten year floodplain.
There is a crown when looking at midfield and back through the
stadium, the elevation at 924 is below the floodplain and at 927
there is a lower level underneath the stadium where locker
rooms are currently located which is in the flood zone.
The stadium was constructed to accommodate the addition of
other floors in the future, reinforcing bars protrude from the
beams and the stadium is capable of handling another floor in
the future, which would be on two levels: the lower level and a
smaller upper level.
334
Looking at floodplain numbers, the lO0-year floodplain is about
three feet below the level of the future floor, which would
provide an opportunity to move things up to that level in the
event of flooding.
The ten year floodplain is at the lower concourse, so if facilities
were provided under the stadium, which may flood on occasion
after the 10, 50, 100 year floods, they could be floodproofed
through a kind of "hose down" construction, which would have
both negative and positive aspects.
Flood Plan Elevations and Existinq Stadium Elevations
This section shows the second level, which would be above the
100 year floodplain, with enough space that floodproofing could
be done for a level below.
The section also shows the front row of the stadium removed;
the first bay of the stadium, or about nine rows, would be
removed and replaced with a wheelchair seating area for the
handicapped.
Flood Plan Elevations - Proposed Second Level Renovations and
Field Elevations:
335
Previous reports and analysis include the following issues
concerning the existing stadium: loose brick on the stadium,
rusted ties that hold the brick to the structure which can be a
potential long-term problem, an extremely small seating area,
lack of restroom and concession amenities, and track and field
condition.
· Numerous code issues exist.
Victory Stadium was constructed and complied with the Life
Safety Code; any renovations must comply with current codes,
which include ADA, Life Safety Code, plumbing code, etc.
Positive considerations are:
The existing stadium is structurally sound and is constructed on
deep foundations, but the soil contains a considerable amount
of silt because it is located in a floodplain, and it would be
necessary to dig down some distance in order to hit good
bedrock;
· The structure is not sinking, but slab on grade areas in the
lower level have sunk causing some cracking;
· Sufficient capacity seating exists for anything that the City
wishes to do;
· The stadium has a good history and memories of great events;
· The stadium is located on an existing site that is currently
owned by the City.
Mr. Holleman advised that in order to be eligible for the Historic Tax
Credits, the stadium would have to be registered as a historic landmark;
preliminary meetings have been held with representatives of the State Office of
Historic Preservation who have indicated that Victory Stadium is a facility that
could be placed on the historic landmarks list; and everything within the
footprint of the stadium itself which includes the east stands to the west
stands, as well as the playing field, could be eligible for up to 20% Federal and
25% State funds, and the savings would come back to the City, or to the
organization representing the City that would take the tax credits that may be
in the neighborhood of 35%. For example, he stated that if the eligible cost is
$10 million, proceeds to the City would be $3.5 million.
336
Mr. Holleman explained that the five options that Heery was instructed to
consider are:
Option 1 - Existing stadium from a tax credit point of view;
Option 2 - Existing stadium from a non-tax credit point of view;
Option 3 - New stadium on the same site with 5,000 seats;
Option 4 - New stadium on the same site with 10,000 seats; and
Option 5 - New stadium on the same site with 15,000 seats.
He advised that:
The basic program included bench seats, restrooms and
concessions for 8,000 people; however, the feasibility of the
number of events and the number of persons in attendance
most likely would not be 15,000 or 20,000, therefore, a
considerable amount of money would be spent for restrooms
that are not needed, which would be negotiable; it would be
possible to renovate existing lower restrooms to make up the
difference or temporary facilities could be used; an expanded or
improved press box, support space of 11,000 square feet net,
locker rooms, dressing rooms, rooms for coaches and officials,
and improvements to field lighting.
Optional program areas include a new field; if the field is used
with a great deal of frequency, it may be advisable to level out
the playing field and install artificial turf with a full drainage
system.
The architectural fac;ade must remain the same whether it is
replaced or repaired in place in order to qualify for the Historic
Tax Credit, which would impact other options regarding the
type of architectural presence at the site; i.e.: it could be a
"plain Jane" kind of facility or a facility of comparable nature to
the current Victory Stadium.
Site aesthetics is another optional issue; i.e.: leave the site as is
or improve the site with better landscaping, gateways, arches,
ticketing facilities, etc.
Another option would be to construct locker rooms above the
floodplain at a higher level in lieu of floodproofing and building
locker rooms underneath the stadium.
Mr. Holleman reviewed the following options:
Option 1 Existinq Stadium Historic
Historic Tax Credit
Historic Rehabilitation - Site Plan
Rehabilitation with
337
One of the main issues with the current stadium is that the
stairs do not meet current Life Saving Code standards in the
aisles, however, that could be corrected in the stands when the
seats are redone; redoing the front row of seats can improve the
situation for disabled persons using wheelchairs; if restrooms
and concessions are moved to the second floor, stairs will be
needed, within the facility and outbound on the stair tower,
however, anything built outside of the stadium footprint will not
be eligible for historic tax credits, therefore, consideration can
be given to an alternate scheme that gives up some of the
restroom facilities and places the stair tower within the structure
to save money, and leave the handicapped ramp outbound
leading up to the wheelchair positions.
Everything within the stadium footprint, including the field, will
be eligible for Historic Tax Credit; and site costs that are beyond
the footprint of the building; i.e.: parking, fencing and
gateways on the outside are not eligible for Historic Tax Credits.
Historic Rehabilitation - Concourse Level
338
Historic Rehabilitation - Exterior Elevations
West Elev ti0n
Historic Rehabilitation - Stadium Section
This section shows space underneath that would be raised up
about six inches above the existing concourse outside which
would place the space just above the ten-year floodplain; and
patrons would go up the stairs to the concourse and walk
straight out into the grandstand.
The press box is currently bricked to a certain height; an
addition was later constructed for a camera deck which does not
fit within the original architecture; an elevator will need to be
installed to the press box to meet ADA requirements, which will
be located inside the building and would come up in the middle
of the press box; and expansion of the press box toward the
field side would uplift the elevator and stair access and provide
the right facilities for the press box.
339
Option 2 - Existinq Stadium - General Renovation Without Tax
Credit
General Renovation - Site Plan
General Renovation - Concourse Level
General Renovation - Exterior Elevations
West Elevation
340
This option does not qualify for Historic Tax Credit; all of the
brick would not have to be put back on the building; there
would be an optional choice to either remove all of the brick and
leave the structure exposed, or remove all of the brick and
replace brick in certain areas.
In addition, support facilities could be left underneath the
stands or, if they are taken out of the floodplain, a building
could be constructed in the end zone, possibly the fountain end
at the river, or a 14,000 square foot facility could be
constructed for locker rooms above the floodplain; players
would have to come out of the facility and go down the stairs to
reach the playing field which is rarely done because players
would be wearing cleats that would pose a trip hazard; or
construct a ramp which would be more costly due to the need
for a connector that would extend between the concourses from
one side of the stadium to the other.
· Site costs include areas from the perimeter fence around the
facility up to the building.
· New landscaping and a wrought iron fence with brick piers to
upgrade the appearance of the stadium from the outside.
Option 3 - New 5,000 Seat Stadium
New 5,000 Seat Stadium - Site Plan
New 5,000 Seat Stadium - Stadium Sections
341
A new 5,000 seat stadium reflects an equal number of seats on
each side of the stadium; however, there could be consideration
for 3,000 seats on one side and 2,000 on the other, depending
on whether there is a home field side and a visiting side.
This option is straight forward with a football field and a soccer
field; seats are concentrated between the 20-yard lines, with
access to a concourse in the back, and restrooms and
concessions located above the floodplain.
This scenario would incur an added cost compared to building
on a site that has great soil and no floods. Construction of the
concourse, restrooms and concessions in the air is favorable
from a fan's perspective, because they can still see out into the
field; stands and ADA compliant wheelchair seating would be at
the top and support facilities could either be at grade level as
shown above or there is sufficient height to raise them
underneath the level; and it would be less expensive than
constructing the building in the end zone.
Option 4 - New 10,000 Seat Stadium
New 10,000 Seat Stadium - Site Plan
342
New 10,000 Seat Stadium - Concourse Level
New 10,000 Seat Stadium - Stadium Sections
The 10,000-seat option is similar to the 5,000 seat concept, but
extends farther down the sidelines and goes to the end of the
end zones.
It is a comfortable plan, with stairs, restrooms and concessions
on upper level and the ability to look down onto the field.
A plus with regard to a 10,000 seat facility is that it begins to
enclose the stadium.
Option S - New 15,O00 Seat Stadium:
New 15,000 Seat Stadium - Site Plan
343
New 15,000 Seat Stadium - Concourse Level
New ] 5,000 Seat Stadium - Stadium Sections
The 15,000-seat option provides for a concourse, stands that go
up and patrons would go through vomitories similar to the
current Victory Stadium.
344
Another concept allows for a concourse allowing patrons to look
down onto the field, and the remainder of the seats could be
placed in one of the end zones.
The concept also allows for a U-shaped stadium that would
contain 15,000 seats, which is about two rows deeper than the
previous concept, with restrooms and concessions on the side
of the concourse, and a connecting walkway at the rear.
This scenario provides a more intimate type of stadium. If the
National Guard Armory building were removed from the present
site, the area could become a full court or grassy area that
would lead to the stadium and could accommodate both football
and soccer.
Schedule
The schedule is similar for completing all five concepts, which
could be completed for the football season of 2007, with
construction commencing in May 2006.
The schedule provides for: notice to proceed, design phase,
schematics, design development, construction documents,
procurement, and construction.
The renovated concepts require some renovation before the
football season, and work would continue through the football
season.
The new stadium concept requires demolition of the existing
stadium; i.e.: demolishing one side and leaving the other side
for one season for use by fans; immediately following that
season, demolition would occur on the other side, followed by
construction; the end date would be the same; one side of the
stands would be missing for one year, however, there is
sufficient capacity and unless there is an issue with regard to
separating fans from one side of the stadium from the other, it
would be a workable solution.
Operatinq and Maintenance Costs
Operating and maintenance costs of Victory Stadium are
presently shown to be $232,000.00; depending on whether the
stadium has 5,000 seats or 18,000 seats, projected costs range
between $250,000.00 and $217,000.00; and certain basic costs
will be incurred regardless.
345
At this point, Mr. Holleman turned the presentation over to Brian Parker,
representing Conventions, Sports & Leisure International ("CSL International").
Mr. Parker advised that CSL International was requested to join the team
with Heery International when the initial RFP was issued; Heery International
reviewed physical capabilities and CSL International identified market demand
and support in terms of facilities and types of events, the types of uses that a
stadium in Roanoke could accommodate, needed capacities, and financials
based on the abovereferenced scenarios.
Mr. Parker reviewed the following Victory Stadium Market and Financial
Analysis report:
Victory Stadium has provided the Roanoke region with a major
outdoor venue for football games, soccer matches, concerts,
festivals and various other events since 1941. The 25,000-seat
Stadium has hosted a number of collegiate football games in its
history, including the annual game between Virginia Tech and the
Virginia Military Institute, which was held at the Stadium until 1971,
and the Western Virginia Education Classic, which will play its sixth
annual game at the Stadium in 2005. The facility has also hosteda
variety of regular season and postseason high school football,
soccer and lacrosse games over the years, and currently serves as
the home field for the William Fleming High School and Patrick
Henry High School football programs. In addition to sports events,
the Stadium has served as the primary outdoor venue in Roanoke
for concerts and various community and other events.
While Victory Stadium has a storied history, the 64-year old
structure has several deficiencies in comparison with more modern
stadiums, including:
· General deterioration of the structure, including exterior walls
and seating areas;
· Lack of modem amenities for fans;
· Inadequate disabled access;
· Susceptibility to flooding; and,
· Other such deficiencies.
The disrepair of the Stadium's bleachers has resulted in unsafe
conditions for fans in much of the seating areas, resulting in a
current capacity of approximately 4,000 usable seats. This limited
effective capacity, along with the aforementioned Stadium
deficiencies, have hindered the ability of the Stadium to attract
strong event and attendance levels.
346
In order to address the poor state of the existing Stadium, the City
of Roanoke ("the City") has been considering various renovation
and replacement options for the Stadium for a number of years.
However, none of these plans have been enacted to date due to
disagreements on the part of several constituencies concerning the
appropriate course of action. Currently, the City is considering
several potential development options, as follows:
· Renovate Victory Stadium, reducing the capacity to
approximately 18,000 seats;
· Build a new stadium on the same site, with a capacity of 15,000;
· Build a new stadium on the same site, with a capacity of 10,000;
or,
· Build a new stadium on the same site, with a capacity of 5,000.
In order to evaluate the feasibility of each potential development
option, the City retained the team of Heery International ("Heery")
and Conventions, Sports and Leisure International ("CSL") to
evaluate various issues related to each development option,
including:
· Potential event demand;
· Potential annual financial performance, including operating
revenues and operating and maintenance expenses; and,
· Other such issues.
CSL's primary role in the study was to assess the market and
financial feasibility of each potential development option. Key tasks
completed by CSL included:
· Assembled and analyzed key operating issues related to the
development of a new or renovated stadium;
· Reviewed historical event and attendance levels of Victory
Stadium;
Assembled and analyzed the physical characteristics, event
levels and financial performance of several comparable stadiums
throughout the country;
Analyzed the potential event mix of each potential development
option utilizing a number of research methods including
interviews with event organizers, the results of the
aforementioned analyses, and various other techniques; and,
347
Developed a financial model based on the estimated levels of
utilization and patron spending derived from the market
analysis, comparable facility analysis, and other information
pertaining to the Roanoke market.
The following report focuses on the study methods and results of
the aforementioned research and analyses, and is presented to the
Task Force in order to assist in making informed decisions with
regard to the future of its sports and entertainment facilities. The
report is divided into the following sections:
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Comparable Facility Analysis
3.0 Market Demand Analysis
4.0 Preliminary Financial Analysis
2.0 Comparable Facility Analysis
Victory Stadium lacks many of the amenities and characteristics
typically associated with more modem stadium venues. In order to
identify specific areas of potential improvement for Victory Stadium
it is helpful to gain an understanding of the physical and
operational characteristics of modem stadiums. The purpose of
this section is to present an analysis of the physical and operational
characteristics of existing stadiums that can be considered
comparable to a new or renovated Stadium in Roanoke. The
stadiums included in the analysis consist of stadiums that have
been built or renovated in recent years, have similar capacities to
the various Victory Stadium development options, and share
operational characteristics and an event focus that is similar to the
proposed new or renovated Stadium.
Through research of existing facility databases, information
received from various publications, and discussions with facility
management, information was gathered on each stadium, including
physical characteristics, event levels and other operational issues.
Stocker Memorial Stadium - Grand Junction, Colorado
The 5,100-seat Stocker Memorial Stadium is owned by the City of
Grand Junction and operated by the City's Parks and Recreation
Department. The Stadium opened in 1949, but has undergone
several renovations in recent years to bring it up to the standards
of more modem facilities. The Stadium features a natural grass
football field and a ¼ -mile track, but is not able to accommodate a
full-size soccer field.
348
Four area high schools play their home football games at the
Stadium, accounting for approximately 22 events per year. Mesa
State College, an NCAA Division I1 program, also plays five to six
football games at the Stadium each year. The Stadium also hosts
the graduation ceremonies for Mesa State College and each of the
four high schools, as well as special events such as marching band
festivals, Special Olympic events, the Shrine Circus, a cancer walk
and various other events. The Stadium's track hosts high school
track meets, and recently hosted the Hershey Track and Field
Games. In total, the Stadium hosts approximately 50 events in a
typical year.
Legion Stadium - Wilmington, North Carolina
The 6,000-seat Legion Stadium originally opened in the 1930's, but
recently underwent a major two-phased renovation. Phase I
renovations were completed in 2001 and included installation of a
new drainage system and turf, new facade, seating, restrooms, and
concessions, press box improvements, a new parking lot and
general landscaping and site improvements. Phase II was
completed in 2003 and included new locker rooms and a new
concession stand. The Stadium is owned and operated by the City
of Wilmington.
Legion Stadium is currently the home of New Hanover High School
athletics. The school plays all of its football, soccer and lacrosse
games at the Stadium. The facility is also home to two semi-pro
football teams and the Wilmington Hammerheads of the PSL, a
professional soccer league. The Stadium also hosts four to six
special events a year such as concerts and art shows. Excluding
athletic team practices, approximately 65 events or games are held
annually at Legion Stadium. The current rental rate for the stadium
is $750.00, but the City is considering increasing the rate to
$1,000.00 per event in the future.
Civic Field- Bellingham, Washington
Civic Field is owned by the City of Bellingham and operated by the
City's Parks and Recreation Department. The 6,000-seat stadium
opened in 1960, and is currently undergoing a $10 million
renovation which will include a new scoreboard, remodeled locker
rooms and improved ADA access.
Civic Field's artificial Field Turf playing surface allows it to host a
high number of events on an annual basis with relatively Iow field
maintenance costs. The field serves as the home of the Division II
Western Washington University's football and soccer programs.
349
In addition, three local high schools utilize the field for varsity and
junior varsity home games. The field also hosts a few community
events each year and is available for public rentals for recreational
soccer practices and other such uses. The Stadium also features a
track, which hosts a number of collegiate and high school track
meets, as well as occasional meets organized by the City. All told,
the stadium averages approximately 300 uses per year. The rental
fee for the stadium ranges from $800.00 to $1,600.00.
Hugh Mills Stadium - Albany, Georgia
The 10,000-seat Hugh Mills Stadium is owned by the City of
Albany/Dougherty Count combined government and is operated by
the Dougherty County School District. The Stadium features a
natural grass playing surface and originally opened in 1932. A
series of renovations over several years have allowed the Stadium
to remain viable for various types of events.
The Stadium was formerly the home of the Albany State University
football program until the University constructed its own on-
campus stadium in 2005. The Stadium's current tenants include
four local high schools, each of which play all of their home
football games at the stadium. In addition to high school football
games, the Stadium hosts several high school track meets each
year, including the three-day State girl's public school meet and the
three-day State boys and girls private school meet. Other stadium
utilization includes a variety of youth league football games.
Stadium management estimates that approximately 60 events are
held at the stadium on an annual basis. The Stadium's base rental
rate is $300.00 per event. For high school football games and
other events with significant ticket sales, an additional rental fee of
$1.00 per ticket is assessed in addition to the $300.00 base fee.
Municipal Stadium - Daytona Beach, Florida
The City of Daytona Beach owns and operates Municipal Stadium,
which opened in 1988. The stadium has a capacity of 10,000
seats, including 6,000 seats on the home side and 4,000 seats on
the visitors' side of the Stadium.
The Stadium serves as the home of Bethune Cookman University's
football program, as well as three local high school football teams.
The Stadium also hosts several state high school postseason
games and occasional high school and other soccer games.
Stadium management indicated that, while the Stadium is capable
of hosting concerts, very few have historically been held there.
350
Along with the football field, the Stadium features a ¼-mile
motorsports track, which hosts a variety of go-kart and motorcycle
races. The field and track combine to host approximately 80
events in a typical year.
Howard Wood Field- Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Howard Wood Field is a l O,O00-seat stadium capable of hosting
football, soccer and track and field events. The stadium is owned
by the City of Sioux Falls and operated by the Sioux Falls School
District. The facility originally opened in 1958. In 2003, a new
artificial surface was installed, allowing the Field to increase its
annual event levels. Additional renovations completed in 2005
included the addition of new concessions and restroom facilities.
Four local high schools use the Field for a portion of their varsity
and junior varsity football and soccer schedules. In addition,
Augustana College and the University of Sioux Fails both use the
field for all of their home football games and occasional practices.
Other events held at the stadium include Pee Wee and middle
school football games, postseason high school football games, an
annual band festival and occasional track meets. In total, school
district representatives estimate that the field is used
approximately 100 times per year, compared to 30 uses per year
prior to the installation of artificial turf. The Field's rental rate
ranges from approximately $60.00 for practices to $500.00 for
events utilizing only the playing field, to $3,300.00 for collegiate
football games.
Lion Stadium - Ennis, Texas
The Ennis School District opened the lO,O00-seat Lion Stadium in
2001. The $13.6 million stadium features a Field Turf playing
surface capable of hosting football and soccer games, as well as a
¼-mile track. Additional stadium amenities include a two-story,
7,5OO-square foot press box that incorporates a VIP room, radio
broadcast booths and scout seating, as well as a 20 by 36-foot
scoreboard and state of the art sound system.
The Stadium hosts the District's varsity and junior varsity football
home games, as well as a portion of the varsity and junior varsity
soccer schedule. Additional District utilization includes home track
meets and graduation ceremonies. The Stadium is rented out to
neighboring districts for postseason playoff football games
approximately three to four times per year. In total, District official
estimate that the Stadium is used approximately 25 times per
season.
351
Braly Municipal Stadium - Florence, Alabama
The 14,215-seat 13raly Municipal Stadium originally opened in the
1950's and underwent a major renovation in 1998. The Year
Opened 1950 renovation included the addition of 1,200 seats,
improvements to the press box and coach's booths, additional
restrooms, new stands on the east side of the stadium and cleaning
and repainting throughout the stadium. The Stadium features a
three-level press box capable of accommodating up to 50
sportswriters as well as coaching staffs, public address announcer,
clock operator and radio crews and television crews.
The Stadium is used exclusively for football games and practices,
including the home games of the University of North Alabama and
Florence High School, along with various regional postseason high
school football games. In addition, the Stadium has hosted the
NCAA Division Il football championship game each year since 1986
and is under contract to continue hosting the game through 2009.
In total, the facility hosts approximately 60 events in a typical year.
Summary
Within this section, physical and operational characteristics of a
number of recently built or renovated municipal stadiums have
been presented. The following table summarizes this information.
Comparable Stadium Summary
Stocker Memorial Legion Civic Field Hugh Mills
Stadium Stadium Stadium
Location Grand Junction, CO Wilmington, NC Bellingham, WA Albany, GA
Market Population 126,700 301,800 180,100 162,400
Year Opened 1949 1930 1960 1932
Year Renovated 2000-05 2001-03 2005 2002-05
Capacity 5~100 6~000 6,000 10,000
Sports Uses Football, T&F Football, Football, Soccer, Football, T&F
Soccer, T&F
Lacrosse
Annual Events 50 65 300 60
Municipal Howard Wood Lion Braly Average
Stadium Field Stadium Municipal
Stadium
Location Daytona Beach, FL Sioux Falls, SD Ennis~ TX Florence, AL
Market 481,400 203,400 130,200 141,100 215,900
Population
Year Opened 1988 1958 2001 1950
Year Renovated n/a 2003-05 n/a 1998
Capacity 10,000 10,000 10,000 14,215 8,900
Sports Uses Football, Soccer, Football, Football, Football
Motorsports Soccer, T&F Soccer, T&F
Annual Events 80 100 25 60 100
352
As shown in the exhibit, the average comparable facility has a
capacity of approximately 8,900 and hosts approximately 100
events per year. Excluding Civic Field, which hosts a number of
sports practices on an annual basis, the remaining stadiums
included in the analysis host an average of 63 events per year.
Each comparable stadium hosts football games, with other sports
utilization consisting of sports such as soccer, track and field,
lacrosse and motor sports.
While comparisons with the facilities described within this section
may be useful, the actual physical characteristics and ultimate
operational philosophy adopted by the proposed new or renovated
stadium will depend on the specific needs and preferences of the
City and other relevant constituencies. For example, factors such
as the desire to emphasize community events to benefit the
region's population as a whole will need to be weighed against the
need to generate acceptable revenue levels. In developing a
building program and utilization plan for the stadium project, the
City may look to these comparable stadiums as general
benchmarks, but ultimately, must make its own decisions on how
to best utilize the stadium.
3.0 Market Demand Analysis
The purpose of this section is to estimate potential event levels and
attendance at a renovated Victory Stadium or a new stadium in
Roanoke. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a
renovated Victory Stadium would have a seating capacity of
approximately 18,000 seats, while a new stadium could have a
capacity of 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 seats. A variety of factors
have been analyzed in order to gauge the ability of a new or
renovated stadium to attract various events including, but not
limited to:
· Historical Victory Stadium event and attendance levels;
· Event levels of comparable stadiums discussed in Section 2.0;
and,
· Interviews with various potential stadium users.
The interviews with potential users were conducted to obtain
opinions on the stadium development options being considered
and to gauge interest in utilizing the stadium. These conversations
provided an understanding of the Roanoke market's current ability
to attract various types of events, and how the market's
attractiveness could be impacted by the presence of a renovated or
new stadium.
353
The remainder of this section summarizes the analyses conducted
to develop event and attendance assumptions for each potential
stadium scenario, presented by event type.
High School Football
Victory Stadium currently serves as the home field of the William
Fleming High School and Patrick Henry High School football
programs. Each school typically plays five regular season home
games at the Stadium each fall, with attendance typically averaging
approximately 1,000 to 1,500 spectators per game.
Because neither school has an on-campus stadium capable of
hosting football games, it is assumed that both schools would
continue to utilize a renovated Victory Stadium or a new stadium
for their home games, regardless of the capacity of the stadium.
However, due to the relatively modest attendance levels, a smaller
stadium may be best suited to hosting these events, as such a
stadium would provide a more intimate atmosphere and result in
fewer empty seats for football games. A smaller stadium could
also help reduce the costs associated with operating the stadium
for high school football games.
Based on conversations with representatives of schools within the
City of Roanoke and Roanoke County, there does not appear to be
substantial demand to hold events at a new or renovated Victory
Stadium beyond the games currently played at the Stadium by
William Fleming and Patrick Henry High Schools. Schools generally
stated a preference to play home games at on-campus stadiums
when possible. Therefore, it is possible that William Fleming
and/or Patrick Henry High School could elect to'remove their
games from Victory Stadium if appropriate facilities are built on
their respective campuses.
For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a new or renovated
stadium in Roanoke could host approximately 10 regular season
high school football games per season, with average attendance of
approximately 2,000 per game, regardless of stadium capacity.
These estimates do not include postseason games, which will be
discussed later in this section.
Summary of High School Football Assum ~tions
Victory Stadium 18,000 15,000 10,000 5,000
2004 Events Seats Seats Seats Seats
Annual Events 11 10 10 10 10
Attendance:
Average 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Annual 11,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
354
High School Soccer
In addition to football games, Victory Stadium has also hosted high
school soccer games in past years, including seven games in 2004.
However, the Stadium did not host any high school soccer games in
2005. Attendance for high school soccer events at the stadium has
averaged approximately 200 per game. As with regular season
high school football, a smaller stadium may be best suited to
hosting high school soccer events due to the relatively Iow
attendance levels typically associated with soccer games.
For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the improved
amenities associated with a new or renovated stadium could cause
William Fleming and Patrick Henry High Schools could hold the
majority of their varsity boys and girls soccer games at the
stadium. Specifically, it is assumed that the stadium could host
approximately 30 regular season high school soccer games per
season, excluding potential postseason games. Attendance at
these games is estimated to average approximately 300 per game.
Summary of High School Soccer Assumptions
Victory Stadium 18,000 15,000 10,000 5,000
2004 Events Seats Seats Seats Seats
Annual Events ? 30 30 30 30
Attendance:
Average 200 300 300 300 300
Annual 1,400 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
High School Lacrosse
Patrick Henry High School is the only school within the City of
Roanoke that fields lacrosse teams. Two high school lacrosse
games were held at Victory Stadium in 2004, but none were held at
the stadium in 2005. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed
that Patrick Henry High School would continue to play its lacrosse
games at locations other than a new or renovated Victory Stadium.
Therefore, no regular season high school lacrosse games are
included in the event estimates developed for this analysis.
However, postseason lacrosse could potentially be held at the
stadium, as discussed below.
355
Postseason High School Sports
Along with the regular season high school sports discussed
previously, Victory Stadium has historically hosted a number of
postseason high school events. According to representatives of the
Virginia High School League (VHSL), the early rounds of postseason
tournaments are typically held at the home stadiums of
participating schools. Therefore, the extent to which a new or
renovated stadium in Roanoke would host early round postseason
football, soccer or lacrosse postseason events would likely depend
on William Fleming, Patrick Henry or another local school playing
host to the game, and choosing to hold the game at the stadium.
As a result, playoff utilization could fluctuate from year to year,
depending on the ability of local teams to qualify to host
postseason play.
The final rounds of postseason tournaments are typically
predetermined by the VHSL. All of the spring sports
championships, including soccer, lacrosse, baseball and softball,
are held in the same city over the same time period, resulting in a
spring sports "festival". Currently, Radford University in Radford
hosts the Class A and AA spring sports festival, while Christopher
Newport University in Newport News hosts the Class AAA event.
The ability of a new or renovated stadium to host soccer or lacrosse
championships would depend on Roanoke's ability to prepare a bid
to host all of the aforementioned spring sports. The soccer
championship, which consists of the semifinal and final rounds,
requires a stadium capacity of 1,000 to 1,500, with a field
measuring at least 110 yards by 65 yards. There is no minimum
capacity requirement for the lacrosse championship.
Football championship games could represent an additional source
of postseason utilization for the proposed new or renovated
stadium. The VHSL currently conducts championships in six
classes. The following table presents the current locations of the
final for each division, as well as the minimum required seating
capacity to host the event as determined by the VHSL.
VHSL Football Cham ~ionship Game Overview
Division Current Host Location Minimum Stadium Capacity
Division 1 James Madison University Harrisonbur9 6,000
Division 2 James Madison University Harrisonbur9 5,000
Division 3 Liberty University Lynchburg 4,000
Division 4 Liberty University Lynchburg 3~500
Division 5 University of Richmond Richmond 2,000
Division 6 University of Richmond Richmond 1,500
356
As shown, the six football championship games are currently
divided between three host Universities, each of which hosts two
championships on the same day. VHSL representatives indicated
that they have been pleased with each of the current hosts, but
Roanoke could make a proposal to the VHSL Executive Committee
to host a football championship event if it had an appropriate
stadium.
The current locations are based primarily on the proximity of each
University to the greatest concentration of schools within each
division. Based on conversations with VHSL representatives, the
Division 3 and 4 championships would represent the best
geographic fit for Roanoke. While the official capacity
requirements to host these events are 3,500 and 4,000,
respectively, VHSL representatives indicated that attendance has
often reached 8,000 to 9,000 in recent years. Therefore, a stadium
with a capacity of 10,000 would likely be adequate in order for
Roanoke to attract these events.
In addition to stadium capacity, other factors considered by the
VHSL when considering sites for football championship events
include:
Safety of the facility and playing surface;
· Locker room access and space;
· Financial potential;
· Motel and restaurant accommodations;
· Parking availability;
· Traffic ingress/egress; and,
· Facilities for television filming.
While specific guidelines for these factors have not been developed,
the stadium and market must be adequate in each area in order to
attract consideration for football championship games.
For purposes of this analysis, it is estimated that a new or
renovated stadium in Roanoke could host approximately two
postseason events in a typical year. These games are assumed to
represent games hosted by local high schools who earn the right to
host postseason events. While a stadium with a capacity of at least
10,000 seats could potentially attract two divisions of State football
championship games, there is no guarantee that the presence of a
new or renovated stadium would attract these events. Therefore,
they have not been included in the estimates developed herein.
357
Summary of High School Postseason Assumptions
Victory Stadium 18,000 ! 5,000 10,000 5,000
2004 Events Seats Seats Seats Seats
Annual Events 3 2 2 2 2
Attendance:
Average 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Annual 6,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Note: Estimates exclude potential State tournament games.
College Sports
Victory Stadium has hosted a variety of collegiate sports events in
past years, most notably the annual football game between Virginia
Tech and the Virginia Military Institute, which was held at the
stadium for several decades until 1971. Currently, the Stadium
hosts the annual Western Virginia Education Classic, which features
two regional collegiate teams and raises funds to help address
school dropout problems among area youth. The Classic typically
draws approximately 6,000 fans per year.
In order to assess interest in bringing additional collegiate sports
events to a new or renovated stadium in Roanoke, interviews were
conducted with representatives of the NCAA, as well as several
regional colleges, universities and collegiate athletic conferences.
Representatives of area colleges and universities generally
indicated limited interest in utilizing a stadium in Roanoke, as they
typically prefer to host events at on-campus facilities, allowing
them to limit travel costs and enjoy a home field advantage. In
order to induce these programs to relocate a home game to a
stadium in Roanoke, the City would likely need to provide financial
guarantees to the school to offset the costs associated with a
neutral field game. Such financial incentives would negatively
impact the Stadium's financial bottom line, and would need to be
weighed against the revenue generating potential of the events.
In the case of major NCAA Division I programs such as Virginia
Tech and the University of Virginia, the financial incentives required
to lure them to Roanoke would likely be prohibitive, as these
universities generate substantial game day revenues from their on-
campus stadiums. Division II and III programs would likely require
more modest guarantees to cover travel costs. However, these
games would lack the prestige, attendance levels and economic
impact that could be generated by a Division I game.
358
In terms of postseason collegiate games, many of the collegiate
athletic conferences with member institutions in the Roanoke
region play at the NCAA Division I1 or Division Ill levels.
Conferences at these levels typically do not play a football
championship game, relying solely on regular season results to
determine a conference champion. Lower division conference
championship events in sports such as soccer and lacrosse are
typically held at on-campus locations and are hosted by the top
seeded university or are determined on an annual rotation among
schools within the conference. Utilizing on-campus facilities
decreases the travel costs associated with the championship events
and helps draw fans to events that would otherwise have limited
regional interest. Therefore, it is unlikely that that the majority of
regional conferences would utilize a stadium in Roanoke for
postseason events.
While minor conferences indicated little interest in utilizing the
proposed new or renovated stadium, representatives of the Atlantic
Coast Conference (ACC), a major NCAA Division I conference whose
members include Virginia Tech and the University of Virginia,
indicated that a new or renovated stadium in Roanoke could
potentially host the conference's postseason soccer and/or
lacrosse championships.
The ACC men's and women's soccer championships will be held at
the SAS Soccer Park in Cary, North Carolina for the third
consecutive year in 2006. M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore hosted
the men's and women's lacrosse championships in 2005 and will
host them again in 2006. ACC representatives indicated that both
championships will be up for bid for future years. While a stadium
capacity of 10,000 may be adequate to host these events, ACC
officials prefer a facility with a capacity of at least 12,000. In
addition to capacity, the Conference considers several additional
factors when considering bids to host championship events,
including:
· Spectator parking;
· Quality of playing surface;
· Ticket booths, concessions areas, restrooms and other such fan
accommodations;
· Areas for press, coaches, officials, medical personnel and other
staff;
· Two to four quality locker rooms;
· Videoboard, scoreboard and public address system;
· Hospitality areas;
· Adequate lighting for televised events; and,
· Other such amenities.
359
In addition to conference tournaments, NCAA championships could
represent opportunities to draw major events to a new or renovated
stadium in Roanoke. It is assumed that the stadium would be
capable of hosting football, soccer and lacrosse events. The
following is a summary of the current circumstances surrounding
NCAA championships in these events.
Football
The NCAA currently does not conduct a championship tournament
or game at the Division I-A level. Postseason games consist of bowl
games held at a number of markets throughout the country. Based
on the current markets and facilities hosting bowl games, it is
unlikely that a stadium with a capacity of 18,000 or less in Roanoke
would be capable of hosting a Division I-A bowl game.
Football championship games are played at the NCAA Division I-AA,
Division II and Division III levels. The Division I-AA championship
game is currently held at the 20,O00-seat Carter Stadium in
Chattanooga, Tennessee, where it has been played since 1997 and
is contracted to remain through 2007. The Division II
championship has been held at the 14,215~seat Braly Municipal
Stadium in Florence, Alabama each year since 1986 and is
contracted to continue to be held in Florence through 2009. The
Division III game is played at the 7,136-seat Salem Stadium in
Salem, Virginia. The 2005 championship will be the 13th straight
played in Salem.
While the Division I-AA, II and III football championships are
currently held at the same sites each year, the NCAA periodically
allows other markets to present bids to host the event in future
years. In order to attract an NCAA football championship event to a
new or renovated stadium in Roanoke, a bid would need to be
prepared in order to induce the NCAA to relocate one of the games
from its existing market. The NCAA allows only schools and
conferences to submit bids for championship events. Therefore,
the City would need to partner with an area school or conference to
prepare a bid to submit to the site selection committee for a
particular event.
According to NCAA guidelines, a 15,000-seat stadium would be
sufficient to host the Division I-AA football championship game,
while a stadium with a capacity of at least 8,000 seats would likely
be required to attract the Division II or III championship game.
360
In addition to stadium capacity, other key characteristics
considered by the championship site selection committee include
geographic location, attendance potential, historical support for
college football in the region, adequate hotel rooms, convenient
practice facilities and the support of the local community.
Soccer
The NCAA selects separate sites for its Division I men's and
women's soccer championships, while the men's and women's
championship events are held at shared sites at the Division II and
III levels. Each championship event consists of the semi-final and
final rounds at a predetermined site. In recent years, soccer
championship events have been held only at soccer-exclusive
stadiums. The NCAA avoids playing events at shared
football/soccer facilities, as field conditions are often less than
optimal at shared facilities. In order to attract a soccer
championship event, the stadium would likely need to feature an
artificial playing surface, or the City would likely need to guarantee
that no football games would be held on the field for a specified
period of time prior to the championship, potentially three weeks
or longer.
The Division I men's and women's championships require minimum
seating capacities of 8,000 to 10,000. NCAA representatives
indicated that a 5,000-seat stadium would be adequate to host
Division II or III championships. Additional stadium requirements
include four locker rooms, adequate accommodations for television
broadcasting and other media, enclosed rooms for media
interviews and press conferences and adequate lighting.
Lacrosse
The NCAA has historically combined its Division I, II and III men's
lacrosse championships into a single weekend-long event, and
plans to continue to do so in future years. These events are
currently held exclusively at large NFL stadiums in major markets,
and are unlikely to be held at a smaller stadium in a market such as
Roanoke.
The three divisions of women's lacrosse championships are each
held at separate locations, and are rotated to difference locations
each year. In 2006, the Division I championship will be held at the
10,400-seat Nickerson Stadium in Boston, the Division II
championship will be played at the 3,000-seat stadium at the
Benedictine University Sports Complex in Lisle, Illinois, and the
Division III championship will be held at the 1,O00-seat DeBaun
Field in Hoboken, New Jersey.
361
It is likely that a 5,000-seat stadium would be adequate to host
Division II or III championship games, while a 10,000-seat facility
may be required to attract the Division I game. As with the other
sports discussed herein, the ability of a new or renovated stadium
in Roanoke to host a women's lacrosse championship would
depend on the City's ability to partner with a regional university or
conference to prepare a bid to hold the event in Roanoke.
For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the Western
Virginia Education Classic would continue to be held at a new or
renovated Victory Stadium. It is assumed that additional collegiate
sports utilization would be limited. If the City is aggressive in
providing guarantees to regional universities to play home games
at the stadium, or in developing additional special events similar to
the Western Virginia Education Classic, the number of collegiate
athletic events held at the stadium could increase. In addition,
while the stadium could potentially host ACC and/or NCAA
championship events in various sports, Roanoke would need to
develop a competitive bid package to attract such events. For
purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a new or renovated
stadium could attract one additional collegiate sporting event per
year on an ongoing basis. While the City may be able to attract a
conference or NCAA championship event, due to the uncertainty of
the bid process and lack of recurrence, such events have not been
included in the event estimates presented herein.
Summary of Collegiate Sports Assumptions
Victory Stadium 18,000 15,000 10,000 5,000
2004 Events Seats Seats Seats Seats
Annual Events 1 2 2 2 2
Attendance:
Average 8,000 15,000 12,000 8,000 5,000
Annual 8,000 30,000 24,000 16,000 10,000
Note: Estimates exclude potential NCAA and regional conference postseason/championship
~lames.
Other Sports
In addition to the high school and collegiate sporting events
discussed above, a new or renovated stadium could potentially
attract other amateur, semi-professional or even professional
sports events. Such events could include amateur youth soccer or
lacrosse tournaments as well as semi-professional or professional
soccer, football or lacrosse leagues and teams.
362
Based on discussions with amateur athletic event organizers, the
primary deciding factor for selecting a particular market for
tournaments is the availability of an adequate number of fields to
accommodate a potentially large tournament field. Ideally, these
fields will be centrally located with easy access to hotels and other
support services. While a stadium located amongst a large number
of fields may offer an attractive venue for tournament finals, most
potential amateur sports event organizers indicated that a stadium
is not needed. Therefore, no usage from such evens has been
assumed for the new or renovated stadium at this point.
In addition to amateur sports events, there are several semi-
professional or professional football, lacrosse and soccer
organizations that could potentially utilize the stadium for a tenant
franchise. While such usage may be beneficial to the facility in
terms of utilization as a community asset, the financial impact on
the stadium's operations from such events may actually result in
additional operating losses. For purposes of this analysis, no semi-
professional or professional sports tenant has been assumed for
the new or renovated stadium.
Concerts
Concerts could represent an additional source of utilization for a
renovated Victory Stadium or a new stadium in Roanoke. Because
football stadiums are not typically designed with a focus on
concerts, they often offer relatively poor configurations and
acoustics for concerts. In addition, the costs associated with
stadium concerts are typically high due to the need to construct a
stage from the ground up. However, design featu?es such as a
permanent concert stage or other such amenities could facilitate
the production of concerts in the facility and make it a more
attractive venue for concert promoters.
Victory Stadium last hosted a concert in 2004, when two concerts
were held at the venue. Based on conversations with local concert
promoters, concert industry trends and other such information, it is
estimated that a new or renovated stadium in Roanoke could
potentially host approximately three concerts annually. For
purposes of this analysis, average concert attendance is estimated
to range from approximately 3,500 to 10,000 per performance
depending on the capacity of the stadium.
363
Summary of Concert Assumptions
Victory Stadium 18,000 15,000 ! O,OOO 5,000
2004 Events Seats Seats Seats Seats
Annual Events 2 3 3 3 3
Attendance:
Average 5,000 10,000 7,500 5,000 3.500
Annual 10,000 30,000 22,500 15,000 10,500
Other Events
In addition to athletic events and concerts, Victory Stadium has
occasionally hosted other events such as festivals and community
events. Based on historical Stadium event levels, it is assumed that
a new or renovated stadium in Roanoke could host approximately
15 miscellaneous events on an annual basis, with attendance
approximating 500 per event. These could include a variety of
festivals, flea markets, auto shows or other similar events.
Summary of Other Event Assumptions
Victory Stadium 18,OOO 15,OOO 1 O,OOO 5,000
2004 Events Seats Seats Seats Seats
Annual Events 1 ~ 15 15 15 15
Attendance:
Average 500 500 500 500 500
Annual 5,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500
Summary
Based on the market analysis performed in this section, estimates
of event activity for a new or renovated stadium in Roanoke have
been developed. The following exhibit presents estimated event
levels at the proposed stadium for each potential development
option.
Estimated Ticketed Events and Attendance
New or Renovated Victory Stadium
Event Type I 18,OOO Seats ] ! 5,OOO Seats ] 10,OOO Seats ] 5,OOO Seats
Annual Events
High School Football 10 10 10 10
High School Soccer 30 30 30 30
High School 2 2 2 2
Postseason
College Sports 2 2 2 2
Concerts 3 3 3 3
Other Events 15 15 15 15
Total Annual Events 62 62 62 62
364
Average Attendance
High School Football 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
High School Soccer 300 300 300 300
High School 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500
Postseason
College Sports 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Concerts 10,000 7,500 5,000 3,500
Other Events 500 500 500 500
Annual Attendance
High School Football 20,000 20~000 20,000 20~000
High School Soccer 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
High School 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Postseason
College Sports 30,000 22,500 15,000 10~000
Concerts 30,000 22,500 15,000 10,500
Other Events 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500
Total Annual Events 1 O1,500 88,000 72,500 62,000
As shown, it is estimated that event levels are not likely to vary
significantly based on variations in stadium capacity due to the
relatively Iow number of events that would require a larger
stadium. Specifically, it is estimated that the stadium could host
approximately 62 events per year regardless of stadium capacity.
Attendance at these events is estimated to range from 62,000 per
year at a 5,000 seat stadium to 101,500 per year for a stadium
with 18,000 seats.
Based on this analysis, it appears that a stadium with a capacity of
5,000 seats would be sufficient to capture the majority of events
that would potentially be held at the stadium. However, building a
stadium with only 5,000 seats would likely preclude the facility
from consideration for larger events such as VHSL football
championships, ACC or NCAA tournament or championships events
and other major events. Based on this analysis, it appears that a
stadium with a capacity of approximately 10,000 seats would likely
be sufficient to enable the City to offer an appropriate facility for
these events. A larger stadium may not necessarily place the City
in a significantly better position to be able to compete for these
events. Assuming a 10,000-seat stadium would have the ability to
add temporary seating as demand dictated, this capacity appears to
be adequate to accommodate the vast majority of the potential
users of the facility.
In order to determine the most appropriate capacity, the City
should undertake a detailed cost-benefit analysis that will address
not only the incremental revenues that could be generated by the
stadium with these additional events, but also the added revenues
365
that could be generated throughout the community due to visitor
spending related to these events. These impacts should be
compared to the incremental cost to construct and operate a larger
new or renovated stadium to determine the most cost effective
stadium size.
4.0 Preliminary Financial Analysis
The intent of this section is to provide a preliminary estimate of the
potential operating results of a new or renovated stadium in.
Because facility design, configuration and cost estimates for the
proposed stadium renovation or development have not yet been
completed, the assumptions used in this analysis are based on the
results of the market analysis, industry trends, knowledge of the
marketplace and financial results from comparable stadiums.
Using this information, an evaluation of the potential operating
results has been developed under the range of event and
attendance levels as discussed in the previous section.
This presentation is designed to assist in estimating the financial
operations of the proposed stadium development options being
considered. Therefore, this analysis may not be useful for any
other purpose. The assumptions disclosed herein are not all
inclusive, but are those deemed significant to the operations of the
facility. However, there will be differences between estimated and
actual results, due to the fact that events and circumstances
frequently do not occur as expected, and these differences may be
material. As is the case in all studies of this type, the estimated
results are based on competent and efficient facility management
and assume that no significant changes in the various event
markets will occur beyond those set forth in this report. The
remainder of this section presents the financial and economic
impact analyses under the following components:
Operating Revenues,
· Operating Expenses, and
· Estimated Financial Results.
Operating Revenues
A new or renovated stadium will likely derive revenues through
rental revenue, concessions sales, merchandise sales, parking fees,
advertising and other such revenue streams. This section
summarizes the estimates for each potential revenue source,
identifying revenues that could be derived from stadium events.
The estimates presented herein relate to the event and attendance
assumptions developed in the previous section.
366
Rental Revenue
Rental revenues often make up a significant portion of a facility's
operating cash flows. Typically, stadium rental rates consist of a
flat rental fee. For certain ticketed events such as concerts, a
percentage of gate receipts generated by the event may be
collected rather than applying a flat fee. For purposes of this
analysis, it is assumed that organizers of all events other than
concerts would pay a flat rental fee, and would retain all ticket
revenue from their respective events. It is assumed that concert
promoters would be assessed a rental fee equal to the greater of a
flat rate, depending on stadium capacity, or 10 per cent of gross
gate receipts. The rental rates assumed in the estimates are based
largely on rates charged at comparable stadiums. The following
exhibit summarizes the assumptions used to estimate the annual
rental revenue from all events held at the stadium under each
development scenario.
Estimated Stadium Rental Revenue
18,000 Seats
Event Type Annual Average Average Rental Rate Rental Rate Annual Rental
Events Attendance Ticket Price Flat Fee % of Gate Revenue
HS Footbatt 10 2,000 $ 5.00 $ 500.00 n/a $ 5,000.00
HSSoccer 30 300 $ 5.00 $ 250.00 n/a $ 7,500.00
Postseason HS 2 2,500 $ 8.00 $1,000.00 n/a $ 2,000.00
College Sports 2 15,000 $20.00 $2,000.00 n/a $ 4,000.00
Concerts 3 10,000 $30.00 $ 5,000.00 10% $90,000.00
Other Events 15 SO0 $ 8.00 $1,000.00 n/a $15,000.00
Annual Totals $123,500.00
15,O00 Seats
Event Type Annual Average Average Rental Rate Rental Rate Annual Rental
Events Attendance Ticket Price Flat Fee % of Gate Revenue
HS Football 10 2,000 $ 5.00 $ 500.00 n/a $ 5,000.00
HSSoccer 30 300 $ 5.00 $ 250.00 n/a $ 7,500.00
Postseason HS 2 2,500 $ 8.00 $1,000.00 n/a $ 2,000.00
College Sports 2 12,000 $15.00 $1,900.00 n/a $ 3,800.00
Concerts 3 7,500 $30.00 $4,500.00 10% $67,500.00
Other Events 15 500 $ 7.00 $1,000.00 n/a $1 5,000.00
An nual Totals $ i 00,800.00
367
1 O,O00 Seats
Event Type Annual Average Average Rental Rate Rental Rate Annual Rental
Events Attendance Ticket Price Flat Fee % of Gate Revenue
HS Football 10 2,000 $ 5.00 $ 500.00 n/a $ 5,000.00
HSSoccer 30 300 $ 5.00 $ 250.00 n/a $ 7,500.00
Postseason HS 2 2,500 $ 8.00 $1,000.00 n/a $ 2,000.00
College Sports 2 8,000 $10.00 $1,700.00 n/a $ 3,400.00
Concerts 3 5,000 $30.00 $4,000.00 10% $45,000.00
Other Events 15 500 $ 6.00 $1,000.00 n/a $15,000.00
Annual Totals $77,900.00
5,000 Seats
Event Type Annual Average Average Rental Rate Rental Rate Annual Rental
Events Attendance Ticket Price Flat Fee % of Gate Revenue
HSFootball 10 2,000 $ 5.00 $ 500.00 n/a $ 5,000.00
HSSoccer 30 300 $ 5.00 $ 250.00 n/a $ 7,500.00
Postseason HS 2 2,500 $ 8.00 $1,000.00 n/a $ 2,000.00
College Sports 2 5,000 $10.00 $1,500.00 n/a $ 3,000.00
Concerts 3 3,500 $30.00 $3,500.00 10% $31,500.00
Other Events 15 500 $ 5.00 $1,000.00 n/a $15,000.00
Annual Totals $64,000.00
As shown, rental revenue is estimated to range from approximately
$124,000.00 per year at an 18,000-seat renovated Victory Stadium
to approximately $64,000.00 per year assuming a new 5,000-seat
stadium.
Concessions
Concessions revenue consists of sales of various food and
beverage items at concession stands throughout the stadium.
Revenue assumptions are based on estimated event and attendance
levels, concession spending at comparable facilities and industry
trends.
368
Based on industry trends, the profit margin on concessions
generally approximates 40 per cent of gross sales, with remaining
percentage being allocated to the vendor to cover the cost of labor
and merchandise. The profit generated by concessions and
catering is often shared between stadium management and event
organizers. The percentage of concession profits allocated to
event organizers can often be a key negotiating point when
developing rental agreements suitable for both the stadium and the
tenant or organizer.
For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the stadium would
retain an average of 50 per cent of profits from the sales of
concessions, with the remaining 50 per cent allocated to the event
organizer. The following table summarizes the assumptions used
to estimate annual concessions revenues resulting from each
stadium development option.
Estimated Food & Beverage Revenue
18,000 Seats
£vent Type Annual Per Capita Gross Revenue Stadium Share Net Revenue
Attendance Spending of Gross
High School Football 20,000 $ 3.00 $ 60,500.00 20% $ 12,000.00
High School Soccer 9,000 $ 3.00 $ 27,250.00 20% $ 5,400.00
Postseason HS 5,000 $ 3.00 $ 15,000.00 20% $ 3,000.00
College Sports 30,000 $ 3.00 $ 90,000.00 20% $ 18,000.00
Concerts 30,000 $ 6.00 $180,000.00 20% $ 36,000.00
Other Events 7,500 $ 2.00 $ 15,000.00 20% $ 3,000.00
Totals 1 O1,500 $ 387,000.00 $ 77,400.00
15,000 Seats
Event Type Annual Per Capita Gross Revenue Stadium Share Net Revenue
Attendance Spending of Gross
High School Football 20,000 $ 3.00 $ 60,000.00 20% $ t 2,000.00
High School Soccer 9,000 $ 3.00 $ 27,000.00 20% $ 5,400.00
Postseason HS 5,000 $ 3.00 $ 15,000.00 20% $ 3,000.00
College Sports 24,000 $ 3.00, $ 72,000.00 20% $ 14,400.00
Concerts 22,500 $ 6.00 $135,000.00 20% $ 27,000.00
Other Events 7,500 $ 2.00 $ 15,000.00 20% $ 3,000.00
Totals 88,000 $324,000.00 $64,800.00
369
10,O00 Seats
Event Type Annual Per Capita Gross Revenue Stadium Share Net Revenue
Attendance Spending of Gross
High School Football 20,000 $ 3.00 $ 60,000.00 20% $ 12,000.00
High School Soccer 9,000 $ 3.00 $ 27,000.00 20% $ 5,400.00
Postseason HS 5,000 $ 3.00 $ 15,000.00 20% $ 3,000.00
College Sports 16,000 $ 3.00 $ 48,000.00 20% $ 9,600.00
Concerts 15,000 $ 6.00 $ 90,000.00 20% $ 18,000.00
Other Events 7,500 $ 2.00 $ 15,000.00 20% $ 3,000.00
Totals 72,500 $2S5,000.00 $ 51,000.00
5,000 Seats
Event Type Annual Per Capita Gross Revenue Stadium Share Net Revenue
Attendance Spending of Gross
High School Football 20,000 $ 3.00 $ 60,000.00 20% $ 12,000.00
High School Soccer 9,000 $ 3.00 $ 27,000.00 20% $ 5,400.00
Postseason HS 5,000 $ 3.00 $ 15,000.00 20% $ 3,000.00
College Sports 10,000 $ 3.00 $ 30,000.00 20% $ 6,000.00
Concerts 10,500 $ 6.00 $ 63,000.00 20% $12,600.00
Other Events 7,500 $ 2.00' $ 15,000.00 20% $ 3,000.00
Totals 62,000 $210,000.00 $42,000.00
Concessions revenue is estimated to range from a high of
approximately $77,000.00 at an 18,000-seat stadium to a Iow of
$42,000.00 assuming a 5,000-seat facility.
Merchandise Sales
Merchandise sales consist of clothing, souvenirs, programs and
other miscellaneous items sold during events at the stadium. It is
assumed that the facility users would be responsible for
merchandise sales and would retain the majority of revenues
generated. However, for concerts and other potential outside
events, it is assumed that a new or renovated stadium may be able
to negotiate a revenue sharing agreement. For purposes of this
analysis, it is estimated that net revenues from merchandise sales
could range from $5,000.00 in an 18,000-seat stadium to
$2,000.00 in a 5,000-seat facility.
370
Parking Revenue
There are currently approximately 700 parking spaces on the
Victory Stadium grounds. Because each development scenario
assumes that a new or renovated stadium would exist on the site of
the current Stadium it is assumed that the same number of spaces
would continue to be available. Based on an estimated 90 per cent
of event attendees driving to attend the event with an average of
3.5 persons per car and an 80 per cent profit margin, the following
table summarizes the parking revenue that could be generated by
events at a new or renovated stadium. It is important to note that
these revenues reflect the utilization of only the 700 spaces located
on the Victory Stadium grounds. For events requiring additional
parking, it is assumed that patrons would park off-site and that any
revenues generated there from would be allocated to other entities.
Estimated Parkinq Revenue
18,000 Seats
Event Type Annual Per Capita Gross Revenue Stadium Share Net Revenue
Attendance Spending of Gross
High School Football 514 $ 2.00 $10,286.00 80% $ 8,229.00
High School Soccer 77 $ 2.00 $ 4,629.00 80% $ 3,703.00
Postseason HS 643 $ 2.00 $ 2,571.00 80% $ 2,057.00
College Sports 3,857 $ 2.00 $ 2,800.00 80% $ 2,240.00
Concerts 2,571 $ 2.00 $ 4,200.00: 80% $ 3,360.00
Other Events 129 $ 2.00 $ 3,857.00 80% $ 3,086.00
Totals $28,343.00 $ 22,674.00
15,000 Seats
Event Type Annual Per Capita Gross Revenue Stadium Share Net Revenue
Attendance Spending of Gross
High School Football 5~4 $ 2.00 $ 10,000.00 80% $ 8,229.00
High School Soccer 77 $ 2.00 $ 4,629.00 80% $ 3,703.00
PostseasonHS 643 $2.00 $ 2,571.00 80% $ 2,057.00
College Sports 2,057 $ 2.00 $ 2,800.00 80% $ 2,240.00
Concerts 1,286 $ 2.00 $ 4,200.00 80% $ 3,360.00
Other Events 129 $ 2.00 $ 3,857.00 80% $ 3,086.00
Totals $28,343.00 $22,674.00
371
10,0OO Seats
Event Type Annual Per Capita Gross Revenue Stadium Share Net Revenue
Attendance Spending of Gross
High School Football 514 $ 2.00 $ 10,286.00 80% $ 12,000.00
High School Soccer 77 $2.00 $ 4,629.00 80% $ 5,400.00
PostseasonHS 643 $ 2.00 $ 2,571.00 80% $ 3,000.00
College Sports 1,286 $2.00 $ 2,800.00 80% $ 9,600.00
Concerts 900 $ 2.00 $ 4,200.00 80% $ 18,000.00
Other Events 129 $2.00 $ 3,857.00 80% $ 3,000.00
Totals $28,343.00 $ 22,674.O0
5,000 Seats
Event Type Annual Per Capita Gross Revenue Stadium Share Net Revenue
Attendance Spending of Gross
High School Football 514 $2.00 $ 10,286.00 80% $ 8,229.00
High School Soccer 77 $2.00 $ 4,629.00 80% $ 3,703.00
PostseasonHS 643 $ 2.00 $ 2,571.00 80% $ 2,057.00
College Sports 1,286 $2.00 $ 2,800.00 80% $ 2,240.00
Concerts 900 $ 2.00 $ 4,200.00 80% $ 3,360.00
Other Events 129 $2.00 $ 3,857.00 80% $ 3,086.00
Totals $28,343.00 $22,674.00
As shown in the table, parking revenue is estimated to total
approximately $23,000.00 per year regardless of stadium capacity.
Because parking revenue is limited by the number of parking
spaces available at the stadium, it is not estimated to fluctuate
based on stadium capacity.
Advertising
Advertising at stadiums is typically generated from two sources:
electronic displays and panel displays. Electronic displays are often
located on scoreboards, outdoor marquees and interior fascia, and
typically flash advertisements for a specified period of time. Panel
displays can be found attached to scoreboards, outdoor marquees,
concourses, interior fascia or a number of other locations within a
stadium. Victory Stadium does not currently generate any
advertising revenue. However, the physical design of a new or
renovated stadium could provide additional opportunities for
advertising signage and displays. Further, a new or refurbished
facility could attract new advertisers who want to be associated
with the improved stadium.
372
Ultimately, the revenue the stadium is able to generate for
advertising will rely on factors such as the total estimated number
of events and total attendance at the stadium, the number of
televised events at the stadium, and the extent to which the City
chooses to maximize advertising opportunities. The following
table summarizes estimated annual advertising revenues for each
stadium development scenario, based on factors such as
advertising at comparable stadiums and the size and corporate
inventory of the Roanoke market.
Estimated Advertising Revenue
18,000 Seats 15,000 Seats 10,000 Seats
$ 50,000
$ 45,500
$35,000
5,000 Seats
$25,000
Operating Expenses
The following estimates represent the potential operating expenses
at a new or renovated stadium in Roanoke, and are based on an
analysis of operating expenses at comparable facilities. The
assumptions made in this section are based on industry averages
and results at comparable facilities.
Estimated Stadium Operating Expenses
Fxpense Type Historical Renovated New Stadium New Stadium New Stadium
Victory Stadium 15,000 Seats 1 O,000 Seats 5,000 Seats
Stadium (1) 18,000 Seats
Salaries, Wages& $116,000.00 $130,000.00 $122,000.00 $110,000 $ 99,000.00
Benefits
Utilities $ 39,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 47,000.00 $ 42,000 $ 38,000.00
Repairs& $ 6,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 33,000.00 $ 30,000 $ 27,000.00
Maintenance
Materials and $ 8,000.00 S 20,000.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 17,000 $ 15,000.00
Supplies
Professional Services $ 33,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 17,000 $ 15,000.00
Other $ 30,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 32,OO0.00 $ 27,000 $ 23,000.00
Totals $232,000.00 $290,000.00 $272,000.00 $243,000 $217,OOO.OO
(1 ) Represents average annual operating expenses over the past four fiscal years, inflated to 2005 dollars.
Note: Expenses in the table exclude any annual capital reserve fund contributions, the amount of which may vary
depending on total renovation/construction project costs.
373
As shown in the table, stadium operating expenses are estimated
to range from approximately $217,000.00 for a 5,000-seat stadium
to $290,000.00 per year assuming a stadium with a capacity of
18,000 seats. Salaries, wages and benefits are assumed to
comprise the largest share of operating expenses, as is currently
the case at Victory Stadium.
It should be noted that the expense estimates presented herein do
not include debt service associated with the cost of the potential
construction or renovation project. Further, no contribution to a
capital reserve fund has been included in the expense estimates.
Typically, facility owners and/or managers make annual
contributions to a capital reserve fund, often in an amount equal to
0.5 per cent to 1.0 per cent of total project development costs.
The amount of annual capital fund contributions made for a new or
renovated stadium will likely depend on the cost of renovating or
constructing the stadium.
Estimated Financial Results
The total revenues and expenses estimated in this section are
summarized in the following exhibit.
New/Renovated Victory Stadium
Estimated Revenues and Expenses
Current 18,000 Seats ! 5,000 Seats 10,000 Seats 5,000 Seats
Stadium (1)
Rent $ 124,000.00 $101,000.00 $ 78,000.00 $ 64,000.00
Food and Beverage $ 77,000.00 $ 65,000.00 $ 51,000.00 $ 42,000.00
Parking $ 23,000.00 $ 23,000.00 $ 23,000.00 $ 23,000.00
Novelties $ 5,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 2,000.00
Advertising/Sponsorships $ 50,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 25,000.00
Total Revenues $ 28,000.00 $279,000.00 $238,000.00 $190,000.00 $156,000.00
Salaries, Wages & $116,000.00 $130,000.00 $122,000.00 $110,000.00 $ 99,000.00
Benefits
Utilities $ 39,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 47,000.00 $ 42,000.00 $38,000.00
Repairs and Maintenance $ 6,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 33,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 27,000.00
Materials and Supplies $ 8,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 15,000.00
Professional Services $ 33,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 15,000.00
Other $ 30,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 27,000.00 $23,000.00
Total Expenses $232,000.00 $290,000.00 $272,OO0.OO $243,000.00 $217,000.00
374
Net Operating ($204,000.00) ($11,000.00) ($34,000.00) ($ 53,000.00) ($61,000.00)
Income/(Loss)
Capital Reserve n/a (2) (2) (2) (2)
Net Operating ($204,000.00) ($11,000.00) ($34,000.00) ($53,000.00) ($61,000.00)
Income/(Loss) After
Capital Reserve
(1) Represents the average annual financial performance of Victory Stadium over the past four fiscal years, stated in
2005 dollars.
(2) The amount of annual capital reserve contributions will likely depend on the total project cost, which has yet to be
determined.
As shown in the exhibit, it is estimated that operations of a new or
renovated stadium could result in net operating losses ranging
from $11,000.00 for an 18,000-seat stadium to $61,000.00 for a
5,000-seat stadium. In comparison, Victory Stadium has sustained
an average operating loss of approximately $204,000.00 annually
over the past four fiscal years. It should be noted that the
estimates presented above do not include annual debt service
payments to cover the cost of a renovation or construction project.
The construction of a larger stadium is likely to result in higher
annual debt service payments in comparison to the development of
a smaller facility.
In summary, Mr. Parker stated that CSL International began with an
analysis of comparable facilities, which were municipal stadiums that host a
variety of high school football, soccer, and college football around the country
to understand the dynamics of the financials, the types of events, and how
events were marketed, etc. He further stated that their analysis involved a
broad range of event utilizations ranging from about 25 event days similar to
Lyons Stadium in Texas, up to 300 event days in Bellingham, Washington. He
added that the bulk of the analysis was geared toward market demand in
Roanoke, the historic utilization of Victory Stadium, and comparable facilities at
those levels; a considerable amount of time was spent interviewing potential
users, high schools, colleges, football conferences, the NCAA, as well as
concert promoters and other event promoters to understand the type of facility
where there is a demand. He made the following points:
· Currently, high school football is the primary user of Victory
Stadium averaging approximately !,000 - 1,500 seats per game.
Roanoke's two high schools indicated a preference to have facilities
constructed on their campuses and discontinue the use of Victory
Stadium. For the CSL International analysis, it was assumed that
the high schools would continue to play regular season games at
Victory Stadium; averaging about five games a year per team, or
about ten total regular season games per year.
375
With a new stadium and a better experience for fans, it is hoped
that attendance will increase from approximately 1,O00 - 1,500 up
to about 2,000 persons per game.
Victory Stadium currently hosts a few soccer games per year and
one or two lacrosse games a year, with Iow attendance levels, but
with a new facility and the installation of artificial turf, Victory
Stadium could be a prime facility for soccer and lacrosse.
Championship games for high school football, soccer and lacrosse
require various stadium scenarios, post-season high school
opportunities exist, currently the majority of post-season games
are held at the higher seed's home, opportunities may exist at the
final rounds for Roanoke Valley localities to submit a joint
competitive bid, although there is no guarantee, even with a new
stadium, that Roanoke would be successful in booking the events.
College sports may also be an opportunity, inasmuch as Roanoke
currently hosts the Western Virginia Education Classic; there is
limited interest in bringing neutral site games to Roanoke; the
decision is usually based on travel expenses and gate receipts,
certain guarantees will be required in addition to covering event
and travel expenses, and such opportunities are limited at this
point.
Championship games also involve dollars, minimizing travel
expenses, bringing all the teams to one market, and having three
teams travel instead of four creates an impact on the programs.
The ACC is a strong conference in this region at the Division I
athletics level, the ACC requires large stadiums, factors considered
by the ACC in bringing events to markets include quality parking, a
top notch playing surface, adequate ticket booths, concessions,
restrooms, fan amenities, adequate press space, locker room
space, quality locker rooms and officials space, a video board and
scoreboard, hospitality areas, meeting space for pre-game and
post-game functions for team boosters, and adequate lighting as
events are televised.
NCAA football championship events at Division IAA, Division II and
Division III may also be an opportunity; Division IAA has been
played at Carter Stadium in Chattanooga, Tennessee, for several
years periodically, and comes up for competitive bid and Division II
would be a prime opportunity for the Roanoke area. Braly
Municipal Stadium in Florence, Alabama, has expended funds to
upgrade its stadium; the Stagg Bowl, Division III, is currently played
376
at the ball field in Salem, and in order to attract any of the above
referenced collegiate events, the City would have to partner with
the local college, university or an athletic conference to qualify for
bringing the events to Roanoke. Division IAA football
championships require at least 15,000 seats, for Division II and
Division Ill, 8,000 seats are preferred; other factors that are
considered relate to geographic location of the market, where
Division II teams are currently playing, how far the teams will have
to travel, the attendance potential of the market, the availability of
adequate lodging within the immediate area and outside of the
area, as well as the availability of practice facilities for both teams.
There are limited opportunities in terms of the NCAA soccer
championships; the NCAA has played in soccer specific stadiums,
and more soccer specific stadiums are under construction,
however, the main issue concerns the quality of turf. When games
are played in a football stadium, soccer players prefer a quality turf
facility, and providing artificial turf may mitigate the situation;
Division I championships request at least 8,000 - 10,000 seats ad
Divisions II and Ill require at least 5,000 seats.
The lacrosse championship is somewhat different at the Divisions I,
II and III levels and are currently played in major NFL facilities, such
as Lincoln Field in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Women's
championships rotate and there may be an opportunity for the
Roanoke Valley to submit a competitive bid.
It is assumed that the Western Virginia Education Classic will
continue to be held at Victory Stadium, one additional neutral site
game could be brought to Roanoke; i.e.: an early or late season
classic, or some other event that would guarantee revenue to the
team and cover expenses. No championship events have been
assumed because of the competitive bid situation; therefore,
depending on capacities, Roanoke could bring two events to sell
out with about 5,000 seats up to approximately 15,000 seats at the
largest stadium capacity.
Other sports opportunities exist, some of the venues that were
studied host semi-professional football, and professional league
soccer may be available; there may be opportunities to attract
professional sports team, however, league economics require that
all revenues generated go to the teams, so, in effect, revenue will
not benefit the facility other than through added utilization. It
would be necessary for the City to solicit a local ownership group
to sponsor a team.
377
Youth sports were considered such as regional tournaments, or
AAU-type tournaments that generate visitors to the market.
Initially, one might think that a new stadium would provide a prime
opportunity to attract these types of events; however, the reality is
that promoters do not care about new stadiums, or about having
5,000 seats or 10,000 seats, but instead they look for 20 or 30
fields in order to accommodate all events.
CSL International interviewed concert promoters both locally and
regionally. Victory Stadium has hosted some concerts in the past,
such as the Dave Matthews Band which was successful, but
required certain significant guarantees. In order to attract
concerts, promoters require money and guarantees that they will
be able to cover costs and generate as much revenue as possible.
There is very little interest in stadium configuration. Football
stadiums are somewhat unique and stadium seating is better
situated for football games. The curved seating arrangement
allows patrons to focus on the center field. With a new facility and
new amenities, it was assumed that Roanoke would continue to
host those events that have been held at Victory Stadium for the
past several years, such as "Music for Americans" and other festival-
related events. The City of Roanoke would do well if it hosts three
of those types events per year, depending on the capacity and type
of concert, ranging from 3,500 to 10,000 persons per event.
In addition to festivals, Victory Stadium has acted as a home base
for road races and other community events. The new stadium
would afford an opportunity for other activities such as flea
markets and car shows, using the stadium grounds to host the
events
It is estimated about 62 events per year could be held at Victory
Stadium, ranging from 62,000 to 100,000 persons total. The
Stadium could be operated as a business and as a part of an
enterprise fund that would be actively marketed to attract new
events.
The financial analysis relies on the fact that Victory Stadium will be
operated as a business and that the facility will control
concessions; total revenues, historically, have been about
$28,000.00, however, it may be possible to generate between
$156,000.00 to $279,000.00 in total revenues. Total expenses
could be about $217,000.00 on the Iow end, up to about
$290,000.00. There is no estimate for a capital reserve account at
this time since costs are not known; generally, an estimate of about
378
one-half to one per cent of project costs on an annual basis would
be set aside in order to have available funds for operations. Overall,
Victory Stadium has operated on about a $200,000.00 loss, but
with active marketing and an active business approach, the City
could reduce the deficit anywhere from $11,000.00 to $61,000.00.
If concession revenues were given to local community groups
and/or high schools, revenue would decrease significantly.
Mr. Parker advised that after all is said and done, the question in the
minds of most people is, what size facility should be built. He stated that
based on all of the information that was received, a 5,000-seat stadium will be
the capacity that will accommodate approximately 90 per cent of the events
that will utilize Victory Stadium; a 5,000-seat stadium may not allow the City of
Roanoke to compete for certain other events; and temporary seats could be
used to get the facility up to 7,000 or 8,000 seats, thus enabling the City to bid
on certain championship events. He further stated that a 10,O00-seat facility
would position the market and provide the City with the ability to compete for
other larger events; however, there is no guarantee that any of the events will
come to Roanoke. He advised that whether or not the City of Roanoke should
build a facility with added capacity and added cost, with no guarantee of
attracting any of the above referenced events, is a decision that City Council will
have to make. He noted that some events may not be recurring events; i.e.:
they may occur one year and not again until five years later. He stated that the
ability to add temporary capacity to either a 5,000 or a l O,O00-seat facility
would be a plus in attracting certain other events to the stadium.
In closing, Mr. Parker stated that the City of Roanoke has a unique
situation with an existing stadium that has considerable capacity for other
events.
Mr. Holleman reviewed a cost benefit analysis of incremental costs for
other events that Victory Stadium may be able to attract, the amount of revenue
that could be generated to the facility and to the community in terms of hotel
rooms, tax revenue and other spending in the community.
Mr. Holleman advised that:
Construction cost - Area square footage of space was multiplied
by unit costs which provides the subcontractor's price for the
sub-area of a particular unit; general conditions, overhead and
profit for the contractor is added to that figure, and because
there are numerous unanswered questions, a 15 per cent
estimated contingency was included, providing a new subtotal,
or bid price, that would be used in the marketplace for the bid.
The figure does not represent the total project cost since other
project costs, known as soft costs, will be added in
379
and will be different depending on whether the facility is a new
or a renovated facility. There would be a construction
contingency due to the potential of finding more things wrong
in a renovation project than in a new construction project of five
per cent for a renovation project and three per cent for a new
project. Also involved are fees for architects and others, as well
as direct costs for printing and travel expenses, in the range of
ten per cent for a renovation project, and about eight per cent
for a new project; and one per cent for the owner contingency.
He called attention to the need to include a three per cent
project contingency in the event of necessary additions and soft
costs range between 19 and 23 per cent of the total bid price
figure.
Mr. Holleman reviewed the following:
Purpose of the Victory Stadium Study Report prepared by Heery
International, Inc.:
· Evaluate Existing Conditions
· Develop Five Options
· On Existing Site
· Comparative Analysis
Agenda:
Flood Plain
Existing Stadium Assessment
Loose Brick
Spalled Concrete Seats
Lacking Amenities
Poor Field and Track
Sound Structure on Deep Foundations
Historic Tax Credit
Registered Historic Landmark
Preliminary indication from DHR is positive
20% Federal and 25% State eligible
Everything within stadium footprint eligible
Soft cost associated with eligible cost are eligible
Net savings back to City estimated at 35%
Example:
If the eligible cost is $10,000,000.00, the proceeds to
the City are $3,500,000.00
38O
Five Options 1. Existing Stadium - Historic Rehabilitation (with Historic
Tax Credit)
2. Existing Stadium - General Renovation (without Tax
Credit)
3. New 5,000 Seat Stadium
4. New 10,000 Seat Stadium
5. New 1 5,000 Seat Stadium
· Program
Basic Program
Bench Seating
Toilets and Concessions for 8,000
Press Box
Support Space - Locker Rooms (11/1 5k)
Option Program
New Field
Architectural Fa(;ade
Site Aesthetics
Raised Support Space
· Budget Methodology
Area x Unit Costs $
Subtotal
GC OHP 18%
Estimating Contingency 15%
Bid Price Subtotal
Soft Costs Renovated New
Construction Contingency 5% 3%
FF&E 3% 3%
Testing, Surveys, GED 1% 1%
Owner Contingency 1% 1%
Project Contingency 3% 3%
Subtotal Soft Cost 23% 19%
Total Project Costs Total $$ Total $$
*Escalation Mid-Construction December 2006
381
Budget Comparison
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Renovate Renovate
18,000 Tax 18,000 No Tax New 15,000
Items Credit Credit New 5,000 Seats New 10,000 Seats Seats
Basic Stadium
Costs $17~010,349.00 $13,443,983.00 $12,812,995.00 $18,620~749.00 $20~614~083.OO
Fa{ade Upgrade $0.00 $2~454~013.00 $1~737,804.OO $2~404~912.O0 $3,221~585.00
Field
Improvements $1~073~975.00 $1~073~975.00 $1 ~073~975.00 $1~073~975.OO $1~073~97S.00
Site Upgrades $999~600.00 $999,600.00 $999~600.O0 $999~600.00 $999~6OO.O0
Raised Support
Facilities n/a $1,612~997.00 709,049 709,049 709,049
Sou nd System $175~000.OO $175~000.00 $175~000.00 $175~OO0.00 $175~000.00
Patron
Con nection n/a $ 500,000.00 n/a n/a n/a
Scoreboard NIC NIC NIC NIC NIC
Total 19~258,924 18,146~571 16~799~374 23~274~281 26~084,243
Eligible Base Tax
Credit $16,360,432.00 n/a n/a
At 35% $5~726~151 .O0
· Operation and Maintenance Costs
Estimated Stadium Operating Expenses
Expense Type Historical Victory Renovated New Stadium New Stadium New Stadium
Stadium (1) Stadium 15,000 Seats 10,000 Seats 5,000 Seats
18,000 Seats
Salaries, Wages&Benefits $ 116,000.00 $ 130,000.00 $ 122,000.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 99,000.00
Utilities $ 39,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 47,000.00 $ 42,000.00 $ 38,000.00
Repairs & Maintenance $ 6,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 33,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 27,000.00
Materials and Supplies $ 8,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 15,000.00
Professional Services $ 33,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 15,000.00
Other $ 30,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 27,000.00 $ 23,000.00
Totals $232,000.00 $290,000.00 $272,000.00 $243,000.00 $217,000.OO
(1 ) Represents average annual operating expenses over the past four fiscal years, inflated to 2005 dollars.
Note: Expenses in the table exclude any annual capital reserve fund contributions, the amount of which may vary
depending on total renovation/construction project costs.
382
The City Manager advised that Mr. Garland was present to answer specific
questions with regard to Historic Tax Credits.
Following a brief recess, Mayor Harris recognized the Members of Council
for questions and comments.
Council Member Cutler asked the followinq questions:
Question: The Branch Highways contract with the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers to dig bench cuts along the Roanoke River just
down stream is creating a considerable amount of fill material.
Using available fill material for both the demolition of Victory
Stadium and the construction of bench cuts as recommended by
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers along the Roanoke River, would
it be practical or advantageous to elevate the new stadium site by
the river with fill material before beginning construction.
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that he would address the question
in general terms. It is possible to use fill material to raise the site
in areas that are not critical to the structure of the stadium; the site
currently has a lot of silt and the more weight that is placed on it,
the more the structure tends to settle, in areas such as under the
playing field, fill material could be used, as well as underneath
sidewalk areas, landscaping, etc.
Question: Explain the premium that the City would pay to build a
5,000 seat stadium on or near the Victory Stadium site near the
river, compared to an identical seating capacity stadium on an
upland site, such as the campus at William Fleming High School.
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that without knowledge about the
William Fleming site, his response would be based on assumptions
and conditions. Based on a previous comparison, a high school
stadium of 5,000 seats, with lighting and a comparable amount of
support space for locker rooms, would cost approximately $7.8 -
$7.9 million, including all soft costs. If locker rooms are not
needed, $2.2 million could be deducted from the estimate.
Question: For years, the City has stored motorized equipment
under the stands at Victory Stadium, and on several occasions the
equipment has been damaged by flooding. Would that area be
permanently closed, or how would the accumulation of flood water
be avoided?
383
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that presently there is no plan to
prevent flood water from coming in inasmuch as the water comes
up through the drain pipes, etc.; new support facilities would be
built above the ten-year floodplain level; lower space where
equipment was previously stored would not be changed and would
flood during heavy rainfall; and one solution would be to install a
sump pump to pump out water as it comes in. if the site totally
floods, it would be difficult to keep water out of the area~
Question: How do you account for the discrepancy between your
vehicle parking capacity number for Victory Stadium compared to
that used by Richard Rife, Architect, which was based on an
estimate provided by the City's Parks and Recreation Department.
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that the consultant did not go into
an analysis on the number of parking spaces, typically about 3.5 -
3.75 people are calculated per car for football games, so the
number of parking spaces needed would be determined on
capacity; patrons typically walk about ten minutes to a ball park
and all the spaces in the area could also be calculated. An efficient
parking lot in the space was allowed for which provided for about
525 cars, and the figure was derived by taking the capacity number
and dividing it by 3.5. In addition, there are other lots around the
area on which patrons could park and walk to the stadium.
Question: Based on your experience
are your thoughts with regard to
capacity and parking capacity around
as a stadium consultant, what
the traffic situation, street
the site of Victory Stadium?
Response: Mr. Holleman responded that it was average at best;
there are large stadiums situated in the middle of campuses with
no surrounding parking, and patrons walk from 10-60 minutes to
reach the stadium; and it depends on the level of convenience and
how the City would want patrons to come to the stadium. If the
desire is to encourage patrons to use the facility, it should be as
convenient as possible. The area is somewhat congested, but
considering the types of events that have been held at Victory
Stadium, traffic would not be that unreasonable and shuttle buses
could be used, if necessary.
Council Member Dowe asked the followinq questions:
Question: Would sound system upgrades be primarily for sporting
events, would the same sound system have the capacity to be used
for concerts, or would the City have to address other
improvements?
384
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that other improvements would be
necessary because the sound system basically works for specific
seat locations, for PA announcements, for playing the National
Anthem, and would not support a rock band concert which was not
included in the numbers inasmuch as the consultant was not
instructed to look at concerts. The consultant's report did not
include how to provide power for large events that may come to the
stadium, however, additional costs would be incurred to provide
electric power, or it could be accomplished through a temporary
generator.
Question: It was mentioned that very seldom are there events at
Victory Stadium where attendance of 15,000 - 20,000 people was
achieved. Is that based on the historical propensity of the markets
to support attendance, or on some historical information of the
sites and the types of markets?
Response: Mr. Parker stated that it was based on the estimated
types of events that could be held at the stadium, estimates for
attendance were based on similar events held elsewhere and the
historical usage of Victory Stadium.
Question: How many of those sites had similar facilities within a
ten-mile radius?
Response: Mr. Parker stated that he did not know specifically, but
did not think there were many, other than another municipal high
school football stadium; and the comparables that the consultant
reviewed did not host those types of outside events.
Question: If the schools decide to build stadia, how would that
affect the potential of 62 events per year at Victory Stadium?
Response: Mr. Parker stated that 30 soccer and lacrosse and ten
football games were included in the study, therefore, the stadium
would loose 40 events out of the 62.
Question: In essence, the City would have to hold 18 such events
to make up for lost operating expenses. How many missed
opportunities could the City allow before the facility starts to look
like it does now?
Response: Mr. Parker stated that he could not answer how many
activities could be missed, the consulting team tried to show that
there is no guarantee that any of the events would come to
Roanoke, the City would have to go through the competitive bid
process, and he did not know how long the City would choose to
sustain that type of loss with that type of facility.
385
Question: Has research shown that aesthetics of a facility does not
matter as much as the market's propensity to support the facility?
Response: Mr. Parker advised that both aesthetics and market
support are important and the propensity of support is based upon
events, which is based on providing a quality facility; therefore, it is
a kind of circular equation. Providing a top quality facility and top
quality events are key to encouraging patrons to visit the facility.
Vice- Mayor Fitzpatrick asked the followinq questions:
Question: What is entailed in the Historic Tax Credit process in
terms of benefits to the City and monetary value?
Response: Mr. Garland stated that his group considers itself to be
experts in historic preservation and in identifying those properties
that have the potential to qualify for tax credits; however, they are
not attorneys and do not form corporations and entities that are
necessary to carry this type of project forward. The Historic Tax
Credit project is both a State and Federal program; State tax credits
are 25% of eligible expenses and the Federal program is 20% of
eligible expenses. A structure must qualify for the program,
meaning that the building is over 50 years old, and if the structure
is not in a historic district, it would have to be included on the
Register for Historic Places. In the case of Victory Stadium, the City
would have to apply for the stadium to be included on both the
State and Federal Register for Historic Places. Consultants met in
early October with State representatives that are responsible for
determining whether a structure can be included on the registry,
and State representatives agreed to take the Victory Stadium issue
to the appropriate committee to obtain a preliminary ruling as to
whether Victory Stadium could be placed on the Registry. They
have since advised that it is thought that Victory Stadium could be
included on the listing which is the first step to qualify for Historic
Tax Credits. Once the stadium is placed on the Register of Historic
Places, any architectural and/or engineering projects would have to
be done in such a way that they would not take away from the
historic architecture of the building. The City would have to
maintain the existing fa(;ade, and there could be no construction of
additions on the outside of the existing fa(;ade. The City should try
to limit building outside the extremities of the stadium since tax
credits only apply to the existing structure, which would include
anything from outside wall to outside wall, including the field, but
would not apply to site work costs outside extremities of the
building. A "not-for-profit" group could take advantage of the tax
386
credit by forming a "for-profit" corporation, the "not-for-profit"
corporation would become a general partner in the syndication,
and after the tax credit portion of the project is taken advantage of,
ownership would revert back to the "not-for-profit" group. Most of
the expenses on the project would be eligible; the total of 45 per
cent that could be obtained through Historic Tax Credits on a
normal for-profit project is diminished somewhat on a municipal
project, because associated administrative costs carry a not-for-
profit forward to take advantage of the tax credits, which
historically have been about 35 per cent instead of 45 per cent of
eligible expenses. The $5 million figure comes from what can be
recouped after construction, which can be subtracted from the total
cost of the project.
Council Member Lea asked the followinq questions:
Question: If the City leans toward the larger stadium venue, would
marketing be a critical piece?
Response: Mr. Parker responded in the affirmation and advised
that the larger the facility, the more expenses will be incurred and
more events will need to come through the facility. If the City
looses the high school events, marketing will be critical.
Question: Are there certain persons or groups whose sole purpose
is to market such facilities?
Response: Mr. Parker stated that he did not think it was all that
common for a stadium with fields of this type, although there is a
market primarily for baseball and football stadiums. There is a
large community effort in the City of Salem to promote their facility
and host between 20 - 30 events per year.
Question: When a locality talks about partnering with various
conferences and/or college conferences, such as the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the first question is, how
many people will a venue accommodate; therefore, is marketing an
important element?
Response: Mr. Parker stated that marketing is critical, and starts
with a demonstration of support by the facility and the community.
His firm has been involved with the NCAA on a variety of levels
looking at second-tier championships, and because of the push to
make the second-tier championships more major events,
communities are becoming more and more aggressive in their
marketing efforts.
387
Council Member McDaniel asked the followinq questions:
Question/Comment: The Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project
when completed would only protect the City from the 30-year flood
range.
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that the levy goes only to the 30-
year flood level, but the consultant's scenario goes to the railroad
tracks and areas where the water backflows onto the site; there is
no full protection even on the 30-year level, flood water is still
projected to come in up to the tenlyear level; and regardless of
what the City does at Victory Stadium, there will be flooding.
Question: Review briefly the different scenarios at a 30-year flood
level if the stadium is left as is versus the new options?
Response: Mr. Holleman referred to a previous slide and stated
that currently, patrons enter on the lower grade and go up the
ramp into the stands, the level where a visitor walks up is about the
ten-year floodplain level, and theoretically floods to the level every
ten years; and the area below, where equipment was previously
stored, floods more often because it is in the two-year flood area.
The line denoted below the first level is the 100-year floodplain and
is about where the vomitories are located in the front of the facility;
the 30-year floodplain is about half way in between, so practically
speaking, the 30-year floodplain level cannot be worked with
because space cannot be fitted between the 30-year floodplain and
the level above. The consulting team also looked at the upper
level, and there is structure to build a third level, but there is a
question with regard to seating and what would be included on the
third level. It is too far from the field to place the locker rooms,
and it would not be practical for concessions. The third level would
be the practical level to build on because it would be above the
100-year floodplain.
Question: Talk about the new scenarios?
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that the main concourse would be
built above the 100-year floodplain, removal of a few rows of
seating resulted in the concourse being higher; and placement of
the concourse would allow people to look down onto the field and
give vertical space which could support facilities above the 100-
year floodplain, with about 14 feet of space underneath. The goal
was to try and keep the artificial turf out of the ten-year floodplain
by raising the field level; the lifespan of artificial turf is about ten
years; and there would be a problem with artificial turf as particles
would tend to float in the event of a lot of water and the turf would
have to be hosed off to remove accumulated silt.
388
Question: Would it be economical in the long run to add on to the
facility piecemeal?
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that in the long term, costs would
increase just as the cost of construction increases every year; ten
years from now, it would cost about 25 per cent more, so it will
never be cheaper than it is currently. It is practical to add on, just
as larger stadiums started out small, and added on approximately
every five years. This concept works from the 5,000-seat
configuration, which is the way that many stadiums have
expanded.
Question: What would be the approximate cost of additions?
Response: Mr. Holleman responded that he could work up costs
using today's dollars, but it would not be an accurate projection of
costs in ten years.
Council Member Wishneff made the followinq observation and
asked the followinq questions:
Question: Two examples locally of projects that were
accomplished using Historic Tax Credits are the Jefferson Center
and Warehouse Row. They continue to be owned by the City
pursuant to 40-year leases with entities operating the facilities
separately from the City. The Higher Education Center, O. Winston
Link Museum, Grandin Theater, Shenandoah Hotel, and Burrell
Hospital were also accomplished through Historic Tax Credits. The
Culinary School will also be constructed through Historic Tax
Credits, therefore, it is a well tested process.
Question: Can you provide more details regarding structural
issues, since there has been a considerable amount of discussion in
the community regarding the safety and condition of Victory
Stadium.
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that the structural frame of the
stadium is in good condition, with no cracks or spalling in the
frame; the underside of the grandstands look better than most
grandstands of its age, grandstands are fairly thick in order to
withstand abuse where the concrete is spalling which is a good
basis for which to work, it appears that the building is not settling
and only those things that are not attached to the frame are
settling, such as the sidewalk on grade, restrooms that were built
on grade, block walls that were built on spread footings and/or
389
those things attached to the brick where one thing has moved and
the other has not, which is an expansion situation between two
different types of frames. Rusting of brick ties is an issue which
can be addressed by taking out all of the brick and reinstalling with
new stainless steel ties, or a method to remove the brick in place
which would be almost as expensive as tearing the brick off and re-
bricking. Either way, funds to cover the cost would need to be
included in the budget.
Question: Should building plans be oriented to fit general
instructions by representatives of the State Historic Tax Credits
program?
Response: Mr. Holleman advised that he met with State
representatives to present preliminary alternatives, and
suggestions were made on what should and should not be done
which were conveyed to Heery International to incorporate in the
report.
Question: If the levy were in place, would flood water flow over the
levy?
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that it appears that flood water
comes through the back side of Victory Stadium and would come in
before the water goes over the levy side.
Council Member Wishneff stated that to assist the biomedical
research park in the area, the City may want to address the levy
issue outside of the Victory Stadium project. He advised that if the
levy were never constructed, or if the flood reduction project was
not completed, Victory Stadium would have a field 'that could be
washed off, with only locker rooms that would be left in the
floodplain that could be hosed off.
Mr. Holleman responded that if the levy was not built, it will take
less than a ten-year flood to flood up to that same level; water
would come in at the five-year level instead of the ten-year level,
and there would be a more frequent situation where locker rooms
would have to be hosed down, etc.
Mr. Parker stated that the City's Building Commissioner was
emphatic that any alternative, whether it be renovation or new
construction, must meet code standards relative to floodplains, and
anything that would be destroyed by a flood would have to be
elevated above thelOO-year floodplain by approximately two feet
under any of the alternatives.
390
Question: Operating costs increase as the size of the stadium goes
up and revenues go up. Under the consultant's projections, would
it be less expensive to operate current Victory Stadium, rather than
a 5,000 seat stadium, by approximately $50,000.00 a year?
Response: Mr. Parker responded in the affirmative, with the facility
being reliant upon the two-three concerts that were included in the
report which act as a revenue driver.
Council Member Wishneff stated that it is important for the public
to understand that the larger version of Victory Stadium looses less
money annually than any of the other options.
Mr. Parker replied in the affirmative, assuming that there are three
15,000-person attended concerts per year, with the revenue driver
coming from the concessions and rent that would be generated.
The ability to attract three 15,000-person attended concerts is
difficult and would require a serious marketing effort.
Question: Review the cost for each Option 1 using Historic Tax
Credits.
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that the total for each concept
includes the brick fa(;ade, field improvements, site upgrades, a
good sound system, and support facilities that are waterproofed
just above the ten-year floodplain. The total cost for Option 1 is
approximately $19.25 million, with $6.36 million available in
eligible funds through a Historic Tax Credit, equaling
approximately $13.5 million for Option 1 which includes 18,000
seats.
Question: Temporary restroom facilities were used for a recent
concert in Charlottesville, Virginia. Are temporary restroom
facilities typically provided for large events?
Response: Mr. Holleman replied that temporary restroom facilities
are typical in areas where there is a lot of temporary seating or
lawn seating, but code standards are specific and provide that the
number of fixtures must be provided based on the number of
permanent seats, no matter how many times the facilities are used.
Option 2, which is the Victory Stadium renovation at 18,000 seats,
with no tax credit, is about $18.14 million; Option 3, which is a
new stadium of 5,000 seats is $16.8 million; Option 4 is a new
10,000 seat stadium, at a cost of $23.27 million; and Option 5 is a
15,000 seat stadium at a cost of about $26.08 million.
391
Council Member Cutler asked the followinq questions:
Question: The leadership of the Virginia National Guard plans to
abandon the National Guard Armory within the next two years and
move to a site "out of the floodplain"; hypothetically, if that
building was not there, would the consultant have proposed to
locate the building or the additional 5,000 seats of a 15,000 seat
stadium on that end rather than on the river end of the stadium?
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that the issue would have to be
revisited, although most likely it would not make that much
difference relative to the floodplain. It is doubtful that the soil
would be much different if the floor elevation of the building was
high enough, it would involve flood proof construction, and would
be less expensive to place some of the support space in the
building instead of constructing a new structure.
Council Member Dowe asked the followinq questions:
Question: How many more floods would it take to deteriorate or at
least leverage the solid foundation?
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that he did not think it was
possible to say one way or another if further flooding would affect
the foundation of the stadium to the point where it would start to
settle, and the water table is very close underneath the building.
Stadiums pose a continuous maintenance item inasmuch as they
are neglected all over the country, because people build them, use
them once a week, then forget about them with little or no
maintenance. Stadiums require more maintenance than any other
type building because they are open to the elements on all sides.
Question: Given flood considerations and the proximity of Victory
Stadium to the Roanoke River, would it be feasible to consider a
kind of river-front development that would be used in conjunction
with a stadium, or a stadium site that could be used, regardless of
whether the stadium was in operation?
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that he could not speak to the
developability of the concept, other than to say that anything could
be made to look good, and whether a business would want to come
into a location that had the potential of flooding and whether that
area of the City would promote that type of development is a big
question. There would most likely be some spin-off businesses as
a result of the bio-medical institute in the area.
392
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick asked the followinq questions:
Question: If the City decided to spend $13.5 million using the
Historic Tax Credit option, would the City get another 60 years out
of Victory Stadium before major investment is needed; or if the City
elected to construct a new $16.8 million aluminum metal structure
facility, with a faqade around it, what would be the life of that type
of facility?
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that projections could be made,
however, it is a matter of maintenance as to how long the stadium
will last; if existing concrete at Victory Stadium had been properly
maintained over the years, spalling would not have occurred and
the only money required to be spent would have been for
maintenance; and that type of decking requires more maintenance
and waterproofing than for an aluminum deck. The structure that
holds up the aluminum deck, which is galvanized steel, also must
be maintained, just like any structural system or it will start to rust
and cause problems with the steel, but aluminum decking requires
less maintenance than concrete decking.
Council Member Lea asked the followinq questions:
Question: Could the two high schools use Victory Stadium while
the facility is undergoing construction or renovation?
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that either concept would work,
although both would have some inconveniences. If a new stadium
is constructed, one side of Victory Stadium would have to be torn
down while constructing a new side, and all patrons would sit on
the same side. Many stadiums have been constructed through the
football season. Certain things can be done with the right amount
of timing and planning, i.e.: recoating the seats and installing new
seats, using both sides for seating while working on restrooms and
concessions underneath, and utilizing temporary restroom facilities
and concessions.
Council Member McDaniel asked the followinq question:
Question: were other stadiums studied for marketing purposes or
for location, and were there any comparables?
Response: Mr. Parker stated that the focus was on the types of
events, how they were operated and by whom, most of which were
school districts or cities.
393
Council Member Wishneff asked the following question:
Question: Victory Stadium is a facility with commercial roads
surrounding it and the structure is visible from 1-581. As opposed
to constructing high school facilities in the neighborhoods, would it
be an attractive location?
Response: Mr. Parker stated that it would depend upon ingress
and egress and it was difficult to answer the question since he did
not know what traffic is like around Victory Stadium when the
facility is occupied by 6,000 - 7,000 people.
Council Member Dowe asked the followinq question:
Question: When the consultant looked at other stadiums across
the country that have a high volume of usage, was there a way to
determine the affect of attendance levels?
Response: Mr. Parker stated that the team did not specifically look
at attendance levels, many facilities were operated by school
districts which do not closely track attendance, and facilities are
generally constructed to accommodate the primary attendance in
terms of capacity. There is an impact if the facility has 15,000
seats and only 2,000 people in the stands, and 2,000 people in a
5,000 seat venue would still feel empty, therefore, it is important
to generate a home-field advantage and to scale the facility
accordingly.
Mayor Harris asked the followinq questions:
Question: Will the new option at 10,000 seats and 1 $,000 seats, as
well as the two renovation options, price restrooms and concession
points at a permanent seating level of 8,000 people?
Response: Mr. Holleman responded in the affirmative.
Question: With regard to renovation options, how did the
consulting team get from 18,000 seats to an 8,000-seat toilet
connection?
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that the figure came about as a
result of previous stadium work, in that there were "X" amount of
seats that were permanent and the number might have been 8,000,
and everything above that for special events would be in
temporary facilities; as the consulting team started to hear that the
number would be over 2,000 - 3,000 people in the facility, to have
394
toilets for 18,000 people seemed like an extreme cost, the point
being to include less and get permission to use temporary facilities
in the event of a large festival that might require toilets for ! 5,000
people. The toilets downstairs would either be revamped as back-
up toilet facilities, realizing that they are located in the floodplain,
or some combination of both; and typically, by the plumbing code,
a facility must have X many fixtures for X many people, with X
number for women and X number for men; therefore, the City
would need seek a variance, or an agreement from its Building
Department.
Question: Would permanent seating be any type of seating; for
example, if some part of the stadium had aluminum benches and
some part had the concrete terracing, does the concrete terracing
still count as permanent seating, or would benches be counted as
permanent seating?
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that a determination would be
made by the Building Commissioner.
Question: Under the renovation scenario, the first nine rows would
be removed for wheelchair seating. Since most patrons will tend to
gravitate to the first 12 rows because of the view, how would that
affect the sight line from the first row to the field?
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that it would depend upon where
the wheelchairs are parked as to whether they would pose an
inconvenience, and as the structural seats are removed in the first
bay by the column and the wheelchair platform is installed,
wheelchairs would be located against the next row of seats,
therefore, spectators would be able to see over wheelchairs in the
same manner as anyone sitting in a regular seat. The only
obstruction would be when wheelchairs are moving around on the
front, which is no different than someone standing up and walking
down the row.
Question: Raising the field surface to the point where the crown is
presently located and leveled from there would place the field
above the ten-year floodplain. Under a renovation option, if
artificial turf were installed, is there the capacity to raise the field
to the 20-year floodplain level?
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that there is a little give and take,
but when watching a football game, spectators rarely sit and prefer
to be about six feet above the grade in order to see over the
shoulder of the player. The more the field surface is raised without
raising the stadium, the worse the sight line will become for
persons in the front row, therefore, a balance must be achieved.
395
Question: When studying at communities that regularly host AAU
events, what are typically the number of soccer or lacrosse fields
that a community should provide?
Response: Mr. Parker stated that it would depend on the size of
the tournament. AAU officials would take as many as they could
get, or perhaps in the realm of 20 to 40.
Question: How much of the work could be done in advance of
receiving the Historic Tax Credit?
Response: Mr. Garland stated that Historic Tax Credit is a multi-
application process and whether or not the project qualifies should
be known prior to commencing the project. A preliminary
application provides certain assurances that the project will qualify
for Historic Tax Credit.
Mr. Garland advised that he felt comfortable in stating that Victory
Stadium would qualify for Historic Tax Credits based on
discussions with representatives of the Department of Historic
Resources. The longest piece in the process would involve getting
on the Register for Historic Landmarks; and a three-six month time
period would be involved, including a lengthy pictorial process of
photographing the current structure and providing proposed
renovation plans to the Department of Historic Resources.
Question: With regard to the renovation option, what would be
included on the second level out of the 100-year floodplain?
Response: Mr. Holleman stated that the second level would include
restrooms, concessions, concourse and stairs. Locker room
facilities would have to go either on ground level or in a separate
building; however, if the City pursues the Historic Tax Credits, a
separate building could not be constructed.
Mayor Harris expressed appreciation to Mr. Garland, Mr. Parker and Mr.
Holleman for their presentations. He stated that if Council Members require
additional information, they are requested to e-mail their question(s) to the City
Manager who will forward the question(s) to the consulting team, and the
question(s) and response(s) would then be e-mailed to all Members of the
Council.
The Mayor advised that the Roanoke City School Board had tentatively
been requested to meet with the Council Thursday, November 3 at 4:00 p.m.;
however, he stated that the Chair had previously indicated that the School
Board did not have a presentation that it wished to make to the Council.
396
He called attention to correspondence from the School Board Chair transmitting
a preliminary report of the Superintendent's Athletic Committee, and noted that
the School Board would be available to provide clarification to respond to
questions by Council, and/or to engage in dialogue; whereupon, he inquired as
to the pleasure of the Council.
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick stated that the communication from the School
Board was tantamount to not accepting responsibility for the duties of School
Trustees. He further stated that it is the responsibilitY of the School Board to
advise Council as to what the School Board believes is in the best interest of the
young people who attend Roanoke's schools, and whether the City of Roanoke
can afford to do what the School Board wants, or agrees with their
recommendations, is an issue for the Council to address. He advised that it is
the responsibility of the School Board to apprise Council of the Board's position
regarding Victory Stadium versus stadia at the two high schools.
Council Member Cutler stated that Council should pursue the opportunity
to meet with the School Board on Thursday, November 3, 2005 at 4:00 p.m.
Council Member McDaniel spoke in support of meeting with the School
Board on November 3 to hear the Board's position on the issue.
Council Member Lea stated that there had been ample time for the School
Board to present its position to the Council regarding stadia at the two high
schools inasmuch as the matter has been on the table for an extended period
of time, and to bring the School Board into the discussion at this "11'h hour"
would only cloud the issue. He advised that it is incumbent upon the Council to
move forward and make a long overdue decision with regard to Victory
Stadium. He called attention to correspondence from the Chair of the School
Board advising that the Board has no recommendation to submit to the Council,
therefore, to force the School Board to make a recommendation would be
inappropriate on the part of Council.
Council Member Wishneff concurred in the remarks of Mr. Lea and
advised that an alternative would be to ask the School Board to review the
consultant's report and advise if the five options meet the needs of the school
system.
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick stated that the School Board is appointed to
operate Roanoke's schools and to provide the best possible education for the
City's 13,000 students. He added that to have an issue involving high school
football with no direction from the School Board, which is responsible for
school programs, is ludicrous. He advised that his purpose in calling for the
joint meeting is to offer an opportunity for the School Board to review the five
options and to advise Council of what the Board believes will be in the best
interest of Roanoke's students.
397
Council Member Wishneff stated that when he served on the Roanoke City
School Board, the School Board advised Council, in writing, that it supported the
renovation of Victory Stadium.
Council Member Dowe stated that the School Board should be informed
of all ramifications associated with the five options presented by the consultant,
inasmuch as the School system will be the Stadium's largest user.
The Mayor advised that five members of the School Board were present
and heard the Council's discussion; and Council had previously received
correspondence from the Chair of the School Board, and he would contact her
on the following day to invite additional comment, either in person or in
writing, by the School Board as a result of the consultant's report. He stated
that this approach would leave the decision with the School Board in terms of
how the Board would like to interact or communicate with the Council, and he
would advise the Council prior to the close of business on Wednesday,
November 2, if the School Board wishes to meet with the Council on Thursday,
November 3, 2005, at 4:00 p.m.
There being no further business, the Mayor declared the special meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
C. Nelson Harris
Mayor
398
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
November 3, 2005
4:00 P.M.
A special meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke
City School Board was called to order on Thursday, November 3, 2005, at
4:00 p.m., in the Emergency Services Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C.
Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with
Mayor C. Nelson Harris and Chair Kathy G. Stockburger presiding.
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Rupert Cutler, Beverly T.
Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff, and Mayor
C. Nelson Harris ............................................................................................ 6.
ABSENT: None ..................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member Dowe arrived late.)
ROANOKE CITY SCHOOL TRUSTEES PRESENT: Jason E. Bingham, David B.
Carson, William H. Lindsey, Alvin L. Nash, Courtney A. Penn, David B. Trinkle,
and Chair Kathy G. Stockburger ...................................................................... 7.
ABSENT: None ..................................................................................... O.
The Mayor and Chair declared the existence of a quorum of their
respective bodies.
The invocation was delivered by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Representing the City of Roanoke: Darlene L.
Burcham, City Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall,
Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
Representing the Roanoke City Public Schools: Marvin T. Thompson,
Superintendent; Cindy H. Lee, Clerk; and Timothy R. Spencer, Legal Counsel.
The Mayor read the following communication calling the special meeting:
399
"November 2, 2005
The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and Members of Council:
Pursuant to Section 10, Meetings of Council Generally, of the Charter of the City
of Roanoke, this is to advise you that I am calling a special meeting of the
Council on Thursday, November 3, 2005, at 4:00 p.m., in Room 159, Noel C.
Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W. The purpose ofthe special
meeting will be to meet with the Roanoke City School Board to discuss issues in
connection with the consultant's report regarding Victory Stadium and a
football stadium at Patrick Henry and William Fleming High Schools.
With kindest regards.
Sincerely,
S/C. Nelson Harris
C. Nelson Harris
Mayor"
The Mayor advised that the special meeting was called for the purpose of
discussing an issue, not to discuss people, and if the discourse in any way
becomes uncivil, he would adjourn the meeting.
The Mayor referred to a communication from the Chair of the School
Board under date of October 27, 2005, transmitting a report submitted by the
Superintendent's Athletic Committee; whereupon, he called upon the School
Board Chair for remarks.
Council Member Dowe entered the meeting.
Chair Stockburger advised that it is the intent and the responsibility of
the School Board to provide safe, high performing schools for Roanoke's
children during a time of significant and time critical challenges, therefore, to
the extent that athletic programs help the school system to achieve its goals,
the conversation that is about to take place is important. However, she stated
that it is hoped that future conversations will center on instruction, learning
and building high quality schools.
The Chair reviewed the contents of the interim report submitted by the
Superintendent's Athletic Committee that was appointed in April 2005, and was
charged with the responsibility of evaluating City Schools athletic needs.
4OO
She added that the committee will not complete its assignment until the
end of the calendar year; however, the interim report stated that it would be in
the best interests of Roanoke City students to locate a stadium at each high
school. Historically, she explained that the rationale has been for a shared
stadium, due to cost effectiveness and the fact that fewer students were
involved in athletics than they are today; and while the rationale supports and
the School Board prefers school based stadiums, it understands that costs are a
consideration as well as the impact on neighborhoods. She added that the
issue is ultimately a decision that will be made by the Council; therefore, the
position of the School Board is in support of school stadiums, however, the
School Board would support ultimately the decision of Council. She stated that
this is not an eleventh hour maneuver by the School Board; the School Board did
not encourage or request any of the petitions or advocacy groups to come
forward, but the above stated position was taken after reviewing the report of
the Athletic Committee.
A summary of the report of the Superintendent's Athletic Committee is as
follows:
"Charge:
The Superintendent's Athletic Committee was unanimously
agreed to by the School Board at its April 2005 meeting.
This committee was established to discern District athletic
needs. These needs include, but are not limited to:
Determining short-term facility, management, safety,
maintenance, and cost needs for a high school football
facility for the next three to four years.
Being ready to respond to the upcoming Roanoke City
Council decision regarding a stadium, confirming and
lobbying for the needs of our student athletes and
school system as a whole as it pertains to this decision.
Evaluate and make recommendations for athletic
programming at the middle and high school level,
including hiring practices, stipends, transportation
needs, relationship with the City Parks and Recreation
department, intramurals, etc.
Planning long-range and short-term capital plans for
football as well as all athletic programs and facilities in
the school system.
401
History:
· The committee convened in September.
· The committee has met for two-hour sessions on three
occasions.
· The committee is made up of board members, parents,
coaches, teachers, athletic directors.
· The committee hopes to present its report to the
school board at the December school board meeting.
Discussions and Decisions to Date:
Preparations are underway to determine a location for
high school football within the City and on the grounds
of RCPS. Final cost analyses are due soon. It is
anticipated that a subcommittee will be formed to work
with the school system, the Parks and Recreation
Department, and neighborhoods in order to be fully
ready for football in August 2006.
Much time has been spent discussing the difficulties in
fielding equitable teams in all ten sports at the middle
school level. Concerns regarding costs, travel, and
skill development have been discussed. "Out-of-the-
box" alternatives are being considered. It is hoped that
a way to provide competitive sports in a cost effective
manner can be found. This is felt to be vital to school
spirit, student health and developing feeder programs
for the high schools. There is still much work to do in
this area. We will probably have a public forum on this
and other issues before the committee finishes its
work.
Much time has also been spent on the longer term
stadium decision. We have carefully reviewed the
history, including many documents, regarding the
Victory Stadium decision as it pertains to the school
system. The committee has understood the decision
of previous school boards and school administrations
to support a shared stadium. It is felt, based on
documentation, that if cost, space, and ongoing
maintenance were not issues, the school system would
have supported two high school stadiums throughout
the debate. "Plan B" for a shared stadium was
"satisfactory" due to perceived cost savings in a shared
facility. However, this committee feels that with the
402
time that has elapsed in this debate, the changes in
school board and administration, the now available
space on the high school campuses and the possibility
that it may very well be more cost effective to have a
stadium at each high school. "Plan A" should be more
fully promoted by the School Board. This, again, has
been the school system's "Plan A" all along, and if
indeed it is more cost effective, then this is the right
path to take. We feel it is okay for the School Board to
adopt this decision based on all the new information
that has become available. Again, if there are not cost
savings in a shared facility (which we do not know at
this time), then the School Board should strongly
support what appears to be what it has wanted all
along: two high school stadiums. It is the unanimous
consensus of the committee that each high school has
a stadium on campus. The reasons given by
committee members include:
'Home games' should actually be 'at home.' On-site
stadiums would promote student involvement if for no
other reason than to eliminate the need for
transportation. It is time to give these children their
own memories as opposed to trying to relive a bygone
year. The booster clubs could actually earn money.
'Better school control of facility - Improved pep and
morale - Multiple uses: soccer, band, convocations,
pep rallies, etc. - Opportunity for booster clubs
Improvement opportunities for city wide events with
better complexes and facilities - Less cost associated
with travel, security, etc.'
'We would use the field for more than just football. We
not only struggle with scheduling home games on
Friday night but we are without a place to play soccer,
lacrosse, sub varsity football, as well as sub varsity
soccer, lacrosse, and a place for the band to practice
on a regulation field. We are at a huge disadvantage
for students to have opportunities to use a school field
and we lose money, spirit and community support not
having our own field.'
403
'1. Build school spirit and pride. 2. Eliminate
transportation costs for home games. 3. Booster
clubs, school clubs, and other teams could earn money
from concessions. 4. Home fan attendance would
increase due to decreased travel.'
'1. The students develop a better school identity by
playing on their own campuses. 2. Transportation
costs can be reduced. 3. Students take ownership and
develop pride. 4. Schools can make a schedule without
constantly having to coordinate with another school or
another government agency.'
'Constructing two stadiums to be used for high school
athletics (football, soccer, lacrosse, etc.) will cost less
than a shared City stadium and they will certainly
improve student morale, foster school and community
pride and spirit. They will allow schools and booster
organizations the opportunity to collect revenues that
a shared stadium will not allow and will reduce the
costs that the high school must now incur in terms of
facility rent and transportation costs. Stadiums at the
high schools are what our students deserve.'
Work on short-term and long-range capital plans for
the athletic needs of our school system have just
begun by this committee. Obviously these will be
related to the outcome of the pending City Council
decision, and the recommendations as related to
programming and this work will, therefore, be the last
task of this committee."
The Mayor opened the floor for discussion.
The Superintendent reviewed the following High School Statistics 2000-
2001 through 2004-2005:
404
Roanoke City Public Schools
High School Statistics 2000-2001 through 2004-2005
Dronouts
The Superintendent reviewed the following fact sheet with regard to
proposed high school athletic facilities:
405
ROANOKE CItY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Bernard 3, Godek
Office of Assoc{ate Superintendent for Management
Discovering the Wealth In Every Student
The Superintendent reviewed the following conceptual estimates for high
school stadia under date of October 27, 2005:
406
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that since his children are no longer
enrolled in the City's School system, he is not attuned to what today's young
people need as the school system tries to intergrate both academics and
athletics to provide an overall holistic education; his purpose in asking for the
joint meeting of Council and the School Board was not for the purpose of
requiring the School Board to take a position but to ask the School Board and
the School Superintendent to share their thoughts on what is best for Roanoke's
young people. Therefore, he asked the School Board and School
Superintendent to help the Council to understand the relationship between
academics and athletics.
Superintendent Thompson advised that Roanoke currently has two high
schools that are undergoing change with regard to not only their physical
location, but their physical design; Roanoke has had two campus-style schools
for many years; in a matter of a few short months, Patrick Henry High School
students will be moved into a singular facility, which, in itself, changes the
culture of the school community; and in approximately three years, students at
William Fleming High School will do likewise, in terms of cultural changes, he
explained that for years, students have passed each other in pods, but when
students are brought together in one unit, different types of communication
takes place which presents certain implications for the school to begin to grow
into a total school community.
407
He stated that there are certain numerical values to examining the need
to provide on site stadiums and reviewed information with regard to Roanoke
City's graduation and drop-out rate which demonstrates the pattern for the past
five years. He added that the City's graduation rate has not been above 60 per
cent during the last five years; as the school system strives to improve the
graduation rate, numbers will be added to every class each year, and as the
school system moves to progress and change, numbers at each grade level
could increase by about 200 students on average for each year; therefore, 600
extra students every year in each school in a school system that is already at
capacity at both high schools brings to mind questions with regard to the
future impact of a third high school in six to seven years. He stated that he
expects the school system to become better at closing the gap in the
graduation rate, and Roanoke's schools will be well over capacity in six years or
more.
He advised that when talking about building stronger school
communities, at some point in time William Fleming and Patrick Henry High
Schools may not be the only entities in the City of Roanoke in terms of
providing educational and other opportunities for high school students.
Council Member Cutler asked the Superintendent to be more specific with
regard to the role of athletics, particularly football stadiums on school
campuses, insofar as contributing to the graduation statistics.
The Superintendent advised that currently in the athletic community, a lot
of time is being spent on feeder patterns and developing stronger athletic
programs overall and an increase in student participation. He stated that in his
experience as a high school administrator, it is quite telling when strong
athletic programs are not in place which leads to idle students; students look to
the school for a sense of belonging, for activities and opportunities; many
students have to travel away from the school to participate in and to practice
sports activities, therefore, there is no true connection to the school which is
the missing piece. He called attention to certain inherent intangibles that can
translate into negative discipline numbers, the number of students who drop-
out of school who are not inspired or motivated, and athletics is the first phase
of enhancing opportunities for the largest number of students in any high
school and creates the greatest number of opportunities for all students to
participate by the number of sports activities that are offered. For example, he
added that the Science Club is simply the Science Club for those students who
are interested in science, but athletics has many bounds and offers students an
opportunity to expose their skills based on their personal preference.
408
With regard to the relevance of athletic fields versus the drop-out rate,
the Superintendent advised that Roanoke City is losing students as early as the
seventh grade; as we look at what the schools and school programs are doing
for children, it is important to look at feeder patterns to involve young people
as early as possible in order to formulate strong athletic programs; walking out
of a student's own school down to his or her locker room and onto the school's
athletic field instills a source of pride, decreases travel time for young people
who drive to practice, and removes a transportation barrier for some students
who do not have the means to travel to other locations.
He stated that athletic fields have a great impact on not only students but
parents who use the facilities after hours for walking or jogging which enables
the school to become a part of the entire community, rather that simply a
building where students attend school.
Council Member Wishneff requested clarification on the Superintendent's
statement that providing an athletic field for practice and sports activities will
help to decrease the school drop-out rate; whereupon, Mr. Thompson advised
that it is a variable that provides an opportunity for students to participate and
to become a part of the school community.
Council Member Wishneff requested data to confirm that the student
drop out rate will decrease if practice fields are located on the school campus;
whereupon, Mr. Thompson advised that he would provide research articles that
speak specifically to the effects of interscholastic sports participation on
academic achievement at the middle and high school levels.
Chair Stockburger called attention to a school district in the State of
Pennsylvania that recently constructed a stadium, and research reveals that
extra curricular activities increased the school systems graduation rate.
The Superintendent advised that a 3,000 seat capacity athletic facility
located at each of the high school sites has been discussed.
Council Member Cutler inquired if there is sufficient land for an athletic
field at Patrick Henry High School; whereupon, the Superintendent advised that
according to the architect, the sitting is located to the rear of the building,
below level in a kind of bowl configuration, and he has been assured that the
area will accommodate a 3,000 seat athletic field.
When questioned if the bowl configuration would help to alleviate light
and noise issues, the Superintendent advised that he would confer with the
architect and advise Council accordingly.
409
Council Member McDaniel inquired as to the number of night games that
would be held on each athletic field; whereupon, the Superintendent advised
that football is the primary night event and each high school plays five home
games, and other events could include soccer which is played during early
evening in the spring.
On the cost handout, Council Member Dowe requested a clarification of
the term domestic water and testing allowance.
Upon question, Dr. Trinkle advised that subsurface evaluations were
performed and utilities were purposely moved out of the area at Patrick Henry
High School.
Question was raised as to whether the School Board/School
Administration had entertained the idea of limiting lights to football play only
so that the neighborhood would not be subjected to a 24/7 kind of use.
The Chair responded that the fears articulated by the Raleigh Court
community relate to "what if" types of questions such as traffic control, or
whether the field is used 15 or 20 lighted nights a year. She stated that if
stadiums are constructed at the two high schools, residents of the areas should
provide input.
Council member Wishneff advised that 16 per cent of the City's
population is 65 years of age or older, the City has a limited amount of tax
dollars, Roanoke's taxpayers have been generous by allowing the City to
construct/renovate $100 million in high schools improvements; therefore, he
inquired if the School Board had $10 million dollars to spend and the question
was raised as to the best way to improve the high school drop-out rate, would
the answer be to construct stadia at the two high schools.
Superintendent Thompson responded that the School Board was invited
to the meeting because the City of Roanoke has $15 million to spend on
stadiums that impact schools.
Council Member Dowe inquired about traffic as it relates to present
school activities versus the addition of a sporting venue; whereupon, the
Superintendent advised that any school when addressing new goals, new
challenges and certain changes could, by its design, create a new traffic pattern
or increase the volume of people.
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick expressed appreciation to the School Board and to
the Superintendent for meeting with Council and advised that the sharing of
information will help Council to make the best decision on behalf of Roanoke's
children.
410
Council Member McDaniel advised that concerns have been expressed
not only in the Raleigh Count neighborhood, but in the Grandin Court
neighborhood concerning the stadium at Patrick Henry High School. She
inquired if the stadium at Patrick Henry will include a track; whereupon, the
Superintendent advised that the track will be located at the William Fleming
site.
She inquired if students drive from game events back to the school sites
for post game activities; whereupon, the Superintendent responded in the
affirmative and advised of the risk of various negatives that could happen.
Council Member Cutler advised that he was not comfortable in spending
taxpayers' money on Victory Stadium which is located in a floodway; and after
spending 50 years studying natural resources management and water
management, he can attest to the fact that floods on the Roanoke River will
continue and worsen as suburbs in Blacksburg develop on the headwaters of
the Roanoke River, and as more development takes place in Roanoke County,
flood water will flow down the Roanoke River.
He advised that when touring the new Patrick Henry High School, it
appeared that the design created the sense of smaller schools by dividing the
school. He inquired if a stadium has the potential of bringing groups of
students together around one athletic program in order to generate a sense of
one school.
Superintendent Thompson advised that the design of Patrick Henry offers
great opportunities for internal small learning communities; a variable of the
school drop-out rate involves curriculum and when the curriculum is changed,
students will be engaged in a different way; and stadia at the two high schools
will provide an opportunity that Roanoke's students have not previously had.
Mayor Harris inquired if the Superintendent was comfortable in advising
the Council that two stadia could be constructed for a combined cost of $8.2
million; whereupon, the Superintendent advised that he was quite confident
with the $8.2 million figure. He stated that inflation is always a variable, if
stadia for the two high schools are approved by Council, it would be two years
before the stadium at Patrick Henry High School is completed; and it would take
three to four years before construction on the William Fleming stadium could
begin therefore, a natural five per cent inflation rate was built into the $8.2
million figure.
Mayor Harris inquired about the opinion of the athletic community; i.e.:
athletic directors, coaches, parents, teachers etc., concerning school athletic
fields; whereupon, the Superintendent advised that they support stadia at the
two high schools.
411
Other than football, Mayor Harris inquired if there would be a need to
hold other athletic events at a shared stadium; whereupon, the Superintendent
advised that compacted school stadiums with more green space would allow
other events to occur on site.
Mayor Harris inquired if stadia were constructed on the two high school
campuses as a part of the school complex, would the School Board operate,
manage and maintain the facilities; whereupon, the Superintendent responded
in the affirmative and advised that it was one of the reasons the school system
chose to look at astroturf which is Iow maintenance and creates greater
opportunities for more frequent play.
Mayor Harris asked the Superintendent to discuss how concessions would
be addressed at a high school-based stadium versus a shared stadium;
whereupon, the Superintendent referred to a concept where revenue generated
at school activities would go back to the school's athletic programs; some
programs could become self sufficient; and operating concessions would
provide an opportunity for students that participate in clubs and organizations
to increase their activities.
Assuming that stadia for both high schools are approved, Mayor Harris
inquired about the timeline for completion; whereupon, the Superintendent
advised that the Patrick Henry stadium would be completed in the fall of 2007,
followed by the William Fleming stadium in the fall of 2010.
Mayor Harris made the observation that the William Fleming stadium
would include a track and field within the stadium footprint; however, the
footprint for the Patrick Henry stadium would include improving the existing
track on the other side of Shrine Hill. Dr. Trinkle advised that some of the track
and field events will be moved to the outside of the track. It was noted that a
price of $160,000.00 was quoted to rotorize and remove everything from the
outside, however, it was not clear if the $160,000.00 was included in the $4.1
million figure for a stadium.
The Mayor advised and the Superintendent confirmed that the stadium
would be constructed in the general vicinity of McQuilkin Hall located on the
Patrick Henry campus. He inquired if participation by students in high school
athletics has increased or decreased; whereupon, the Superintendent advised
that participation has declined.
Dr. Trinkle advised that participation, city-wide, in Parks and Recreation
programs, as well as middle school participation has declined and no one
understands why; the school system enjoys a good relationship with the City's
Parks and Recreation Department and a part of the solution will involve a better
relationship between the Parks and Recreation Department and the schools to
develop a new and more competitive programs at the middle school level in
order to feed the high school level.
412
When going off site for an athletic event, Mayor Harris inquired if a cost
analysis was prepared comparing on campus versus off campus activities;
whereupon, the Superintendent advised that figures have not been quantified to
this point.
The Mayor inquired if there is any liability exposure to going off campus
for an athletic event; whereupon, the Superintendent advised that there are
always liability issues when students travel to and from school activities.
Mayor Harris requested more information on the thrust of Roanoke's
school system to enhance the school athletic program on a number of levels.
Dr. Trinkle advised that to date there has been no mention of athletics
within the school system, no studies have been completed on how athletics
affect academics or school morale, and there are no short term or long term
budgetary plans in the school budget involving athletics. He stated that the
goal of the Athletic Committee is to determine and to prioritize needs leading
to short term and long term capital, as well as programming needs that involve
athletics. He explained that various options are under consideration such as
eliminating certain programs, enhancing other programs, working with the
City's Department of Parks and Recreation, and cutting back on transportation
expenses, etc., all of which will be presented to the School Board for
consideration.
Should the Council approve stadia at the two high schools, Mayor Harris
inquired about the strategy of the School Board to engage the Raleigh
Court/Grandin Court neighborhood in discussions; whereupon, the
Superintendent advised of the importance of receiving input from the
neighborhoods by listening to concerns and establishing an oversite committee
that would participate in implementation.
in the event of a sell out at the 3,000 seat stadium at Patrick Henry,
Mayor Harris inquired about parking capacity; whereupon, the Superintendent
advised that approximately 1500 persons attend a average football game so
there will be sufficient parking.
Council Member Cutler advised that the School Board has other priorities
to consider, particularly instruction and academics; City Council also has other
priorities such as a new library, a recreation center, etc., therefore, if stadia can
be constructed for less that $15 million, any excess funds could be used to
address other City/School priorities.
The Mayor expressed appreciation to the School Board for meeting with
the Council and advised that Victory Stadium options will be discussed by the
Council on Monday, November 7, 2005, at 2:00 p.m.
413
The Mayor advised that Council is scheduled to meet on Monday,
November 7, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., for the Council's monthly work session;
however, a quorum of the Council was not expected to be present until
10:00 a.m.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Council that Council
Member Cutler would open the meeting on Monday, November 7 at 9:00 a.m.,
declare that a quorum was not present and recess the meeting until 10:00 a.m.,
in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City
of Roanoke, Virginia.
There being no further business, at 5:40 p.m., the Mayor and the School
Board Chair declared their respective meetings adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
C. Nelson Harris
Mayor
414
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
November 7, 2005
9:00 a.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday,
November 7, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., City of Roanoke; with Council Member
M. Rupert Cutler presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2, Administration, Article II,
City Council, Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure, Rule 1, Regular Meetings, Code
of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and pursuant to Resolution No.
37109-070505 adopted by the Council on Tuesday, July 5, 2005.
PRESENT: Council MemberM. Rupert Cutler ......................................... 1.
ABSENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.,
Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff and Mayor C. Nelson
Harris ........................................................................................................... 6.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; and Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
COUNCIL: In view of the fact that a quorum of the Council was not
present at 9:05 a.m., Council Member Cutler declared the meeting in recess to
be reconvened at 10:00 a.m., in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building,
215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke
The Council reconvened at 10:00 a.m.,
Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W.,
C. Nelson Harris presiding.
in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor
City of Roanoke, with Mayor
PRESENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.,
Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Brenda L. McDaniel and Mayor C. Nelson Harris ........ 5.
ABSENT: Council Members Sherman P. Lea and Brian J. Wishneff ...........2.
The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk.
415
COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor C. Nelson Harris requesting that
Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on certain
authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council,
pursuant to §2.2-3711 lA)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before
the body.
Council Member Cutler moved that Council concur in the request of the
Mayor to convene in Closed Meeting as abovedescribed. The motion was
seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Dowe, McDaniel and Mayor
Harris ............................................................................................................ 5.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Members Lea and Wishneffwere absent.)
ITEMS LISTED ON THE 2:00 P. M., COUNCIL DOCKET REQUIRING
DISCUSSION/CLARIFICATION, AND ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE 2:00 P. M.,
AGENDA:
STADIUM-SCHOOLS: Council Member Cutler inquired as to how public
comments will be handled with regard to the Victory Stadium issue which is
included on the Council's 2:00 p.m. docket. Mayor Harris responded that each
speaker will be allotted three minutes; an announcement will be made at the
beginning of the Council meeting that an issue will be discussed, and no
personal remarks and/or attacks on the Members of Council, City staff or the
School Board will be allowed; a police officer will be on duty in the Council
Chamber; if any person violates the procedure, their remarks will be
immediately concluded and they will be requested to leave the lectern, and if
they refuse to cooperate, the police officer will be instructed to escort the
individual from the Council Chamber.
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL:
Council Member Cutler inquired about the criteria for funding nomprofit
organizations which was adopted by the Council on Monday, October 17, 2005.
He stated that he was not present when the guidelines were adopted and was
uncomfortable with the process. He explained that he attended a meeting with
representatives of certain non-profit organizations, at which time the City
Manager reviewed the process and rationale by which the guidelines were
adopted, etc. Although he did not have a problem with the focus, he stated
that he did have a problem with the process, and added that the City should
avoid making grant application guidelines complicated, particularly for small
grants.
416
The Mayor advised that Dr. Cutler discussed the issue with him, and it
was suggested that they meet with the City Manager to process the results of
the meeting which was held on Thursday, November 3 with non-profit
organizations.
BRIEFINGS:
CRYSTAL SPRING STREETSCAPE: The City Manager called attention to a
request submitted by Crystal Spring Avenue businesses for improved parking
and certain other aesthetic improvements to the streetscape. She advised that
the firm of Anderson and Associates, Inc., was engaged to assist with the
project; whereupon, she called upon Kenneth H. King, Director, Streets and
Traffic; and Brad Ball, Project Manager, Anderson and Associates, Inc., to
present tentative plans and specifications.
Working from the Master Plan, Crystal Spring Village Center, Mr. King
presented the following overview of the conceptual plan:
The project will be limited to Crystal Spring Avenue and
Rosalind Avenue between 22nd and 23rd Streets, S. W.
Improvements along Crystal Spring Avenue will consist of 45
degree angled parking. The project will include new sidewalk
along Crystal Spring Avenue (plain sidewalk without brick
borders,) new curb for the entire length of the west side of the
block, and resurfacing of both Crystal Spring and Richelieu
Avenues. Patterned crosswalks will be incorporated across
Crystal Spring and Richelieu Avenues on both ends of the block.
Preliminary discussions with the U. S. Postal Service indicate that
mailboxes may be relocated to the south side of 23rd Street,
remaining on the east side of the street. Relocating mailboxes
will create approximately six additional spaces and additional
spaces can be created on the west side of Richelieu Avenue
closer to the intersection at 22nd Street.
Other project features include removal of existing street trees
along Crystal Spring Avenue and replacement with trees that are
more appropriate for the location. Trees will also be planted in
the median between Crystal Spring and Rosalind Avenues.
Trash receptacles, benches, and streetlights will be considered
as additional amenities in the block.
417
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick expressed appreciation to City staff and to
Anderson and Associates for the manner in which the project was presented,
which incorporates the "pedestrian sense" that is being promoted throughout
the City. He suggested that trees be planted in an island on the east side of the
street, similar to those to be located on the west side, to allow for future
parking at an angle on the east side of the street.
The City Manager advised that the Mayor previously suggested that a
piece of public art be located in the area, with plantings, as well as along the
major gateways into the City.
Council Member Dowe inquired about the location of handicapped
parking spaces; whereupon, Mr. King advised that the spaces have not been
identified, however, some of the angled parking spaces would be designated
for handicapped parking. He added that the challenge will be the location of
the designated handicapped spaces because the pharmacy is located on one
side of the street and the Post Office is located on the opposite side, and
designated handicapped parking spaces and ramps will be included in final
design review.
Council Member Dowe inquired if some of the remaining parking spaces
would be used by patrons of other restaurants in the area, and suggested that
the sidewalk be made as "handicapped friendly" as possible since there is no
signal at the intersection, or a four way stop sign.
Mr. King called attention to a potential four way stop sign at the
intersection, replacement of the sidewalk and installation of decorative
treatments. He stated that the challenge is, where should the improvements
end, while attempting to be responsive those issues that have been identified
by business owners in the Crystal Spring Avenue area.
Following completion of the project, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick suggested
that parking behind the buildings be redesigned, because a significant amount
of parking space is not well organized and could be integrated into one lot that
could be used for additional parking. He added that the alleys would also
provide access from both 22"d and 23r~ Streets.
There being no further discussion, the Mayor expressed appreciation to
Mr. King for the presentation.
SlX-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PLAN-VDOT: The City Manager called attention
to the VDOT-Six-Year Improvement Plan which is included on the Council's 2:00
p.m. agenda; whereupon, Kenneth H. King, Director, Streets and Traffic,
presented the following briefing:
418
The transportation project development process starts with a long-
range transportation plan, which is a 20-year planning document
that was adopted by Council approximately two years ago.
The Transportation Plan was updated approximately three - four
years ago. The updated 2006 Plan, which is administered by the
Metropolitan Planning Organization, will broaden the list of the
City's transportation projects and projects that need to be
identified to implement improvements.
The following projects have been funded through the Six-Year
Improvement Program:
· Tenth Street from Orange Avenue to Williamson Road
· 13'" Street from Jamison Avenue and Bullitt Avenue, north of
Dale Avenue, to Orange Avenue off of Hollins Road
Wonju Street, a $21 million project, which has dramatically
changed direction in terms of the financial perspective and once
the new estimate is completed, funds will be available through
programs from other projects. Funds will not be available until
fiscal year 2006, and the City will redirect between $15 - $18
million of funds next year.
· Smaller projects such as Riverland Road, Bennington Street,
Mount Pleasant Boulevard and other small intersection projects.
Mr. King reviewed the following additions to the Six Year Plan:
· Campbell Avenue from Williamson Road to NorfOlk Avenue, in
conjunction with the 13'" Street project.
Colonial Avenue from Brandon Avenue, Winding Way Road.
Reconstruct the existing roadway from Brandon Avenue to
Winding Way Road to include sidewalk, curb and gutter,
drainage, and bike lanes. Improvements are intended to tie into
the TSM Alternative of the Wonju Street project.
Elm Avenue from Jefferson Street to 6'h Street. Corridor
improvements will enhance interchange operations, increase left
turn storage and improve signals.
· Norfolk Avenue from Campbell Avenue to Wise Avenue. The
project is in conjunction with the 13,h Street project.
419
Orange Avenue from 1 l'h Street to Gus Nicks Boulevard.
Intersection and miscellaneous spot improvements - candidate
locations: Orange Avenue and King Street, Peters Creek Road
and Cove Road, Orange Avenue and Williamson Road,
Hershberger Road and Williamson Road, Hershberger Road and
Ordway Drive, and Wasena Bridge spot improvement. Isolated
improvements, additional turn lanes, geometric improvements,
and other spot improvements. The intersection of Orange
Avenue and King Street has been identified as a priority by
Council.
Mobility and accessibility improvements - Hershberger Road
Corridor improvements - Cove Road - Williamson Road. Install
pedestrian and bicycle accommodations (sidewalks or shared-
use path), resurface roadway, and add landscaping
improvements.
· Signal and ITS improvements - traffic signal and ITS upgrades to
include new LED signal heads, interconnection and coordination.
Transit Improvements Flex funds for transit infrastructure
construction and maintenance to include sidewalks, benches
and shelters. Surface transportation funds will be flexed over to
support bus shelters, bus pullouts, downtown circulator, and
other transit enhancements.
Council Member Cutler inquired about the relationship between VDOT's
Six-Year Improvement Program and bikeway and greenway plans; whereupon,
Mr. King advised that they will fall under the umbrella of the Metropolitan
Planning Organization Long Range Transportation Plan, as well as City
departmental plans that are prepared as a part of the City's budget, such as
Strategic Business Plans.
He noted that staff recommendations with regard to pedestrian or bike
amenities, greenways etc., required action by Council and received input from
the City's Planning department, Transportation Division, Parks and Recreation
and the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission.
With regard to neighborhoods, Council Member Cutler inquired about GIS
layers that show greenways and bikeways; whereupon, Mr. King advised that
the City has the capability to identify a particular neighborhood, but he was not
certain if the GIS system could identify greenways, bikeways, etc. in a particular
neighborhood. He added that the matter will be discussed by the Metropolitan
Planning Organization.
420
From an economic development standpoint, Council Member Cutler
inquired as to what is available for employees with regard to various ways to
access their work place, i.e.: hiking, biking, etc. The City Manager responded
that the neighborhood portal located on the GIS system shows all parks,
schools, etc., and staff would study Dr. Cutler's inquiry and respond
accordingly.
Council Member McDaniel inquired about the process of determining
intersections and miscellaneous spotting improvements; whereupon, Mr. King
advised that VDOT's typical model of programming a project is to widen a
street from point A to point B and approximately ten years later, the City moves
on to the engineering piece; and if the City attempted to complete small scale
intersection projects under the same model, it would take approximately six
years for completion. Therefore, he indicated that the City's goal is to work
with VDOT to identify an intersection categorical area, which are intersection
and miscellaneous spotting improvements, and to earmark funds in a six-year
fiscal document that will allow the City to advance the project at a much shorter
period of time.
With regard to the intersection at Towne Square, Mr. King advised that
Council appropriated funds to advance the project, and granted approval for
additional funds from the State. He added that the City has also partnered with
the local business community to advance the project.
The City Manager advised that construction advertisement for the Dr.
Martin Luther King,Jr., project will take place in January 2006.
Council Member Cutler commended Rolanda Russell, Assistant City
Manager for Community Development, for her leadership in chairing the Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr. Bridge Advisory Committee.
With regard to signage located at Exit 6 on 1-581/Route 220 South,
Council Member Dowe suggested that directions to downtown Roanoke be
included on the sign directing traffic to Elm Avenue and the Town of Vinton. He
also requested that signs be erected to identify traffic exiting on Colonial
Avenue from the shoulder of the road during rush hour. Mr. King stated that
the Director of Public Works will discuss the requests with VDOT and submit
further report to the Council.
There being no further discussion, the Mayor expressed appreciation for
the briefing.
BUILDING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE: Karl Kooler, Building Commissioner,
highlighted the following:
2003 Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC)
· Adoption is set for November 16, 2005
· Three Parts
· Part I - Construction Code
· Part II - Existing Buildings Code
· Part III - Maintenance of Existing Structures
421
Technical References are the 2003 International Family of Codes
Part II - International Existing Building Code (Rehab Code) is new
Multiple vs. Combination Permits
· Multiple Permits
o Basic Development
o Plan Review
o Temp electrical
o Building
o Electrical
o Plumbing
o HVAC
o Gas
o Fire Suppression
o Fire Alarm
o Utility
o CO
· Combination Permit
o Combination
Benefits of Combination Permit
· More customer friendly - one visit to City Hall. The l-Stop Shop
· All information related to the project in one place
o Reviews
o Approvals
o Conditions
o Inspections
o Correspondence
· Easier to determine permit and review fees
· Contractor benefits more from the declining rate scale
· Easier to avoid delays in closing out a project by coordinating all
final requirements
$150,000.00 Single Family Residence
· $800,000.00 - Roanoke existing and City of Richmond
· $700,000.00 - City of Portsmouth (slightly over), City of Norfolk
(slightly under) and the average
· $600,000.00 - Roanoke proposed, (slightly over) City of
Lynchburg (slightly over), City of Newport News (slightly over),
and City of Hampton
422
$1,000.00 Commercial
· $7,000.00 - City of Richmond
· $4,000.00 - Roanoke existing (slightly over), City of Newport
News (slightly over) and average (slightly below)
· $3,000.00 - Roanoke proposed (slightly over), City of
Lynchburg, City of Norfolk (slightly over), City of Hampton
· $2,000.00 - City of Portsmouth (slightly over $2,000.00)
Fee Comparison - Virqinia First Cities
$150,000.00 $300,000.00 $150,000.00 $1,000.000.00 $5,000,000.00
Jurisdiction Residential Residential Commercial Commercial Commercial
Roanoke - Existing $820.00 $1,520.00 $820.00 $4,320.00 $16,320.00
Roanoke - $665.OO $1,174.00 $665.00 $3,324.OO $ ! 5,234.OO
Proposed
Lynchburg $671.00 $1,166.00 $671.00 $2,926.00 $12,824.00
Newport News $650.00 $1,200.00 $660.00 $4,400.00 $22,015.00
Norfolk $685.00 $1,101.00 $795.00 $3~514.00 $17,580.00
Portsmouth $745.00 $1,065.00 $810.00 $2,600.00 $20,225.00
Richmond $804.00 $1,567.00 $1,156.00 $7~210.00 $3 S,700.00
Hampton $640.00 $1,230.00 $725.00 $3,326.00 $19,100.00
Average $694.00 $1,215.00 $783.00 $3,900.00 $20,382.00
(Does not include
Roanoke Existing)
Revenue Impact
· FY04 - 05 Revenue $1,063,000.00
· Recommended adjustments to the fee schedule will impact revenues an
estimated (-4.78%)
· Projected revenue decrease is approximately $50,800.00
· Actual permit revenue (FY04-05) was approximately 29% higher than
budget projections
· FY '05-06 is continuing the current level of activity
Pro Dosed Permit Fees
Type Permit Total Valuation Fee
$0.01 to $1,000.00 $45.00
Combination $45.00 for the first $1,000.00 plus $5.00 each
Building $1,000.01 to $50,000.00 additional thousand or fraction thereof, to and
Electrical including $50,000.00
Plumbing $290.00 for the first $50,000.00 plus $4.00 for
Mechanical $50,000.01 to $100,000.00 each additional thousand or fraction thereofl to
and including $50,000.00
Gas $490,000.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus
Elevator $100,000.01 to $250,000.00 $3.50 for each additional thousand or fraction
Tanks thereof, to and including $250,000.00
Fire Suppression $1,015.00 for the first $250,000.00 plus $3.25
Alarm Systems $250,000.01 to $500,000.00 for each additional thousand or fraction thereof,
Demolition to and including $500,000.00
Utility $500,000.01 and up $I ,827.50 for the first $500,000.00 plus $3.00
for each additional thousand
423
Mr. Kooler advised that the City of Roanoke will move from a multiple fee
system to a combination permit system at no additional cost. He further
advised that when the fee schedule for permits was compared to other Virginia
First Cities, the City of Roanoke ranked high. He added that the process will be
simplified and permit fees will decrease; overall impact will be approximately a
4% per cent reduction in permit fees over a period of one year and it is
anticipated that the City will receive approximately $50,000.00 per year in
revenue.
Council Member McDaniel inquired if the proposed permit system will
add any extra burden on the general contractor; whereupon, the Building
Commissioner stated that the general contractor is not required to list
specialized contractors working on a project, such as mechanical and plumbing,
etc., and the general contractor will be aware of the total cost of the project to
be performed.
There being no further questions or comments, the Mayor expressed
appreciation to Mr. Kooler for the briefing.
BRANDING UPDATE: The City Manager advised that Vice-Mayor
Fitzpatrick and Council Member McDaniel have served on a steering committee
with City staff with regard to the City's branding efforts; whereupon, Vice-Mayor
Fitzpatrick reviewed the following information:
Tagline Research
· For the past year, the City's Branding Committee has researched
and discussed the use of a tagline to accompany Roanoke's
brand. At the request of the branding committee, local and
national market research was conducted on three possible
taglines: Mountains of Possibility, Elevation: Unlimited, and
Opportunities on the Rise._
· Research results showed that of the three, Mountains of
Possibifity tested highest, citing that it best matched Roanoke's
image and positioning statement. After considering the results,
the Branding Committee discussed whether the City should
move forward with the recommendation, select multiple taglines
for different uses, or opt not to use a tagline at all. At present,
the committee has decided to wait until a future time to address
the adoption of an official tagline.
· The committee is open, however, to the possibility of using
temporary taglines. For marketing purposes, there is an
opportunity to use taglines for special initiatives (ex. using
"Opportunities on the Rise" for business relocation or for
housing; and "Mountains of Possibility" for tourism or
recreation).
424
· The committee is open to the possibility of using temporary
taglines. For marketing purposes, there is an opportunity to use
taglines for special initiatives (ex. using 'Opportunities on the
Rise" for business relocation or for housing; and "Mountains of
Possibility" for tourism or recreation).
· In addition, interchangeable taglines could be used for new City
signage and during special events. Examples were submitted on
how the three could be paired with the Roanoke brand.
City Wide Branding
· The City is continuing to apply the brand throughout Roanoke.
Variations of the brand will be used for new parking garage
signs.
· The City is currently working with firms to develop gateway
signs that would replace the wooden Welcome to Roanoke signs,
as well as an updated wayfinding sign system.
· Other applications underway for the logo include the new City
limit signs, and new branding flags at The Hotel Roanoke and
Conference Center, the Civic Center, and City fire stations.
· Fire-EMS vehicles and police patrol cars and bicycles now have
logo decals. A schedule is underway to place the brand on all
vehicles in the City's fleet.
· A downtown banners committee has evaluated logistics of
placing logo banners in the downtown area. Additionally, the
City is developing strategies for external marketing of the City,
as well as looking at the use of the brand versus the Roanoke
City Seal.
· Staff from the Branding Committee and the Office of
Communications will respond to questions regarding use of the
brand, as well as any additional plans for marketing and
advertising of Roanoke.
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that the Branding Committee is requesting
Council's approval to continue a study of the three potential taglines, and
positive reviews have been received regarding the new logo. He added that he,
along with Council Member McDaniel, will work with City staff to implement the
logo.
Mayor Harris suggested that the Branding Committee consider taglines
that will highlight successes by the City at gateway entrances to the City of
Roanoke; i.e.: high school championships, etc. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick also
suggested that major activities/events being held in the City of Roanoke be
documented, such as the Annual Conference of the Virginia Municipal League.
425
Council Member Dowe inquired about a tagline that could be installed in
the Council Chamber behind the dais; whereupon, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick
advised that the City Seal should be replaced with the branding logo, He added
that the seal is the official Seal of the City of Roanoke and the brand is a
progressive image.
The City Manager advised that when the City first converted to use of the
branding logo approximately three years ago, staff made the decision to
implement the logo gradually; and staff did not address Council related issues,
such as the Council's stationary/letterhead. She stated that the Branding
Committee has discussed changing the City Seal to resemble the newer image,
however, the Committee has chosen not to address the issue at the present
time. She called attention to research that has been conducted in other Virginia
communities that previously changed their City Seals and upgraded to a more
futuristic approach of the logo, which revealed that one-half of the localities
that were surveyed elected to retain their official City Seal; and the decision is a
Council issue as to when the Council might wish to change from the City Seal to
the branding logo. She reiterated that no steps have been taken to change the
Council's letterhead, the City Seal, or the image behind the dais in the Council
Chamber; however, new logo flags are now being flown at all of the fire
stations, many City departments display the new flag, and the new flag is
currently being flown in the front and to the rear of The Hotel Roanoke, as
opposed to the official City Seal Flag.
Council Member Cutler spoke in support of modernizing the City's official
Seal. He also spoke in support of assisting service clubs by posting meeting
dates, times and locations on the City's website in an effort to establish a
partnership with the service organizations.
The City Manager advised that City representatives are working with
various groups to replace the wooden "Welcome to Roanoke" signs at gateway
entrances to the City, and the comments made by Council Members involving
interchangeable signs will be reviewed by the Branding Committee.
At 11:40 a.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for one
closed session.
At 11:50 a.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council
Chamber, with Mayor Harris residing and all Members of the Council in
attendance, except Council Members Lea and Wishneff.
426
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Session just concluded, Vice-Mayor
Fitzpatrick moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or
her knowledge that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
(2) only such public business matters as were identified in any motion by which
any Closed Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City
Council. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, McDaniel and Mayor
Harris ............................................................................................................ 5.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Members Lea and Wishneffwere absent.)
OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-TOWING ADVISORY BOARD: The Mayor
advised that there is a vacancy on the Towing Advisory Board, created by
expiration of the term of office of Christine Profitt; whereupon, he opened the
floor for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the name of Phyllis A.
Johnson.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Johnson was appointed as a
member of the Towing Advisory Board, for a term ending June 30, 2008, by the
following vote:
FOR MS. JOHNSON: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, McDaniel
and Mayor Harris ........................................................................................... 5.
(Council Members Lea and Wishneff were absent.)
OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMIq-rEES-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER: The Mayor
advised that there is a vacancy on the Roanoke Civic Center Commission,
created by expiration of the term of office of Monica S. Jones; whereupon, he
opened the floor for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Council Member Dowe placed in nomination the name of John W. EIliott,
Jr.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Elliott was appointed as a
member of the Roanoke Civic Center Commission, for a term ending
September 30, 2008, by the following vote:
427
FOR MR. ELLIOTT: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, McDaniel
and Mayor Harris ........................................................................................... 5.
(Council Members Lea and Wishneffwere absent.)
OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION: The
Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the Roanoke Arts Commission, created
by the resignation of Mark C. McConnel; whereupon, he opened the floor for
nominations to fill the vacancy.
Council Member Cutler placed in nomination the name of Edward W.
Barnett.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Barnett was appointed as a
member of the Roanoke Arts Commission to fill the unexpired term of Mark C.
McConnel resigned, ending June 30, 2007, by the following vote:
FOR MR. BARNETT: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, McDaniel
and Mayor Harris ........................................................................................... 5.
(Council Members Lea and Wishneffwere absent.)
At 11:55 a.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess until
2:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of
Roanoke.
At 2:00 p.m., on Monday, November 7, 2005, the Council meeting
reconvened in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Mayor C. Nelson
Harris presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.,
Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff
and Mayor C. Nelson Harris ............................................................................ 7.
ABSENT: None ..................................................................................... 0.
The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk.
The invocation was delivered by Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.
428
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was
led by Mayor Harris.
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
COMMUNITY PLANNING-DECEASED PERSONS: Council Member Cutler
offered the following resolution memorializing the late Jack Ronald "John"
Marlles, former Director of the Department of Planning and Community
Development:
(#37228-110705) A RESOLUTION memorializing the late Jack Ronald
"John" Marlles, former Director of the Department of Planning and Community
Development for the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 41.)
Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37228-
110705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel,
Wishneff and Mayor Harris ............................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
The Mayor called for a moment of silence in memory of Mr. Marlles and
presented a ceremonial copy of the above referenced resolution to Mrs. Marlles.
CONSENT AGENDA
The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent Agenda were
considered to be routine by the Members of Council and would be enacted by
one motion in the form, or forms, listed on the Consent Agenda, and if
discussion was desired, the item would be removed from the Consent Agenda
and considered separately.
MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Monday,
September 19, 2005, were before the body.
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the reading of the minutes be
dispensed with and that the minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was
seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
429
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel,
Wishneffand Mayor Harris ............................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
AUDIT COMMITTEE: Minutes of a meeting of the Audit Committee which
was held on Monday, October 3, 2005, were before the body.
Topics of discussion included: Audit Findings Follow Up, Police
Department Cash Funds, Sheriff's Canteen Fund and Jail Inmate Fund, Audit
Committee Annual Report-June 30, 2005, Municipal Auditing Annual Report-
June 30, 2005, N.A.L.G.A. Peer Review of City of Roanoke Municipal Auditing,
and Letter from the Auditor of Public Accounts.
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the minutes of the Audit Committee be
received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel,
Wishneffand Mayor Harris ............................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
COMMITTEES-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: A communication from John P.
Baker, Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority,
advising of the resignation of Mornique E. Smith as a member of the Board of
Commissioners, effective September 4, 2005, was before Council.
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the resignation be accepted and that
the communication be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council
Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel,
Wishneffand Mayor Harris ............................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... O.
OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-HOUSING/AUTHORITY-ROANOKE CiViC
CENTER-INDUSTRIES-SCHOOLS-VIRGINIA'S FIRST REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL
FACILITY AUTHORITY: A report of qualification of the following persons, was
before Council:
Paul P. Anderson and Brownie E. Polly as members of the Roanoke
Civic Center Commission, for terms ending September 30, 2008;
430
R. Brian Townsend as a City of Roanoke representative to Virginia's
First Regional Industrial Facility Authority, to fill the unexpired term
of Elizabeth Neu, ending June 30, 2006;
Jason E. Bingham as a Trustee of the Roanoke City School Board, to
fill the unexpired term of Gloria P. Manns, resigned, ending June
30, 2006; and
Stuart H. Revercomb as a Director of the Industrial Development
Authority, for a term commencing October 21, 2005 and ending
October 20, 2009.
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the report of qualification be received
and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel,
Wishneff and Mayor Harris ............................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... O.
REGULAR AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: NONE.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS: NONE.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
HEALTH DEPARTMENT-BUDGET-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that in 2001, Roanoke Fire-EMS was awarded the "Get
Alarmed, Virginia!" Grant, which is a State-secured Federal grant from the U. S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Virginia Department of
Health; the Get Alarmed, Virginia! Program has been credited with saving the
lives of more than 66 men, women and children across the Commonwealth of
Virginia and also is credited with preventing millions of dollars in property loss;
according to the National Safe Kids Campaign, every dollar spent on a smoke
alarm, prevents $21.00 worth of loss, which is a 2,100 per cent return on
investment; and the grant provides smoke detectors to fire departments and
other local agencies to disperse to citizens in need.
431
It was further advised that in September, 2005, Roanoke Fire-EMS was
once again awarded the Get Alarmed, Virginia! Grant; the program focuses on
installing smoke detectors in the homes of families that have children under the
age of five and in homes where elderly residents over the age of 65 reside,
because these age groups are more likely to die in a house fire; this year, the
grant is focusing not only on fire prevention, but on fall prevention for the
elderly; the grant will provide the Roanoke Fire-EMS Department with: 3,000
smoke detectors with ten-year lithium batteries, bath mats, night lights, oven
mitts, educational brochures covering fall and fire prevention and grant funds
totaling $15,000.00; and grant funds are reimbursable; i.e.: Roanoke Fire-EMS
will pay for needed items to implement the program (ex: ladders, drills,
salaries, other educational material and media promotion) and will be
reimbursed by grant funds.
The City Manager recommended that Council accept the grant award and
that she be authorized to execute the required grant agreement, contract and
any other related documents, to be approved as to form by the City Attorney;
and that Council adopt a budget ordinance establishing a revenue estimate in
the amount of $15,000.00 and appropriate funds in the same amount to
accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund.
Council Member Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#37229~110705) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Get
Alarmed, Virginia! Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the
2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading
by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 43.)
Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37229-
110705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel,
Wishneffand Mayor Harris ............................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution:
(#37230-110705) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of the Get
Alarmed, Virginia! Grant from the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and the Virginia Department of Health, and authorizing execution of
any required documentation on behalf of the City.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 44.)
432
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adopted of Resolution No. 37230-
110705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel,
Wishneff and Mayor Harris ............................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... OJ
STATE HIGHWAYS: The City Manager submitted a communication
advising that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has advised the
City of Roanoke that funds are projected to be available for programming new
projects in the FY2007-2012 Six-Year Improvement Program (SYiP); the
projection is based upon the funding status of projects in the current SYIP;
current SYIP projects including 10'h Street Improvements, the Wonju Street
Extension project, and Hollins Road/13'h Street extension are now fully funded
projects, or will be fully funded in FY 2007; and projected available funding to
the City of Roanoke over the next six year period is $23,694,000.00.
It was further advised that the Virginia Department of Transportation
requires a Council resolution documenting the City's support of projects in
advance of placing the projects in the SYIP; projects proposed for addition to
the SYIP must be included in the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP,) which
Council previously approved on October 23, 2003; based upon public
comments during preparation of the LRTP and the SYIP, identified
transportation needs, and projected funding, the following projects are
recommended for addition to the FY2007-2012 Six-Year improvement Program:
· Campbell Avenue
· Colonial Avenue
· Elm Avenue
· Norfolk Avenue
· Orange Avenue
· Intersection and Miscellaneous Spot Improvements
· Mobility and Accessibility Improvements
· Signal & ITS Improvements
· Transit Improvements
it was noted the City's request to add projects to the SYIP must be
submitted to VDOT no later than December 1, 2005; VDOT will consider the
request and submit a recommendation to the Commonwealth Transportation
Board; the Board is expected to take action on the request in the spring of 2006
and the final SYIP should be announced in the summer of 2006; provisions of
the SYIP require the City to provide a local match representing two per cent of
433
total project costs; two per cent of the $23,694,000.00 program cost is
$473,880.00, which will be required over the six year period; and funds
totaling $310,000.00 are budgeted annually by the City for transportation
needs and will be adequate to cover the required local match.
The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a resolution in
support of the addition of the abovereferenced projects to the FY2007-2012
Six-Year Improvement Program.
Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#37231-110705) A RESOLUTION concurring in the programming of new
projects in the City of Roanoke's Six-Year Improvement Program FY2007 - 2012
("SYIP").
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 44.)
Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37231-
110705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Chris H. Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., commended the City of
Roanoke on the widening of Orange Avenue from 12'h Street to Gus Nicks
Boulevard, N. E.; however, he stated that there is a need to look at the corner of
Gus Nicks Boulevard and King Street where traffic backs up. He asked that the
intersection be included in the City's Six-Year Transportation Plan, or that short
term measures be implemented to alleviate traffic congestion.
There being no further discussion, Resolution No. 37231-110705 was
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel,
Wishneff and Mayor Harris ............................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
CITY CODE-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that on March 1, 2004, Council amended and
reordained Division 1, Generally, and Division 2, Fair Housing Board, Article III,
Fair Housing Administration, Chapter 16, Human Rights, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, by adding certain definitions and certain sections
to effect amendments to the City's Fair Housing Ordinance, in order to be
consistent with current Federal and State Fair Housing regulations, and to revise
responsibilities of the Fair Housing Board.
434
It was further advised that since the City's Fair Housing ordinance was
first enacted in March 1973, prior to enactment of Federal and State Fair
Housing regulations, age was recognized as a protected class in the City; and
while Federal and State regulations do not recognize age as a protected class
(both Federal and State Fair Housing regulations include "elderliness" as a
protected class which applies to anyone over 55 years of age), the City of
Roanoke opted to retain age and include "elderliness" as protected classes
during a recent amendment of the ordinance.
It was explained that housing for older persons is specifically allowed
under Federal and State Fair Housing regulations; however, inclusion and
retention of "age" as a protected class in the City's Fair Housing Ordinance
unintentionally prohibits the establishment of housing communities for older
persons in the City; while recent amendment to the City's Fair Housing
Ordinance included addition of a definition for "housing for older persons" that
was consistent with Federal and State definitions, the definition was included
because State and Federal regulations recognize "housing for older persons" as
a permitted exception to "familial status"; familial status is a protected class
which prohibits housing discrimination against persons with children under the
age of 18 and was added to the City's ordinance during the recent amendment;
inclusion of the definition by itself in the City's ordinance is not sufficient to
indicate the allowance of housing for older persons in the City; and the Fair
Housing Board recommends that the City's Fair Housing Ordinance be further
amended to allow for "housing for older persons", in accordance with Federal
and State regulations.
The City Manager recommended that Council adopt an ordinance
amending Section 16-152, "Exceptions from article", Division 1, Generally,
Article Ill, Fair Housing Administration, Chapter 16, Human Rights, of The Code
of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by the addition of a provision to
allow housing for older persons in accordance with State and Federal law.
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance:
(#37232-110705) AN ORDINANCE amending Section 16-152, Exceptions
from article, of Division 1, Generally, of Article III, Fair Housinq Administration,
of Chapter 16, Human Riqhts, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended, by the addition of subsection (8), to clarify that housing specifically
for older persons is permitted in the City, in accordance with State and Federal
laws; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 45.)
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37232-
110705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by
the following vote:
435
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel,
Wishneffand Mayor Harris ............................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
BUILDINGS/BUILDING DEPARTMENT-FEE COMPENDIUM: The City Manager
submitted a communication advising that the City's Fee Compendium, as
maintained by the Director of Finance, was authorized and approved by
Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 32412-032795, adopted on March 27,
1995; and the Fee Compendium is the basis for fees charged for all
construction-related permits issued through the Building Inspections Division of
the Department of Planning Building and Economic Development.
It was further advised that the Building Inspections Division currently
uses a multiple permit system in which each trade involved in a building project
obtains a separate permit for its portion of the work; the Building Inspections
Division is recommending adoption of a combination permit system to replace
the system currently in existence to allow one all-inclusive permit to be issued
for each project; an all-inclusive permit will streamline the permitting process
and improve the ability to monitor a project; as a part of the change,
adjustments are recommended to Building Inspections Fees as outlined in a fee
schedule; the net effect of changes in fees will result in a decrease of 4.75 per
cent in building-related fees; and it should be noted that fiscal year 2006
building inspection-related revenues are still projected to meet their revenue
estimates due to the positive volume of permits which will offset fee decreases.
The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a resolution
amending Building Inspections Fees.
Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution:
(#37233-110705) A RESOLUTION amending and adding certain fees and
charges with regard to building inspections division permit fees, amending the
Fee Compendium, and providing for an effective date.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 46.)
Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37233-
110705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel,
Wishneffand Mayor Harris ............................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
436
SPECIAL PERMITS-DOWNTOWN ROANOKE, INCORPORATED: The City
Manager submitted a communication advising that the City of Roanoke has
been approached by a private carriage company to facilitate a horse-drawn
carriage service for the downtown area; and Downtown Roanoke, Inc. (DRI) has
met with the vender and supports establishment of the service which can help
draw visitors to the downtown area and provide a value added experience.
It was further advised that an ordinance was drafted that will provide
control and structure for carriage operators; included in the ordinance is a
permit fee structure of $45.00 to operate a horse-drawn vehicle business and
$20.00 for a horse-drawn vehicle operator's business; the area for normal
carriage operations will be bordered by Salem Avenue on the north, Third Street
on the west, Church Avenue on the south and Williamson Road on the east; and
there may be occasion when operating outside the normal geographical area is
permissible to facilitate special events or requests, for example, at The Hotel
Roanoke and surrounding area.
The City Manager recommended that Council
permit and to provide oversight of a horse-drawn
downtown area of the City of Roanoke.
adopt an ordinance to
vehicle service in the
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance:
(#37234-110705) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining the Code of
the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by adding a new Article IV, Horse-
Drawn Vehicles, to Chapter 34, Vehicles for Hire.; and dispensing with the
second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 49.)
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37234-
110705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe.
Richard Ferron, operator of the private carriage company, appeared
before Council in support of the request.
There being no questions or comments, Ordinance No. 37234-110705
was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel,
Wishneffand Mayor Harris ............................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... O.
437
POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUILDINGS/BUILDING DEPARTMENT-BUDGET: The
City Manager submitted a communication advising that on February 13, 2003,
the City of Roanoke executed a Contract with Cederquist Rodriguez Ripley, P.C.,
d/b/a Rodriguez Ripley Maddux Motley (Architect) for design and construction
administration for the Police Building, Phase II; a construction contract was
awarded to J. M. Turner & Company, Incorporated (Contractor), on June 29,
2004, with a Notice to Proceed date of August 16, 2004, and a completion date
of October 10, 2005; the contractor has requested two time extensions, and the
City has granted a total of 27 consecutive days, which extended the completion
date to November 6, 2005; however, additional time to complete the project
will be needed which requires additional construction administration services;
an amendment to the architect's contract is necessary to pay for additional
services which are anticipated to be no more than $40,000.00, based on rates
in the base contract; and total anticipated architectural/engineering fee is
within a reasonable range of eight - nine per cent of total construction cost.
It was further advised that Council was previously informed of early
changes to the project which led to an increase in the construction budget and
required additional services from the architect which were provided for in two
amendments; the two amendments increased the architect's contract by
$74,571.80, or 21.6 per cent of the original fee of $345,000.00; several other
minor amendments to the architect's contract have been approved; and
authorization by Council is needed to fund the abovereferenced additional
services inasmuch as additional services, when combined with prior
amendments, will exceed 25 per cent of the original contract amount.
It was explained that City staff is negotiating with the contractor to define
the additional time necessary to complete the project and to determine if
credits and/or liquidated damages are due from the contractor to the City; it is
anticipated that the City of Roanoke will realize some amount of creditsor
liquidated damages from the negotiations and any such amounts would offset
the additional architectural/engineering construction phase services; and
funding is available in Account No. 008-530-9567, "Police Building Design -
Phase I1", to fund the proposed amendments.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute
additional amendments to the City's contract with Cederquist Rodriguez Ripley,
P.C., d/b/a Rodriguez Ripley Maddux Motley (Architect), not to exceed
$40,000.00, for additional professional services needed to complete the Police
Building, Phase II Project.
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution:
438
(#37235-110507) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager's
issuance and execution of additional Amendments to the City's contract with
Cederquist Rodriguez Ripley, P.C., d/b/a Rodriguez Ripley Maddux Motley for
additional professional services for the Police Building, Phase II Project.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 55.)
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37235-
110705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel,
Wishneffand Mayor Harris ............................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 01
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
AUDITS/FINANCIAL REPORTS: The Director of Finance submitted the
Financial Report for the month of September 2005.
(For full text, see Financial Report on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
There being no questions or comments and without objection by Council,
the Mayor advised that the Financial Report for the month of September would
be received and filed.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUDGET-GRANTS: The Director of Finance
submitted a written report advising that a budget ordinance adopted by Council
on Monday, October 3, 2005, did not match the accompanying staff report for
the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant; therefore, adoption of another budget
ordinance by Council is necessary to correct the oversight.
The Director of Finance recommended that Council adopt a budget
ordinance appropriating funds in the amount of $1,900.00 in revenue and
expenditure accounts in the Grant Fund.
Council Member Cutler offered the following budget ordinance:
(#37236-110705) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the
2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading
by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 56.)
439
Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37236-
110705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel,
Wishneff and Mayor Harris ............................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
ZONING-ARMORY/STADIUM-SCHOOLS: Council at a Special Meeting which
was held on Tuesday November 1, 2005, at 4:00 p.m., having been briefed on
five specific options for Victory Stadium, as developed by Heery International,
and Council having agreed to receive public comment at its meeting on
Monday, November 7, 2005, the matter is before the body.
The Mayor advised that 56 persons had signed up to speak. He stated
that Victory Stadium is a passionate and emotional issue; however, the purpose
of the meeting is to discuss an issue and not to discuss people, therefore,
personal comments would not be allowed by the Chair if they are directed to
the Members of Council, the School Board, the City Manager or the
Superintendent of Schools, and any individual making any such comments
would be immediately ruled out of order and would not be allowed to complete
their comments. He added that he expected the discourse to be civil and
becoming of the community, because of the number of persons in attendance,
some persons who signed up to speak were directed to Room 159 in the
Municipal Building where they were viewing the proceedings via RVTV Channel
3, therefore, he would call several names at one time and requested that
speakers begin to make their way to the Council Chamber when their names
were called.
Council Member Lea requested a clarification of the Mayor's remarks and
inquired if citizens will not be allowed to exercise their first amendment rights
to freedom of speech; whereupon, the Mayor clarified that speakers may
comment on various positions, but the Chair would not tolerate attacks on the
character of individuals and there would be civil discourse throughout the
meeting.
Council Member Lea called for a clarification by the City Attorney;
whereupon, he advised that the Mayor will chair the meeting and issue rulings;
if Members of Council disagree with a ruling by the Chair, they may move to
challenge the ruling of the Chair and if a majority of the Council disagrees with
the ruling of the Chair, the Mayor would be overruled.
44O
The following persons addressed the Council:
Mr. Andrew S. Boxley, 301 Willow Oak Drive, S. W., spoke as a business
person, but primarily as a parent, and encouraged Council to support
construction of stadiums at the two high schools for the following reasons:
high school stadia are less expensive than any option that was proposed by the
Victory Stadium consultant, and high school stadia will provide more
opportunities for students and redefine the campus experience at each high
school. He stated that a vote by Council in favor of high school stadiums would
send a clear signal to future generations that the Council cares about the needs
of Roanoke's students and has acted accordingly on their behalf.
Mr. C. Richard Cranwell, 111 Virginia Avenue, Vinton, Virginia, advised
that in today's world, government in America is suspect at all levels because
citizens believe that they have no control over what goes on in government, and
they believe that government leaders do not listen to or respond to their
constituency. Having served for 30 years in the Virginia General Assembly, he
stated that his experience was that if everyone believed that they had been
heard, although they may not agree with a decision, they still believed that the
process had not turned its back on them.
Ms. Carol Brash 2259 Westover Avenue, S. W., spoke on behalf of stadia
at the two high schools. She stated that she lives within six blocks of Patrick
Henry High School, and looks forward to the noise, traffic and excitement that a
stadium would bring to the neighborhood. She advised that she serves on the
PTSA Board of Directors at Patrick Henry High School and on the Roanoke
Central Council PTA, and at a recent meeting of the Central Council PTA, 27 of
the 29 schools represented unanimously supported stadia at both high schools.
She noted that a cost of $8.2 million was quoted for the two high school
stadiums, which leaves $6.8 million of the $15 million that was appropriated
for stadia, and suggested that remaining funds be used for renovation of
Victory Stadium.
Mr. E. Duane Howard, 1135 Wasena Avenue S. W., advised that all citizens
should pause and think about the power they hold with regard to City Council
elections in May 2006 because regardless of the Council's vote today, two new
high school stadiums cannot be constructed in a few months, Victory Stadium
cannot be torn down in a few months, and the City Council May elections
cannot be postponed. He stated that the citizens of Roanoke can elect three
new persons to City Council who will honor their word and promise to save
Victory Stadium.
Mr. Bill McClure, 542 Walnut Avenue, S. W., spoke as the parent of a
junior at Patrick Henry High School. He qualified his remarks by stating that he
was not against construction of stadia at the two high schools; however, the
problem rests with the process that has generated a perception that the desired
result was not found in the consultant's report, therefore, it must be changed.
He added that the process generated a public perception that not only were the
441
rules changed, but the game was changed as well, and the process generated
the question of what will happen to Victory Stadium. He added that there are
numerous issues that have not been publicly addressed, closure is needed, but
to change the course at the "11'h hour" does not seem to be cautious or
prudent. He stated that if Victory Stadium is not addressed in depth, Council
will be shirking the responsibilities of office and misleading voters which could
be a deciding issue in the political careers of some Council Members.
Ms. Mary C. Pruette, 29]4 Carolina Avenue, S. W., a senior at Patrick
Henry High School, advised that she and her fellow classmates will not benefit
from a school stadium or a new school, however, they felt strongly enough
about the issue that approximately 20 students accompanied her to the Council
meeting. She added that today's events are unique because Council will vote
on constructing two new high school stadia; whereupon, she expressed support
for a stadium at Patrick Henry High School for safety reasons, field conditions,
and most importantly, school spirit. She stated that safety is an important
factor, a stadium at the school site would offer the advantage of locker rooms
and shelter in the event of inclement weather, field conditions have not been
thoroughly discussed, and whether it be the soccer team playing at River's Edge
Sports Complex, or the football team playing at Victory Stadium, or the band
performing at Victory Stadium, or lacrosse teams playing on the practice field,
Roanoke's field conditions are sub par to its competitors. She added that
school spirit has reached an all time high, with a level of excitement and pride
due to a new Patrick Henry High School, therefore, there could be no better way
to top off existing student pride and excitement than to construct a stadium
that will be the focus of athletic achievement. In conclusion, she asked that
Council do what is right and best for Roanoke's students of today and
tomorrow.
Mr. Robert N. Turcotte, 1890 Arlington Road, S. W., advised that two
questions need to be answered: are the right questions being asked and are
the right people being listened to. He stated that constructing two high school
stadia means that the stadiums will be the right size.
Mr. Nick A. Brash, 2259 Westover Avenue, S. W., spoke in support of
construction of stadiums at the two high schools. He stated that he attended
high school in a community that had an athletic field on the school campus
which helped to increase student pride; and upon graduation from college, he
returned to the community and lived within a block and one-half of the same
stadium, and attested to the fact that any inconvenience was minor, noise was
not an issue and vehicular traffic was manageable. He added that he moved to
Roanoke 19 years ago, he considers himself to be a Roanoker with no
emotional attachment to Victory Stadium; and he has attended numerous
functions at Victory Stadium and has never seen the stadium filled to capacity.
442
He commended Roanoke's Police Department on the professionalism with
which they manage traffic at Patrick Henry High School on a daily basis, and
urged that Council objectively review the type of facility that would best serve
the needs of the students of the City of Roanoke.
Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., expressed concern with
regard to the Mayor's preliminary instructions to citizens limiting their right to
speak. She stated that she has attended City Council meetings for many years
and has not witnessed any incident when a citizen was disrespectful. She
inquired as to how the Council could ignore an informative and detailed report
by a consultant the was hired to study the various options for Victory Stadium
when it was clear that Victory Stadium could be renovated for $13.5 million
using Historic Tax Credits; and the stadium could be renovated for not only
football, but for the enjoyment all citizens of the Roanoke Valley. She
expressed concern with regard to "1 l'h hour" maneuverings, and the possibility
of constructing a stadium at each of the two high schools. She advised that
stadia at Patrick Henry and William Fleming High Schools would cost $8.2
million; however, it is strange that the City did not request more clarification as
to how the $8.2 million figure was calculated. She stated that those Council
Members who vote in support of constructing a stadium at each high school will
have let Roanoke's taxpayers down, and all citizens of Roanoke should have a
vote on the fate of Victory Stadium via a public referendum.
Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., advised that it appears that
the Council has gone against the recommendations of the Victory Stadium
Study Committee, and the citizens of Roanoke have suffered a disservice
because the joint meeting of Council and the School Board which was held on
November 3, 2005, to discuss high school stadia was not televised via RVTV
Channel 3. She stated that it was mentioned that students at Patrick Henry
High School would be able to use the stadium in 2007, but students at William
Fleming would not have a stadium until 2010. She took issue with the
statement that football fields at each high school would increase the graduation
rate, and advised that she was not aware of a football field anywhere that
taught anything to a child, and if they were taught by virtue of being on a
football field, it was due to the dedication of coaches and teachers. She urged
that Council give the teachers the tools they need to teach and give the citizens
of Roanoke and the Roanoke Valley a renovated Victory Stadium. She stated
that Victory Stadium is an historic building and, if renovated properly,
Roanoke's children sould be proud to play sports in a newly renovated stadium.
Mr. Ivan Moore, 2219 Carter Road, S. W., spoke in support of stadia at the
two high schools, primarily to increase school pride and as a fundraising
venture for the booster clubs. He stated that there is not a lot of neighborhood
opposition and any concerns can be addressed as a result of meetings with City
and School officials. He commended Mayor Harris for taking a stand on the
issue of high school stadia, and stated that as a taxpayer, he does not favor
using $22 million plus of taxpayers' dollars to renovate Victory Stadium when
the facility does not have a business plan and lies in a floodplain. He advised
443
that William Fleming High School deserves a stadium, and with the existing
infrastructure such as the airport, interstate, restaurants, hotels/motels and
shopping malls, it makes sense to construct a high school football stadium at
that location which will enable Council to move on to other pressing issues.
Ms. Jackie Gentry, 1819 Warrington Road, S. W., a senior at Patrick Henry
High School and President of the Student Government Association, advised that
as the student body president, she listens to concerns and opinions of students
on a daily basis, most of whom believe that separate stadiums at the two high
schools are needed. She stated that separate stadiums will not only remove the
inconvenience of driving to Victory Stadium, but raise school spirit, which in
turn will lower violence in the schools, motivate students to attend school, and
raise the attitude of some students which will lead to better school
performance.
Ms. Leslie Hubble, 2424 Lofton Road, S. W., advised that no one has the
right to build a stadium without first soliciting input by the residents of the
area. She stated that the City of Roanoke should not vote on the issue until all
affected residents have been heard, and called attention to the area around
Patrick Henry High School that is already plagued by traffic flow issues. She
added that if a stadium is constructed, existing problems will be compounded
by noise pollution as a result of horns blaring and spectators celebrating after a
football game.
Ms. Allyn K. Hughes, 3833 Park Lane, S. W., a senior at Patrick Henry High
School, spoke in support of two separate high school stadiums. She stated that
on campus stadiums would help the booster clubs to raise funds for school
activities, and a school stadium would help to increase school spirit and unite
the student body. She encouraged Council to think about not only today's
students, but future generations of students.
Mr. John R. Graybill, 2443 Tillett Road, S. W., advised that it appears that
the Council has already decided to build stadia at each of the two high schools.
He commended Council Members Lea and Wishneff for remaining true to their
campaign promise regarding Victory Stadium.
Mr. Daniel C. Webster, 2623 Guilford Avenue, S. W., advised that Victory
Stadium was constructed to honor the memory of Roanokers who gave their
lives in World War II; however, their memory has already been tarnished due to
improper maintenance of the stadium for a number of years and their ultimate
sacrifice would be totally dishonored by razing the facility. In the event that
Victory Stadium is torn down, he inquired as to what venue the City would offer
to its citizens for public concerts, Fourth of July celebrations, Festival in the
Park, etc., and how could two smaller remote high school stadiums replace a
larger central venue that serves the entire Roanoke Valley as opposed to a
select few. He inquired as to the purpose of appointing a citizens committee to
study the question of whether to renovate or rebuild Victory Stadium when,
after a year of intense study and fact gathering, the Committee's
444
recommendations were totally disregarded; and based on the Council's
response to the Committee's work, why would any citizen even consider serving
on a committee in the future knowing that their hard work and
recommendations will be dismissed if they do not echo the desired results. He
stated that the City funded a $159,000.00 study by a highly qualified stadium
design firm only to disregard their recommendations, and almost immediately
thereafter construction estimates were obtained for the two high school
stadiums from another source. He inquired if the source of the high school
stadia estimate has the same credentials as Heery International, are estimates
detailed and available for public review, how will the school system be able to
operate the two stadiums when the schools presently lack the necessary
resources to maintain existing school facilities, and would the Superintendent
of Schools set aside pay increases for presently under paid teachers, or would
the school system cut back on funding for much needed basic and instructional
materials which are often purchased personally by teachers.
Mr. Al C. Scanlan, 1631 Center Hill Avenue, S. W., advised that for years,
if not generations, the question of Victory Stadium has been on the City's
agenda; i.e.: renovate the facility, replace it, tear it down, rebuild it, relocate it,
etc. He stated that in April, 2005, the final report of the Stadium Study
Committee was completed and presented to Council, and subsequently Council
obtained an engineering report and set a target budget of $15 million; it
appeared clear that the Mayor and others gave the recommendation of the
Stadium Study Committee their full support if estimates came in under budget,
and today Council appears to be on the threshold of voting in favor of a plan
that was not a part of the recommendations of the Study Committee and will set
the entire Victory Stadium question back for many years. He advised that two
2,000 - 3,000 seat high school stadiums will not serve the needs of the total
community, and no effort was made to consider the opinions of those persons
residing in the specific areas where the stadia are proposed to be located;
stadiums appear to be inadequate to meet the needs of the two high schools
under certain circumstances; cost of the stadia is not clear; the future of Victory
Stadium is unknown; recommendations by the Stadium Study Committee have
been ignored; taxpayers spent $159,000.00 on a consultant's report that is
being ignored; future taxpayer liability is unclear; and the citizens of the City of
Roanoke want and deserve answers to their questions. He stated that one of
the recommendations of the Stadium Study Committee was to sell legacy bricks
from Victory Stadium as a fundraiser; whereupon, he offered a check in the
amount of $$00.00 for the first purchase of legacy bricks.
445
Ms. Hannah Updike, 2803 Woodlawn Avenue, S. W., a junior at Patrick
Henry High School, advised that two stadiums, one at Patrick Henry and one at
William Fleming are a necessity. She called attention to the importance of pride
in one's school and advised that two separate stadiums would allow each
school to have adequate and safe facilities for home and visiting teams. She
asked that surrounding neighborhoods be considered with regard to traffic,
light and noise concerns and that Council keep the needs of present and future
students at the forefront of deliberations.
Ms. Suzanne Osborne, 1702 Blair Road, S. W., called attention to a vote
on May 2, 2005, at which time the Council elected to not consider high school
stadiums as an option. She advised that the Stadium Study Committee reported
at the same meeting that high school stadiums had been unanimously
eliminated as an option, and it was also reported that the School Board was not
in favor of any type of facility that would require a maintenance responsibility.
She expressed concern that a $159,000.00 consultant's report that contained
rational information with which to make an informed decision on Victory
Stadium has been ignored, the recommendations of a citizens committee that
spent nine months and diligently pursued the issues with all options on the
table has been ignored, and to ignore the voice of a majority of citizens in favor
of the special interest of a few citizens is disrespectful, shameful, and an
attempt to prevent the public from obtaining accurate information which is
needed to make an informed decision on how tax dollars will be spent. She
stated that the figure quoted by the Superintendent of Schools that two
stadiums could be constructed for $8.2 million has not been questioned and
the Superintendent has given the assurance that the stadia can be constructed
without additional funding by the City; however, at the same time, the School
Superintendent advises that the school system does not have sufficient
manpower or equipment to maintain current school facilities.
Mr. Chris H. Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., advised that during the
last Councilmanic election, some Council Members campaigned on the promise
that Victory Stadium would be renovated. He stated that the school system
should be permitted to use Victory Stadium free of charge which would allow
the funds to be used for other school needs, such as teacher pay raises, and the
elimination of mobile classrooms, etc. He expressed concern for those
residents of the area surrounding Patrick Henry High School who were not given
the opportunity to address the issue; therefore, action on the matter should be
tabled by Council until there is sufficient input by the Raleigh Court/Grandin
Road neighborhoods.
Mr. Winfred Noell, 2743 Northview Drive, S. W., advised that he has
followed the Victory Stadium issue for quite some time and he has observed a
City administration that manipulates numbers and is not truthful with the
citizens.
446
The Mayor cautioned Mr. Noell that personal comments regarding the
Members of Council, the School Board, the City Manager, or the Superintendent
of Schools would not be tolerated by the Chair.
Mr. Noell continued his remarks and advised that it appears that the
entire Victory Stadium issue has resurfaced, which has the effect after all of the
mistakes and maneuvers that occurred during the Orange Avenue
stadium/amphitheater issue of planting more seeds of distrust toward leaders
of the City.
The Mayor once again requested Mr. Noell address to his remarks to the
issue under discussion.
In view of the fact that persons from the audience were making remarks
without being recognized by the Chair, the Mayor advised that heckling from
the audience would not be tolerated and if such behavior continued, he would
declare a recess and ask that Police Officers remove those persons from the
Council Chamber. He again asked that persons conduct themselves in a civil
manor.
Mr. Noell advised that the issue will be resolved during the Councilmanic
election in May 2006, because the events of the past two weeks have been
"backroom, good old boy politics at its worst".
Ms. Mary Scanlan, 1631 Center Hill Drive, S. W., expressed concern with
regard to the lack of time and information that has been given to those citizens
of the areas that will be impacted by the two high school stadiums. She stated
that she was opposed to the two high school stadium plan, a stadium is not
suitable for the Patrick Henry High School site, nor will the stadium meet the
needs of citizens for major events that have become a tradition in Roanoke.
She inquired as to why the Council would consider a two stadium plan when
there are many unanswered questions, with very little citizen input, and
especially after receiving the Heery International report on Victory Stadium
options. She stated that as a 30 year Roanoke City elementary school teacher,
she would respectfully disagree with the statement that constructing on site
stadia at the two high schools would lower student dropout rates, and advised
that the dropout rate relates to many factors and not to a building. She advised
that the focus should be on meeting the 2005-2006 academic expectations set
by the State Board of Education, rather than school stadiums, and the City
should stay within the original financial guidelines for a stadium that will meet
the needs of the entire community.
447
Mr. Kit Hale, 2222 Blenheim Road, S. W., advised that as a member of the
Board of Zoning Appeals and inasmuch as the issue may come before the
Board, he would not speak on the matter. The City Attorney stated that his
office is currently researching the issue and inasmuch as Mr. Hale is also an
adjacent property owner, he is researching the question of whether it will be
necessary for Mr. Hale to disqualify himself from participating if the issue is
addressed by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Ms. Patricia Pruett, 4902 Grandin Road, S. W., commended Council
Members Wishneff and Lea on their efforts to save Victory Stadium. She spoke
in support of preserving the City's historic landmarks and asked if the lights
went out on the star on Mill Mountain, would the City move the star to another
location? She stated that the star on Mill Mountain and Victory Stadium
represent the same principle and Victory Stadium deserves to be renovated and
used by all of Roanoke's citizens.
Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, advised that he
predicted over two years ago that the City would tear down Victory Stadium and
give the property to Carillon Health System. He stated that in November 1942,
Victory Stadium was dedicated to the memory of World War II veterans and in
November 2005, the City could decide on the death of Victory Stadium. He
encouraged City leaders to act according to the wishes of those citizens who
elected them to office and in compliance with the Victory Stadium consultant's
report which indicated that it would be less costly to renovate Victory Stadium.
He stated that one solution would be to spend $5 million on a stadium for
William Fleming High School and spend another $5-7 million dollars to renovate
Victory Stadium for use by not only Patrick Henry High School, but all of the
citizens of the Roanoke Valley. He called attention to the agreement that was
entered into between the City of Roanoke and Norfolk and Western Railway
Company which donated the land to the City and stipulations of the agreement
provide that the land can only be used for stadium, armory, and park purposes.
Mr. Barton J. Wilner, 2709 Crystal Spring Avenue, S. W., advised that as a
business person, whenever he is confronted with various issues, he considers
the best interest of his customers; and the number one customer of Victory
Stadium is high school athletics, which represents over 90 per cent of the
stadium's usage, therefore, it makes sense to seek the preference of the
stadium's number one customer. He stated that when asked the question,
would you prefer to have your own stadium at your own high school, principles,
athletic directors, coaches, parents, students, the Parent Teacher Association,
the School Board and school administrators all advised that two high school
stadiums would strengthen the school campus, increase school spirit and
school pride, increase attendance at events, increase participation in sports,
increase usage of the facilities for other sports assemblies/band, strengthen
booster involvement and create concession sales, decrease travel expenses,
increase safety, strengthen the neighborhoods, increase neighborhood
commerce, and provide two first class venues that are used on a regular basis.
He added that two high school stadiums could be constructed for about $8.2
448
million versus $13.5 million, or more, to renovate Victory Stadium; and by
eliminating Victory Stadium, the City could develop Reserve Avenue from
Victory Stadium to Franklin Road and provide multiple athletic fields with
pedestrian bridges linking the fields with the River's Edge Sports Complex, and
provide an outstanding recreation venue for Roanoke's children and adults that
could be used Monday through Friday throughout the year, as well as a valuable
marketing tool for tournaments on weekends. He stated that professionals at
the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Department of
Parks and Recreation will verify that this is the type of product they can market
and sell. He advised that high school stadiums have been constructed all over
the United States from Virginia to California; and the City of Roanoke is building
the first of two world class high schools, and the project should be completed
with two first class high school stadiums. He encouraged the City to construct
facilities that are needed for the next 50 years and not confuse the decision
with what was needed and built 50 years ago; and it is time to do the right
thing for Roanoke's children, the community and for Roanoke's future by
building two high school stadiums, tear down Victory Stadium and develop
Reserve Avenue.
Mr. John Kepley, 2909 Morrison Street, S. E., referred to five occasions
when the Mayor publicly stated that he supported the renovation of Victory
Stadium. He stated that an honorable man is trustworthy and keeps his word
which should be his bond.
There were remarks from the audience; whereupon, the Mayor instructed
the individual to leave the Council Chamber. When he refused to do so the
Mayor declared a brief recess so that Police Officers could escort the person
from the Council Chamber.
Mr. Phillip Wright, 1646 Center Hill Drive, S. W., advised that the issue will
define for the citizens of Roanoke what is meant by public trust and respect and
preservation of minority rights. He stated that public trust has been badly
shaken, if not shattered, by the realization that certain elected officials cannot
be relied upon to do what they say or to say what they do; and public trust has
been damaged by a cleverly orchestrated campaign to insert the local school
stadia issue as an "11~ hour" maneuver around what is truly needed for the City
of Roanoke in the form of a high quality, first class City stadium that meets the
needs of all citizens. He added that no one has bothered to ask the taxpayers
of the City of Roanoke, and especially the taxpayers in the Grandin Court,
Raleigh Court and William Fleming residential neighborhoods their opinion
inasmuch as they could be subjected to loss of property values, privacy and the
quiet enjoyment of their homes.
449
Council Member Wishneff expressed concern that speakers were not
allowed to quote the names of Council Members while making their
presentations, and noted that the comments of Council Members are a matter
of public record in the Council's minutes which are on file in the City Clerk's
Office.
The Mayor responded that he stated at the beginning of the discussion
that there would be civil discourse in the Council Chamber, and he would not
allow personal attacks on the Members of Council, the School Board, and the
City and School administrations. He stated that he has been broad in his
interpretation of remarks and as advised by the City Attorney, any Member of
the Council has the right to make a motion to overrule the Chair.
Council Member Wishneff moved that speakers be permitted to read
statements that are a matter of public record, whether they be news articles,
e-mails, or statements made by the Mayor and Members of Council.
The Mayor responded that he has allowed broad latitude to speakers;
however, if a future speaker is overruled by the Chair and Council disagrees
with the ruling by the Chair, he would entertain a motion to overrule the Chair.
Mr. Dick Kepley, 550 Kepplewood Road, S. W., advised that a stadium for
all of the citizens of the City of Roanoke is needed. He stated that 90,000
people live in Roanoke, most of whom will never attend a high school football
game; looking to the future, a 3,000 seat stadium at each of the two high
schools will not be successful; and a Virginia High School League playoff game
cannot be played at a stadium with a seating capacity of 3,000 according to an
official of the Virginia High School League who stated that at least 4,000 seats
would be necessary for a playoff game at either school. He took issue with the
remarks of the Superintendent of Schools that high school stadia would
improve student performance, school spirit and test scores; He also took issue
with the figure quoted by the Superintendent of Schools that two 3,000 seat
stadiums could be constructed for $8.2 million when the consultant's report
quoted $16.8 million to build a 5,000 seat stadium. He stated that the citizens
of Roanoke deserve to know how the $8.2 million figure for the two high school
stadiums was calculated.
Ms. Susan Wadsworth, 1650 Center Hill Drive, S. W., expressed
appreciation for the countless hours of service that Council Members give to
the citizens of Roanoke. She stated that she appeared before Council with a
heavy heart because Council is about to make a decision that will affect her, her
family and her neighbors without their permission; Council has not been able to
make a decision regarding Victory Stadium during the last ten years and now
the Council is about to make a decision to construct two stadiums at two City
high schools as a solution to the Council's indecision. She stated that to ignore
the recommendations of paid consultants and a citizen's task force is not
befitting of the democratic process; residents of the area surrounding Patrick
Henry High School are not obstructionists and they have enjoyed being good
450
neighbors with Patrick Henry High School, but they must and should be
considered because their property values will be affected; and no one has the
right to construct a stadium in their back yard without consulting with them.
She advised that the big picture should be considered because a 3,000 seat
stadium on each of the City's high school campuses will not attract playoff
games and other events such as concerts, statewide athletic events, etc. She
stated that Roanoke's students need a stadium and the Roanoke Valley
deserves a state of the art facility that will serve the needs of the entire
community.
Ms. Chris Kaze, 1647 Center Hill Drive, S. W., expressed concern about
the message that is being sent to the children of Roanoke when a political
agenda is forced on an entire neighborhood; and residents of the area
surrounding Patrick Henry High School should have been the first to be
consulted, rather than having been left out of the process. She stated that her
main purpose in addressing the Council is to point out that the City's actions
will teach the children of Roanoke to be less than good neighbors, and Council
should listen to the recommendations of the Stadium Study Committee and set
the right example for Roanoke's youth.
Mr. Bob Caudle, 4231 Belford Street, S. W., spoke in support of
renovating Victory Stadium in view of the figures quoted in the consultant's
report.
Ms. Margaret Keyser, 2701 Guilford Avenue, S. W., commended those
students who addressed the Council and advised that they were poised,
respectful and articulated their position in support of constructing stadia at the
two high schools. She inquired as to why those citizens, whose property will be
the most affected by the construction of a stadium at Patrick Henry High
School, were left out of discussions.
Ms. Valerie Garner, 2264 Mattaponi Drive, N. W., called attention to a
telephone conversation with an official of the Virginia Department of Aviation
who expressed concern with regard to stadium lighting adjacent to Roanoke
Regional Airport and the Aviation official has referred the matter to the Eastern
Region of the Federal Aviation Administration for investigation. She stated that
Land Use Recommendations of the Virginia Department of Aviation provide that
communities discourage the development of residences, schools, churches,
hospitals, daycare centers, nursing homes, and other similar uses, including
uses resulting in large open air assemblies of people such as amphitheaters
and stadiums, near airports. She suggested the City to investigate the matter
prior to proceeding with a lighted stadium at the William Fleming High School
site.
451
Mr. Tom Bradley, 2042 Westover Avenue, S. W., spoke in support of the
renovation of Victory Stadium.
Dr.J. Keith Bohon, 5012 Cave Spring Circle, S. W., spoke in support of the
renovation of Victory Stadium which can be done for $13.5 million using
Historic Tax Credits. He stated that Victory Stadium could receive an $18
million renovation for $13.5 million, and the remaining funds could be used to
construct a 5,000 seat stadium at William Fleming High School. He advised that
Victory Stadium was neglected by the City of Roanoke for over 20 years and
cannot be repaired using a "band aid" approach, and advised that a renovated
Victory Stadium could be the crown jewel of Riverside Park.
Mr. Tom Skelly, 2402 Avenel Avenue, S. W., spoke in support of the
renovation of Victory Stadium.
Mr. Eric Woodard, 2809 Guilford Avenue, S. W., advised that high school
stadia appear to be a last minute initiative, nobly motivated, yet lacking
adequate and proper planning and process. He stated that the City of Roanoke
should improve athletic and academic infrastructure and achievement; and
much progress has been made to renovate schools, but rather than providing a
better place to play football and soccer, the School Board should be challenged
to fund more programs that will act toward achieving State and Federal
Standards. He further stated that the City of Roanoke has not followed due
process and study in order to make an informed decision; and the issue is not a
decision on Victory Stadium, but a last minute power play by a small, but vocal
and powerful community claiming noble causes. He advised that as a new
parent, he respected the cause of Roanoke's children, but one community,
neighborhood or special interest group should not be allowed to force their will
on another by claiming nobility and ignoring due process. He stated that if
Council votes in favor of high school stadia today, the Members of Council will
be accountable in the coming months not for dealing with What is right for the
children, but with activities that have allowed a total disregard for those
residents who are most profoundly affected.
Mr. Stuart Revercomb, 855 Wildwood Road, S. W., advised that the
present City Council and past City Councils have changed direction at the last
minute with regard to Victory Stadium, with little information regarding the will
of the citizens of Roanoke. He stated that all relevant information has been
received after many years of public discourse, opinion surveys, consultant
reports, remarks by independent citizens, committee recommendations,
editorials, elections in which people are swept into and out of public office, site
preparation studies, engineering studies, feasibility studies, School Board input,
City staff input and yet on the brink of making a decision, the Council by all
indications, is preparing to proceed in another direction, without public
comment, a site preparation report, traffic studies, or a feasibility study to
make a decision that will once again plummet the community into the same
malaise of contention and controversy that has divided Roanoke for many
years. He noted that the City of Roanoke has wasted an unbelievable amount of
452
taxpayer's time and money on the issue, and as elected leaders, Council is
charged with the responsibility of making informed and well reasoned
decisions, decisions that are arrived at through logical and timely debate. He
advised that there are two options; i.e.: nighttime high school stadiums, or
renovate Victory Stadium at the $11.6 or $13.5 million level and provide day
stadiums as called for by the School Board without lights, which would provide
a vast majority of the benefits addressed by the Superintendent of Schools. He
added that day stadiums could be funded by the balance of the Victory Stadium
budget, proceeds from the sale of the Orange Avenue property, and if
necessary, by the City's budget for the three years that it takes to develop the
William Fleming site. He noted that one of the options will cast the City back
into the extended continuous debate that has divided the community and
prevented the City from focusing on far more important issues, and the other
option will provide a win-win for all Roanokers that will allow the City to move
forward as it honors the past with a renewed spirit of cooperation and
optimism.
Ms. Estelle McCadden, 2128 Mercer Avenue, N. W., advised that citizens
and neighborhoods make a city and neighborhoods are the fabric of a city. She
stated that while recognizing the needs of Roanoke's students, Council is
forgetting the City's general citizenry; therefore, she spoke in support of
renovating Victory Stadium and moving the facility out of the floodplain.
Mr. Jim George, 2340 Blenheim Road, S. W., advised that Council
Members should place service to the citizens of Roanoke above themselves, and
asked that Council Members listen to the people, pay attention to what is going
on in the community and not make decisions based on politics. He called
attention to actions of past leaders of the City of Roanoke to save The Hotel
Roanoke which has created numerous economic opportunities for the
downtown area and increased property values. He questioned what will happen
to property values in the neighborhoods surrounding Patrick Henry High School
if a stadium is constructed and pointed out that Council Members were elected
to represent the best interests of the citizens of the City of Roanoke by asking
questions and by obtaining the necessary information prior to making major
decisions.
Mr. Ralph Eaton, 2428 Lofton Road, S. W., advised that residents of
Grandin Court are disappointed that they were not included in the decision to
construct a stadium at Patrick Henry High School.
Ms. Claudia A. Whitworth, 2318 Melrose Avenue, N. W., advised that her
remarks regarding Victory Stadium were made with no emotional commitment
to the Stadium. She stated that over the years she has listened and observed
with an open mind the "political ping pong" that has gone on as to whether to
rebuild a new City stadium, or to renovate existing Victory Stadium in its
present state of disrepair, which is due to the benign neglect of the facility by
the City. She expressed surprise that after all this time the Council is now
considering the construction of stadia at the two high schools and advised that
453
after listening to previous speakers, it would appear that she has observed two
separate meetings; i.e.: one for a City stadium and one for high school stadia.
She stated that she was astonished to hear that stadia are proposed to be
constructed at the two high schools, one of which is historically black and one
is historically white, and regardless of current statistical data on either stadium,
they will be stigmatized as such. She expressed disappointment that a City
stadium for all of the citizens of Roanoke has gotten lost in the process with no
reasonable alternative.
Mr. Don Bouldin, 2114 Berkley Avenue, S. W., advised that the Victory
Stadium Study Committee submitted its recommendations; Council stated that
the two options under consideration were to either renovate or to demolish
Victory Stadium, a consultant reported that Victory Stadium is structurally
sound and it would be cheaper to renovate the facility, and at the last minute
the School Board recommended smaller stadia at the two high schools. He
challenged the Council to follow its original plan; i.e.: to not place any other
options on the table and to renovate Victory Stadium.
Mr. Tommy Firebaugh, 4703 Phyllis Road, S. E., advised that the City of
Roanoke is missing an important opportunity by not promoting Victory Stadium
at a higher level for concerts, special activities, celebrations and arts and crafts,
rather than primarily for football. He stated that Roanoke's two high schools
have used Victory Stadium in the past for football games and there is no reason
why football games cannot continue to be played in a renovated Victory
Stadium. He spoke in support of holding a referenda to allow the citizens of
Roanoke to vote on the fate of Victory Stadium. He expressed concern that
citizens residing in the neighborhoods surrounding the two high schools were
not consulted prior to the School Board submitting a recommendation to the
Council regarding high school athletic fields.
Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29t" Street, N. W., expressed concern with
regard to the consideration of stadiums at the two high schools at this late
hour, and especially without input from the neighborhoods surrounding the two
high schools, or more detailed financial information. He stated that if properly
promoted, Victory Stadium could generate much needed revenue for the City.
Mr. Kurt Navratil, 1877 Arlington Road, S. W., President, Greater Raleigh
Court Civic League, which consists of more than 10,000 residences and over
400 members, including residents and businesses, advised that the Board of
Directors voted to support the concept of stadia at the City's two high schools;
however, the Board of Directors did not support a specific proposal, nor did it
intend to give carte blanche approval to construction of just any type of facility
on campus. He added that it is understood that the facility will introduce many
things to the neighborhood and the Board of Directors intends to ensure that
issues such as lighting, frequency of use, litter, vehicular and pedestrian traffic,
parking and noise are minimized and contained to the highest extent possible.
He stated that the neighborhood's rationale for supporting the concept of high
school stadiums is to improve the education and athletic experience of
454
Roanoke's children and to strengthen the neighborhood. He further stated that
the topic under discussion deals with not just structures, but with children and
the desire to give Roanoke's children every reason to want to return to the
Roanoke Valley after graduating from college.
The Reverend Carl T. Tinsley, 2647 Springhill Drive, N. W., expressed
concern that if Council votes to construct stadia at the two high schools, such
action will be in conflict with a recommendation of the Council appointed
Stadium Study Committee and the consultant that was engaged by the City to
study the condition of Victory Stadium. He advised that he was not opposed to
the construction of high school stadia, but he was opposed to a stadium in his
neighborhood. He stated that Roanoke's schools should be updated, and, in
due time, stadiums can be constructed for the two high schools, but there is a
need to move forward with the Victory Stadium issue and to renovate the
stadium so that it can be used by all of the citizens of Roanoke.
Mr. Tom Cain, 2258 Memorial Avenue, S. W., encouraged the City of
Roanoke to begin to think of itself not only as a City, but as an ecosystem. He
stated that water cannot be compressed from the Roanoke River basin, water
displaced from one place must seek another, therefore, Roanoke should be
careful not to try to mitigate its problems by worsening the problems of its
neighbors down stream. He further stated that having just commemorated the
20'h anniversary of the flood of 1985, the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke
Valley should be especially sensible with regard to development in flood plains;
the world is full of anomalies, Historic Tax Credits may be available to
encourage and in this case, to enable new development in flood plains, but as a
matter of public policy, they should not be. He added that stadia on the high
school campuses in the neighborhoods will enrich community life, improve
neighborhoods and provide a commercial boost to neighborhood merchants.
Mr. Roy Chambers, 2807 Huntington Boulevard, N.W., President,
Roanoke Valley Hospitality Association, which is comprised of business leaders
in the hospitality industry representing hotels, convention and visitor bureaus,
surrounding cities and counties, civic centers, chambers of commerce,
restaurants, and educational facilities spoke on behalf of all of the above
entities that will be affected by a stadium. He spoke in support of athletic fields
at William Fleming and Patrick Henry High Schools which will provide a sense of
individualism for each of the high schools, for current students and for the
students of future generations. Additionally, he requested that Council
reconsider Victory Stadium options and a new stadium. He stated that Roanoke
is the largest City on the Blue Ridge Parkway, the City of Roanoke is the capitol
of the Roanoke Valley and southwest Virginia, the City of Roanoke is in a
position to be the leader of all other cities and towns in the Roanoke Valley and
southwest Virginia; and in this leadership position, Roanoke City and City
Council have a duty to its citizens to preserve Roanoke's history and to prepare
for Roanoke's future. Therefore, he recommended that Council table
consideration of all options regarding Victory Stadium and/or a new facility and
appoint another committee composed of persons who are attuned to both the
455
history and the future of the Roanoke Valley, to those types of activities that a
stadium will attract, and to how funds can be appropriated to preserve the
history of Victory Stadium while preparing for the future of the City of Roanoke.
He encouraged Council to be the leaders they were elected to be by
representing the citizens of Roanoke, by following the advice of the City
Manager, and by not allowing personal agendas to hinder present and future
progress of the Roanoke Valley.
Mr. Robert Craig, 701 12'h Street, S. W., advised that the citizens of
Roanoke pay $103,000.00 collectively in salaries to the Members of Roanoke
City Council, therefore, Council should be accountable for its actions to
Roanoke's citizens. He asked the following question: What is the City's current
debt and how much interest is paid each year?
Ms. Frieda Tate, 4556 Van Winkle Road, S. W., spoke in support of the
renovation of Victory Stadium. She expressed concern that some Council
Members have changed their position with regard to Victory Stadium after
publicly stating that they supported renovation of the facility.
Mr. Charlie Bowles, Camp Careysbrook, Riner, Virginia, spoke in support
of the renovation of Victory Stadium, and stated that Victory Stadium is a
regional facility that attracts people from as far away as the Town of Blacksburg
and Montgomery County. He added that Victory Stadium is in its current state
of disrepair because the City of Roanoke did not budget funds for maintaining
the facility after the Civic Center was constructed.
Ms. Margaret Kreger, 835 Wildwood Road, S. W., a junior at Patrick Henry
High School and Spirit Chair of the Student Government Association, advised
that students support an athletic field at Patrick Henry High School. She
expressed concern and embarrassment with regard to the behavior that was
exhibited by some adults at today's Council meeting. She stated that the
number one reason to construct stadiums at the two high schools is due to the
poor condition of Victory Stadium, which is "prison-like" in its appearance with
fencing around the facility and the presence of police officers. She spoke in
support of the construction of high school stadia which will not only improve
academics, but improve school spirit by involving students which, in turn, will
increase their motivation to attend school.
The Mayor expressed appreciation to all speakers for their participation
and called on Council Members for remarks.
Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution:
(#37237-110705) A RESOLUTION authorizing the filing of a petition to
amend the conditions attaching to the zoning of property which is owned by
the City of Roanoke and which is designated as Official Tax No. 1460101.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 57.)
456
Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37237-
110705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick.
Council Member Dowe expressed appreciation to the citizens of the
community for their love and passion for Roanoke. He stated that each citizen
came to the Council meeting with various opinions, yet he personally sensed a
genuine respect as he interacted with citizens during the course of the
afternoon. He added that he prayed for a healing of the community, and
commended the Members of Council because it is not easy to be in the
Council's position. He stated that the Victory Stadium issue has been studied
and restudied, however, certain issues stood out in the consultant's report that
indicated that it would not be a wise decision to construct a stadium larger than
5,000 seats. He acknowledged that Victory Stadium has not been properly
maintained for a number of years and a marketing study revealed that the City
of Roanoke cannot do a lot more to market the stadium, because there are
more markets, cities, populations, and historical propensity to support events--
in other words, there are not a lot of football teams or concerts that could fill
10,000-20,000 seats. He stated that the same study reinforced the fact that it
would be difficult to justify building a facility of 18,000 seats for a declining
population. He advised that when a child speaks he listens, and Roanoke's
students are asking for high school athletic fields. He emphasized that it would
be necessary for the City to address any problems that need to be dealt with in
the surrounding neighborhoods.
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that Victory Stadium and high school
stadia are challenging issues for all of the Members of Council; there appears to
be a lack of community sense as to what Council and the citizens are
attempting to do, and it is not a Council that is against the neighborhoods, but
a Council that is trying to do the best it can with taxpayers' dollars. He stated
that speaking as a past economic developer, there are certain things in the
community that some people either do not want to know, or do not want to
accept; the City of Roanoke is facing tremendous challenges at the present time
with an older population per capita than any other city in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, the City of Roanoke has more citizens who have frozen their real
estate taxes than any other city in Virginia and as a result, Roanoke's schools
are in trouble, the City has a shrinking tax base because the tax base cannot be
expanded through annexation, Roanoke is not creating the right kind of jobs
for its young people, and the cost of operating the City is increasing every year.
He added that Victory Stadium could be renovated for $17 plus million and with
Historic Tax Credits, the cost would be $13.5 million, however, an additional $2
million would be required to install restrooms for 18,000 people; attorneys
have indicated that the City cannot be certain that it will be eligible for the
entire Historic Tax Credit package, and if the entire tax credit package is not
approved, the remainder of funds would have to come from taxpayers. He
added that the marketing study indicated that the City is not in a good
competitive position to have a large stadium for any purpose, and promoters do
not book concerts at football stadiums because they prefer amphitheaters. He
457
advised that bottom line, the City does not have the market to sell 18,000 seats
to anyone, and from a fiscal perspective, taxpayers' money would go into an
empty stadium with an average of about 1,500 attendees. He added that the
consultants indicated that 90 per cent of Victory Stadium's usage would be by
the two high schools; therefore, the question is, what is best for the students,
what will it take to keep young people in the Roanoke Valley, what is needed to
have more than a 50 per cent graduation rate, and where is the City of Roanoke
when it has five schools that are already on probation and five more that are
about to go on probation. He stated that the issue is not about a stadium, but
about an inner city that is experiencing challenging times and it will cost
taxpayers large sums of money if some of the major issues cannot be fixed. He
acknowledged that certain valid issues have been addressed by the
neighborhoods if stadia are constructed at the two high schools, and the
resolution introduced by Council Member Cutler provides for public hearings at
the City Planning Commission and City Council levels; neighborhoods have not
been left out of the process and residents will have every opportunity for input
to address traffic, lighting and other issues. He explained that the decision
today would not be to construct a stadium, but to initiate the process for the
rezoning that will enable the City to work out the details. He added that it
would be irresponsible to vote against two high school stadiums at a cost of
$8.2 million and save the taxpayers $10 million, but more importantly the
young people of Roanoke have stated their interest in having a complete
school. He advised that Victory Stadium will not last forever, the Stadium will
not generate revenue, but will continue to cost the City money, and knowing
what lies ahead, the City cannot afford to continue to pay for Victory Stadium.
He stated that the Victory Stadium issue is holding the Roanoke Valley back
from achieving its potential and must be resolved one way or another.
The Mayor commended the behavior of students who addressed the
Council. He advised that when he ran for office, on a number of occasions, he
stated that Council should study the renovation of Victory Stadium, but any
option that would exceed $10 million was too costly. He added that he had not
discarded or ignored the reports by consultants that were presented to the
Council last week; the Heery report found that four out of the five options
exceeded the City's financial capacity; and the one exception was the
renovation option using Historic Tax Credits. He added that it was also
important to remember that the Heery study was submitted with a marketing
and feasibility analysis which was clear in its assessment that for 90 per cent of
the activities that a stadium could generate, the City of Roanoke would not
need more than 5,000 seats; and the marketing and feasibility study also
indicated that even in a best case operating scenario, regardless of whether it
was the two renovation options or the three new build options, the stadium
would have to be heavily subsidized annually by the City for operations. He
stated that approximately one month ago, when he began to hear from the
Roanoke Central Council PTA and from school administrators of their interest in
stadia at the two high schools, he was not excited about the concept, and was
frustrated and fatigued by the entire stadium saga; however, prior to receipt of
the Heery report and the marketing and feasibility study, he realized that he
458
should not allow his frustrations and fatigue to have, as its only goal, a
decision, but his ultimate goal should be to make the right decision. He
submitted that he has tried to be fair in the process, whether it was with regard
to organizing the Stadium Study Committee, or engaging the consultant's
report. He stated that citizens residing in Raleigh Court and Grandin Court
should and will be involved; the resolution that was previously introduced will
immediately initiate community and neighborhood meetings with both School
and City officials to discuss the stadium at Patrick Henry High School and allow
opportunities for residents to present their concerns regarding lights, traffic,
ingress and egress and parking, etc., within the next two to four weeks. He
added that information will be disseminated through the Grandin Court Civic
League, the Raleigh Court Civic League, flyers and the news media to promote
community engagement meetings; and following community meetings, public
hearings will be held by the City Planning Commission and the City Council
which will provide additional opportunities for public involvement regarding any
unresolved concerns or suggestions. He advised that he has asked himself two
primary questions in the midst of the issue: first, what is in the best interest of
the City as a whole, and second, what, in that context, is the most fiscally
responsible thing to do. He stated that the School Board and the
Superintendent of Schools, faculty and the administrators are working hard to
bring a new spirit and a sense of community to Roanoke's high school
campuses; and although high school stadia will not be the panacea that will
cure all ills, they can have a positive impact on the City's high school campuses
and on Roanoke's students.
Council Member Lea stated that he was appalled that citizens residing in
the Grandin Court/Raleigh Court neighborhood had to read in The Roanoke
Times that Council was preparing, on a fast track, to construct a stadium in
their neighborhood. He stated that Council met with the consultants last
Tuesday; shortly after the meeting, there was a need to meet with the School
Board, that had one week earlier forwarded information stating that the School
Board's Athletic Committee and the School Board were in favor of high school
stadia, however, the School Board indicated that it was a decision that would
ultimately have to be made by the Council. He added that even though the
School Board did not request a meeting with Council, Council met with the
Board on Thursday, November 3, at which time the Superintendent of Schools
stated that if athletic fields are constructed at the two high schools, the dropout
rate would be reduced and student achievement scores would go up; and it was
reported through the local news media that the Superintendent of Schools, who
assumed his position in July 2005, recently advised the Central Council PTA that
he was conceding to have stadiums constructed at both high schools. He
advised that when the Mayor states that he changed his mind on the stadia
issue out of concern for the community as a whole, he would question what
community the Mayor is making reference to, because Victory Stadium is an
icon in the Roanoke community and a historical landmark. In the days of
segregation, he stated that Victory Stadium was the one place in the City of
Roanoke where all citizens, black or white, could go and leave segregation at
the gates; William Fleming, Jefferson, and Lucy Addison High Schools used the
459
same football field and brought the community together, and now the City is
talking about tearing the stadium down. He further stated that Victory Stadium
has hosted Fourth of July celebrations where the community comes together
and the Western Virginia Education Classic that raised over $100,000.00 over
the last six years and has brought approximately 500 young people back to
school. He advised that three Members of the Council voted to construct a
stadium/amphitheater on Orange Avenue; week after week barrels containing
contaminated substances were uncovered, but there was no rush at that time to
bring the School Board to the table, and no concern was expressed for
Roanoke's children. He stated that the consultant's report provided
information that was needed to resolve the Victory Stadium issue both fairly
and openly. He stressed the importance of remembering that under discussion
is not just a building, but an icon that has existed in the Roanoke community
for many years and Victory Stadium is an important historical landmark to a
vast majority of Roanoke's citizens.
Council Member McDaniel advised that a lot of voices have been heard
and she did not doubt the passion or the sincerity of any speaker. She stated
that when one opts to serve in public office, they know that they will not be
able to make everyone happy, but they strive to do what is right. She further
stated that she lives in the Raleigh Court area, about two blocks from Patrick
Henry High School, she is a former President of the Greater Raleigh Court Civic
League, and she is passionate about the neighborhood where she has lived for
the past 30 years. She advised that if she believed that constructing a football
stadium on the Patrick Henry campus would hurt the neighborhood, she would
fight against it, however, after hearing more about how the lights can be
mitigated, that only five or six football games a year would be played on the
athletic field, the needs of the schools, and the wishes of students, she has
come to realize that a stadium might not be such a bad thing. She stated that it
could be an opportunity to make the neighborhood stronger as it embraces the
school, Patrick Henry High School is a part of the neighborhood and it would be
logical to construct a football field on the high school campus, while offering a
substantial savings to the taxpayers of Roanoke. She pledged support to the
Greater Raleigh Court Civic League and to the Grandin Road Neighborhood
Association to ensure that the athletic field will be an asset to the
neighborhood.
460
Council Member Wishneff referred to previous comments and commitments
made by certain Members of Council with regard to Victory Stadium that have
not been honored. He advised that the Stadium Study Committee did not agree
on the construction of stadia at the two high schools, School Board members
served on the Study Committee, no one at that time brought up the issue of
athletic fields at the two high schools, and this most recent attempt to
construct high school stadiums is an excuse by the Council to not renovate
Victory Stadium. He reviewed the minutes of the May 2, 2005, Council meeting
at which time Members of Council commented on the recommendations of the
Stadium Study Committee and the construction of athletic fields at the two high
schools and read a portion of a previous e-mail from the Mayor regarding his
position on high school stadia. He expressed concern that ever since the
findings of the consultant were made public, some persons have worked to
discredit the report; as a consultant he has worked with the Historic Tax Credits
program throughout the United States, however, no City representative
contacted him to discuss their concerns, but instead went in other directions to
discredit the consultant's report. He added that Roanoke is a City that tax
credits built, and referred to the following projects that were completed using
the Historic Tax Credit program: Higher Education Center, Seven North
Jefferson, O. Winston Link Museum, Shenandoah Hotel, Burrell Hospital,
Grandin Theater, Jefferson Center, Warehouse Row and the future Culinary
School, all of which have created $30 million in cash from Historic Tax Credit
investors.
He advised that it would cost less to construct and operate an 18,000 seat
stadium, which could be an enormous opportunity for the City of Roanoke if
marketed correctly; and the consultant advised that for a facility of its age,
Victory Stadium is a sound structure.
Mr. Wishneff questioned the figures quoted by the Superintendent of
Schools to construct stadia at the two high schools and compared the cost of
renovating Victory Stadium with the cost of the two athletic fields. He stated
that Victory Stadium could be renovated for the benefit of all of the citizens of
Roanoke and the high schools could play their five football games at the newly
renovated facility. He added that for the Councilmanic election in May 2006,
the issue will not be about Victory Stadium specifically, but about trust and
integrity.
There being no further discussion, Resolution No. 37237-110705 was
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, McDaniel and Mayor
Harris ............................................................................................................ 5.
NAYS: Council Members Lea and Wishneff- ........................................... 2.
461
INTRODUCTION
RESOLUTIONS:
AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND
COUNCIL: Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution
changing the time of commencement and the place of the regular meeting of
City Council scheduled to be held at 2:00 p.m. on Monday, November 21,2005,
to 12:00 p.m., in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, for a meeting of
Council with Congressman Bob Goodlatte:
(#37238-110705) A RESOLUTION changing the time of commencement
and the place of the regular meeting of City Council scheduled to be held at
2:00 p.m. on Monday, November 21,2005.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 58.)
Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37238-
110705. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDanieland adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel,
Wishneffand Mayor Harris ............................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL:
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Council Member Lea advised that a community
forum on domestic violence will be held on Tuesday, November 29, 2005, at
6:00 p.m., at the Roanoke Civic Center.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Mayor advised that
Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard and matters
requiring referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for response,
recommendation or report to Council.
CITY COUNCIL: Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., suggested
that Council Members be seated facing the audience at the 9:00 a.m., Council
work session on the first Monday of each month.
462
PROCLAMATIONS: Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., stated
that she was under the impression that Council was interested in developing
good character, but the actions she had witnessed at today's Council meeting
were quite saddening. She advised that those persons who addressed the
Council stated that citizens have no control over the stadium issue, and
expressed concern with regard to the example that was set today for Roanoke's
young people.
ARMORY/STADIUM-SCHOOLS: Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue,
N. E., expressed concern that citizens were permitted to speak for only three
five minutes to the Victory Stadium/high school stadia issue and that
restrictions were placed on what they could and could not say. She expressed
disappointment that some Members of the Council have not honored their
word, and expressed appreciation to other Council Members who have
displayed character, vision, integrity, leadership, courage, truthfulness, and
dedication to all of the citizens of the Roanoke Valley. She stated that Victory
Stadium is used for more than just football games, it is an historic structure
that is used by all of Roanoke's citizens, and the majority of citizens have
spoken in favor of renovating Victory Stadium. She encouraged that Council
place the question on a referendum for a vote by Roanoke's citizens.
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Mr. Shaheed Omar, 1219 Loudon Avenue, N. W.,
spoke with regard to an incident of alleged police brutality on Wednesday,
October 26, 2005, in Melrose Park, which was witnessed by a number of
persons. He stated that pursuant to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act,
he would request information relating to the arrest, and advised that the Chief
of Police should be in control of the actions of police officers who should be
required to abide by certain standards of conduct and should not be allowed to
come into Iow income communities and physically abuse citizens. He
requested that the City initiate an independent investigation and that the U. S.
Department of Justice also investigate the matter.
TRAFFIC: Mr. Don Bouldin, 2114 Berkley Avenue, S. W., commended the
City of Roanoke on traffic calming measures on Grandin Road; however, he
noted that no space is allocated for handicapped parking, other than in the
vicinity of a local restaurant and the theater. He called attention to four spaces
in front of the drug store that would provide a good location for handicapped
parking. He also called attention to a dangerous traffic situation at the stop
sign when attempting to turn left onto Grandin Road, where visibility is
obstructed due to the curb extension. He further called attention to the traffic
light at Grandin Road and Memorial Avenue, as vehicles turn left onto Grandin
Road, the light changes at the same time for a right turn from Grandin Road
onto Memorial Avenue, which creates the potential of a traffic accident,
particularly between 3:00 - 3:15 p.m., at the close of the school day.
463
CITY COUNCIL: Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29'h Street, N. W., spoke with
regard to ethics, morals and the obligations of elected officials to the citizenry
of Roanoke.
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Mr. Tony C. Hairston, 1263 Tayloe Avenue, S. E.,
spoke with regard to alleged police brutality. He stated that the City of
Roanoke and the nation, in general, have declined over the past ten years; and
America has become a nation of onlookers, where violence is seen but not
addressed, and a nation where drugs are present, but only those who are
oppressed by drugs are arrested. He added that Victory Stadium should be
renovated for use by all of the citizens of Roanoke.
ARMORY/STADIUM-SCHOOLS: Mr. Winfred C. Noell, 2743 Northview
Drive, S. W., advised that as he listened to the comments made by students
earlier in the Council meeting, they referred to various physical reasons for
supporting stadia at the two high schools; however, if Victory Stadium is
renovated, all of their concerns would be addressed. Also, he noted that
certain things could be done through renovation of Victory Stadium that would
increase school identity. He advised that numerous comments were made by
various speakers that stadiums in the neighborhoods surrounding Patrick Henry
High School and William Fleming High School would be an asset, therefore,
citizens residing in northeast and southeast Roanoke might be inclined to make
the same request.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: NONE.
There being no further business, the Mayor declared the Council meeting
in recess to be reconvened on Thursday, November 10, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., at
The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center, 110 Shenandoah Avenue, N. E., City
of Roanoke, Virginia, for the Regional Legislative Dinner. (Inasmuch as a
quorum of the Council was not present, no minutes of the Regional Legislative
meeting were recorded.)
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
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
December 19, 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, and to interview an applicant for a
vacancy on the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, pursuant to Section 2.2-
3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Sincerely,
C. Nelson Harris
Mayor
CNH:snh
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
December ~ 9, 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: Request to Schedule a Public
Hearing
Background:
The Elias Azar dba Azar Jewelry, Inc. has requested a lease for 418 square feet
of space located in the City Market Building at 32 Market Square, Roanoke,
Virginia 24011. The lease term requested is for athree-year period. A public
hearing is required to consider this lease term.
Recommended Action:
Authorize the scheduling and advertising of this matter for a public hearing on
January 3, 2006.
Respectfully submitted,
DLB:Ipp
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
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
December 19, 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 Ginny Harden, Director of
Prevention for Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare and chair of the Roanoke
Prevention Planning Team to share with City Council youth data for
Roanoke youth advocates.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene L~
City Manager
DLB:sm
C:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Clerk
Fact Sheet: Youth Risk Behaviors and the Power of Developmental Assets
Prepared by: Roanoke City Prevention Planning Team
Date: December 19, 2005
The Roanoke City Prevention Planning Team (RPPT) is a coalition of youth-serving organizations working
together to promote the healthy development of youth. The coalition strives to promote community
awareness about risk behaviors and attitudes among youth, advocate for the development and continuation of
prevention programs, and encourage family and community involvement in building strong youth.
RPPT, in partnership with Roanoke City Public Schools, surveyed Roanoke youth in 2005 using the Center
for Disease Control's Youth Risk Behavior Survey and the Search Tnstitute's Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes
and Behaviors Survey). Carillon Medical Center for Children and Roanoke City Health Department provided
funding for the project. Roanoke youth were also surveyed in 2002.
Youth Risk Behavior Survey Results (YRBS)
Survey responses reveal consistently high rates of risk behaviors and attitudes in four areas: Sexual Activity,
Drug User Violencef and Suicide.
High School Youth (10= & 12th grades) Roanoke Roanoke National Average
2002 2005 YRBS 2003*
Ever Had Sex 62.3% 60.5% 52.9%
Sexual [ntercourse Before Age 13 12.9% 16.7% 7.0%
Had 5+ drinks once or more in last 30 days 25.1% 22.8% 32.4%
Used marijuana in last 30 days 28.5 % 29.6% 23.9%
Carried a weapon one or more days within past 30 days 18.2% 19.2% 15.7%
Tn physical fight one or more times within past 12 months 31.8% 28.8% 29.3%
Seriously considered attempting suicide in last 12 months 17.7% 19.8% 16.8%
Actually attempted suicide in last 12 months 10.4% 12.5% 7.6%
* Averages among youth across the nation as reported by the Center for Disease Control.
Middle School Youth (6th & 8t" grades) Roanoke Roanoke Center for Disease
2002 2005 Control does not
Ever had Sex 24.6% 27% report data on
Sexual intercourse Before Age 13 18.9% 22% National Averages
among Middle School
First used alcohol at 13 years old or younger 31.9% 28.6% Youth.
First tried marijuana at 13 years old or younger 9.4% 13.3%
Ever carried a weapon (gun/knife) 29% 30%
Ever been in a physical fight 61% 62%
Ever been bullied 47% 43%
Seriously considered attemptin9 suicide in last 12 months 23.9% 23.9%
Actually attempted suicide in last 12 months 10.9% 8.4%
These results are alarming and require immediate attention and community action. Left unattended these
high-risk behaviors will have far reaching negative consequences in the personal lives of youth, City of
Roanoke's economic growth, and ultimately the quality of life in the valley. Research has documented that
high-risk behaviors among youth lead to increased rates of high school dropouts, juvenile offenders, foster
care placements, and welfare dependency, all of which absorb vital financial resources that could be used to
promote our community's positive growth and development. Tnformed, strategic prevention efforts are key to
providing youth with the skills necessary to avoid risk behaviors and lead healthy and productive lives.
Search Institute Survey Results (6th, 8t', 10th, 12th grades combined)
Search Tnstitute's framework of 40 Developmental Assets represents a common core of developmental
building blocks essential for the positive development of all young people. Search Institute has analyzed youth
behaviors in hundreds of communities and research has consistently shown that youth with higher levels of
assets are significantly less likely to engage in risk-taking behaviors, and youth demonstrate the most success
in school, community, and healthy lifestyle choices when they experience 3:[-40 developmental assets.
Survey responses reveal many youth are not experiencing some of the most important assets regarding
family and community support, boundaries and expectations, resistance skills, and constructive use of time.
Developmental Asset Roanoke Roanoke National Average
2002 2005 Search 2000*
Young person and his or her parents communicate positively, and 29% 28% 30%
young person is willing to seek parents' advice & counsel.
Family has clear rules and consequences, and monitors the young 49% 48% 48%
person's whereabouts.
Young person receives support from 3 or more non-parent adults. 45% 46% 45%
Young person experiences caring neighbors. 4:[% 40% 40%
Young person perceives that adults in community value youth. 28% 28% 25%
Young person believes it is important not to be sexually active or 46% 46% 42%
to use alcohol or other drugs.
Young person can resist negative peer pressure and dangerous 42% 45% 45%
situations.
Young person serves in community one hour or more per week. 54% 54% 5:[%
Young person spends three or more hours per week in lessons or 23% 23% 20%
practice in music~ theater~ or other arts.
Young person spends three or more hours per week in sports, 54% 56% 58%
clubs~ organizations at school, or community organizations.
Young person spends one hour or more hours per week in 67% 64% 63%
activities in a religious institution.
Both parents and teachers encourage young person to do well. 52% 56% 49%
Tn 2005, average number of assets experienced by youth was 19.5; 1:[% reported experiencing 3:[-40 assets.
Averages among youth across the nation as reported by the Search Institute.
What Roanoke City Council can do to helo youth build developmental assets and avoid risk
behaviors:
- Adopt and utilize the data. Adopt the YRBS and Search surveys as the official data source to guide all
Roanoke City planning, fund allocation and evaluation efforts for youth programming, particularly for the Youth
Comprehensive Plan to be completed by Hay 2006. In partnership with RPPT, establish community-wide goals
to increase the number of youth experiencing 3:[-40 developmental assets and reduce the prevalence of risk
behaviors, including priorities for specific assets and strategies to be targeted.
- Continue survevinu vouth. Allocate $12,000 in 2007 and every two years thereafter to pay for the YRBS
and Search surveys to be administered to youth attending Roanoke City Public Schools (cost of surveys, data
analysis, and dissemination of results). It is imperative that we monitor youth behaviors and assets every two
years and use the data as an accountability mechanism to measure the "overall' success of youth programs.
- Fund prevention proarams. Establish a pooi of funds to specifically support prevention programs to
achieve community-wide goals for increasing assets and reducing risk behaviors (suggested amount of
$200,000). City Council needs to make prevention our community's top priority and invest in programs that
have been evaluated and proven to be effective.
Roanoke Prevention Planninq Team
Youth Prevention Priorities
September 2005
Funding provided by: Carillon ~ledical Center for Children
Roanoke City Health Department
Roanoke Prevention Planning Team
Promoting Healthy Development of Youth
The Roanoke City Prevention Planning Team (RPPT) is a coalition of youth-serving
organizations working together to promote the healthy development of youth. The
coalition strives to:
1. Promote community awareness about risky behaviors and attitudes among
youth.
2. Implement a unified and comprehensive approach for prevention planning and
development of youth services.
3. Tdentify strategies to increase resources available to young people to help
prevent substance abuse, violence, teen pregnancy and school failure.
4. Encourage family and community involvement to build the assets necessary to
assist all youth in becoming productive adults of our community.
The foundation of the Roanoke Prevention Planning Team's planning process is data
collected every two years from youth enrolled in Roanoke City Public Schools, in grades
six, eight, ten, and twelve, on the types and frequency of high risk behaviors in which
they are engaging, and positive assets in their lives. Collected over time this data
provides a way to assess the health and well being of youth, identify areas of highest
concern, and mobilize the community to create healthy options for youth.
RPPT, in partnership with Roanoke City Public Schools, has surveyed Roanoke youth
three times during the last six years; November 2000, November 2002, and February
2005. An analysis of student responses over time has revealed consistently high rates
of risk behaviors and attitudes in four areas:
· Sexual activity
· Alcohol, tobacco and other substance abuse.
· Violence
· Mental health (particularly depression and suicide)
Roanoke Prevention Planning Team members have studied available data for each of
these priority areas and summarized trends and comparisons over time, implications for
the community, and recommendations to reduce the occurrence of these negative
behaviors. RPPT encourages the community to review these summaries and utilize the
information to inform and direct decision-making regarding needs among youth and
commitment of financial resources to support youth programming.
Left unattended these high-risk behaviors will have far reaching negative
consequences in the personal lives of youth, and City of Roanoke's economic growth
and ultimately the quality of life in the valley. Studies have documented that high-risk
behaviors among youth lead to increased rates of high school dropouts, juvenile
offenders, foster care placements, and welfare dependency, all of which absorb vital
financial resources that could be used to promote our community's positive growth and
development. Informed prevention efforts are key to providing Roanoke youth with the
assets and protective factors necessary to lead healthy and safe lives now, as well as in
the future. An integral part of successful prevention is creating an understanding of
human development among parents by providing support and education to enable them
to effectively respond to their children's needs.
Survey Information
The Roanoke Prevention Planning Team implemented the Search Institute Proti/es of
Student Life: Attitudes and Behaviors (Search) survey in the fall of 2000. This survey
was administered to students in grades eight, ten, and twelve. The results of this
survey would mark the beginning steps of a "unified and comprehensive approach" to
prevention planning in Roanoke City. The data from this survey provided a wide range
of information about how youth spend their time, their perceptions of school and
community life, and their participation in risk-taking behavior.
In the fall of 2002, and winter of 2005, RPPT, in partnership with Roanoke City
Public Schools, implemented the Search Institute Profi/es of Student Life survey and the
Youth Risk Behavior Survey(YRBS) in grades six, eight, ten and twelve. Each time half
of each grade completed one of these surveys. In addition to the youth assets
information provided by the Search, the YRBS developed by the Center for Disease
Control provides more detailed information about specific risky behaviors and other
health and safety information.
Implementation of the two different surveys provides a more comprehensive
"snapshot" of Roanoke City youth. The Search survey is based in the 40 developmental
assets paradigm: the more of the identified developmental assets present in the life of
youth the less likely they will engage in risk behaviors. Whereas, the YRBS comes from
the risk and protective factor paradigm: the more protective factors present for youth
the more resilient they become to risk factors.
Administration of the Search survey in 2000, 2002, 2005 provides the opportunity
to begin identifl/ing trends in youth behavior over time. Implementation of the YRBS
enables the RPPT to look at national comparisons as well as comparisons to other
Virginia communities with Roanoke City youth. For more detailed information about
reliability, validity and implementation of the Search and YRBSsurveys please refer to,
"Brief Summary of Two Surveys". Financial support to conduct and analyze the 2005
YRBS and Search Institute surveys was made possible by grants from the Carillon
Medical Center for Children and the Roanoke City Health Department. The RPPT is
grateful for their support without which this report would not be possible.
2
Sexual Activity Priority Statement
The effect of teen pregnancy on Roanoke City can be viewed as having community
wide consequences. In 2002, Roanoke spent approximately $9,476,000 on teen births
alone. Teen parents are more likely to need public assistance, abuse and/or neglect
their children, never complete high school and have fewer employment skills. Babies
born to a teen parent are at greater risk for: premature birth and birth defects, lower
IQ's, Iow birth weight, as well as learning and emotional disabilities.
While Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) are not covered in this survey,
members of the Roanoke Prevention Planning Team recognize and are concerned by
the rates of STDs and HIV infection among adolescents. According to the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2003, nearly 4 million adolescents are
infected by b--q-Ds each year, accounting for 25% of the 15 million new cases of STDs in
the United States annually. Roanoke City High School students reported a higher
percentage than the national average of students ever having sexual intercourse,
having engaged in sexual intercourse before age thirteen, having four or more sexual
partners, and having engaged in sexual activity within the last three months.
Additionally, the YRBS survey results show that in 2002, 9.3% of students report
they have been pregnant or have gotten someone pregnant. This percentage has
increased to 13.3% in 2005.
Trends and Comparisons
Youth Risk Behavior Survey
Roanoke City High Schools (10th & 12th grades)
Behavior Roanoke
2002 2005
National
2003
Ever Had Sex
Sexual Tntercourse Before Age 13
Four or more Partners During Lifetime
62.3%
12.9%
21.9%
60.5%
16.7%
25.4%
52.9%
7.0%
16.5%
Roanoke City Middle Schools (6th & 8th grades)
Behavior 2002 2005
Ever had Sex 24.6%
18.9%
Sexual Intercourse Before Age 13
Four or more Partners During Lifetime
7.4%
27.0%
22.0%
6.3%
3
Search Institute Profiles of Student Life
Always use birth control when having sex:
200:L 2002 2005
Grade 6 na 31% 39%
Grade 8 52% 66% 52%
Grade 10 65% 64% 59%
Grade 12 53% 62% 64%
~mDlications
The impact for Roanoke can be seen in the teen pregnancy rate of 48.9 per 1000
females although recent data from the Centers for Disease Control show that the
national teen pregnancy rate is at an all time Iow. According to data from the Roanoke
Adolescent Health Partnership (RAHP), in the last 12 months, 877 pregnancy tests
were given at the teen health centers. Of these 877 tests given, 57 of the tests were
positive.
Roanoke remains considerably higher than the statewide rate of 27.6 per 1000
females and the Healthy People 2010 target of 43 per 1000 females, and out of the 130
counties/cities in Virginia Roanoke has the 14th highest teen pregnancy rate.
Community Responsibilities
· Comprehensive sexuality education should be included in elementary and secondary
education programs.
· A series of forums and workshops should be provided for parents and citizens
regarding sexual health and how to talk with youth about sexual activity.
· Offer training experiences for teachers and other youth leaders to enhance their
ability to teach Family Life Education/Sexuality Education.
· Disseminate information on sexual health at pediatric health care provider clinics as
an opportunity to educate both parent and child.
· For those teens already sexually active promote consistent and correct use of
contraception.
4
Alcohol, Tobacco and other Drug Priority Statement
The use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs by youth negatively impacts their
personal health and future, our neighborhoods, schools and community. Research has
consistently shown that adolescents who use alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs are
more than twice as likely to skip school, have poor academic performance, drop out of
school, and participate in other risky behaviors, including unprotected sex and violence.
Furthermore, the earlier in life youth engage in using alcohol and drugs the more likely
they are to develop substance abuse problems as adults. Among Roanoke City youth
the average age of first use of alcohol is age 10 (4th or 5th grade) compared to the
national average of age 13 (7th or 8th grade). Substance abuse and its related health
and social problems, including dropping out of school, higher health care costs, lost
human productivity, and domestic violence are among society's most pervasive and
costly problems.
Trends and Comoarison;
Youth Risk Behavior Survey
Roanoke City High Schools (10th & 12 grades)
Behavior
Roanoke
2002 2005
Ever smoked daily for 30+ days 21.6 % 19.3% 17.4%
Had 5+ drinks once or more (last 30 days) 25.1% 22.8% 32.4%
Ever used marijuana 49.5 % 47.6% 44.5%
Used marijuana in the last 30 days 28.5 % 29.6% 23.9%
Rode in vehicle driven by someone drinking 28.2% 29.3% 31.3%
Drove a car or a vehicle after drinking alcohol 13.3% 10.4% 14.6%
Offered, sold or given illegal drugs on school 24.9% 29.5% 27.0%
property
National
2003
Roanoke City Middle Schools (6th & 8th grades)
Behavior 2002 2005
Ever smoked daily for 30+ days 7.0% 9.5%
First used alcohol at 13 years old or younger 31.9% 28.6%
Ever used marijuana 14.6% 17.2%
First tried marijuana at 13 years old or younger 9.4% 13.3%
Rode in vehicle driven by someone drinking 28.5% 27.0%
5
Zmolications
Alcohol and drug use stunts adolescents' emotional, social and intellectual
development, and impairs their decision-making skills. The links are clear between
substance abuse and academic failure, teen pregnancy, and delinquent and/or criminal
behavior. Additionally, young people under the influence of alcohol and drugs are much
more likely to engage in risky and dangerous behaviors. One visible impact is the
number of youth that report driving a vehicle after drinking alcohol, or being a
passenger in a vehicle with a drinking driver. This lethal combination too often results
in life changing injuries and even death.
Community Resoonsibilities
· Send consistent, age appropriate "no use" messages to all children, beginning early
in their lives and repeated often throughout their childhood and adolescence.
· Advocate for access to confidential support groups and other prevention services for
children to increase their resiliency and skills and to address problems before they
escalate.
· Insure parents have the resources to communicate clear expectations to their
children that the use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs will not be tolerated.
Provide them with the information and support to establish age appropriate
consequences when family rules are broken.
· Inform parents that their children may be getting alcohol from their friends' parents.
Remind parents that they still have a lot of influence over the choices their
teenagers will make regarding using alcohol and other drugs. Urge them to stay
actively involved in the lives of their teens.
· Enforce laws that prohibit adults from providing alcohol and tobacco products to
under age youth.
6
Violence Priority Statement
Research has shown that youth exposed to violence are at higher risk for a
multitude of problems later in life. Youth who learn to problem solve by engaging in
violent acts begin to believe that violence is the only way to solve problems. The
violent behavior is likely to permeate all aspects of their life and their personal
relationships, as well as how they interact professionally. Studies of incarcerated adults
have shown that a large percentage of inmates reported a childhood full of violence:
either violence they engaged in or violence perpetrated on them. The statistics below
demonstrate that youth from Roanoke City exhibit these risk factors.
Trends and Comoarisons
Youth Risk Behavior Survey
Roanoke City High Schools (10th & 12th grades)
Behavior Roanoke National
2002 200S 2003
Physically hurt by a boyfriend or girlfriend in the 16.0% 14.4% 9.5%
past 12 months.
Had been forced to have sexual intercourse. 11.5% 13.0% 9.2%
Carried a weapon one or more days within the 18.2% 19.2% 15.7%
past 30 days.
In a physical fight one or more times within past31.8% 28.8% 29.3%
12 months
Roanoke City Middle Schools (6th & 8th grades)
Behavior
2002 2005
Ever carried a weapon (gun/knife) 29% 30%
Ever been in a physical fight 61% 62%
Ever been bullied 47% 43%
Ever bullied someone 39% 38%
Missed school due to fear of bullying 8% 7%
7
Search Institute Profiles of Student Life
Ever been physically harmed in the home:
200:[ 2002 2005
Grade 6 na 24% 28%
Grade 8 28% 35% 29%
Grade 10 38% 31% 30%
Grade 12 31% 32% 24%
Would retaliate physically if pushed/hit:
200:[ 2002 2005
Grade 6 na 54% 58%
Grade 8 67% 73% 69%
Grade 10 75% 74% 68%
Grade 12 59% 71% 70%
Implications
Violence leads to violence. The surveys indicate that more than 25% of our
children have been physically harmed in their home. It is logical then to expect that
these children will carry that aggression into the schools and larger community. Within
six years of taking this survey, our middle school children will leave school; high school
students will do the same within one year. Both groups will marry, have children and
enter the adult workforce. Without intensive, effective programming, another
generation of children all too familiar with violence will enter the school system,
continuing the cycle.
Community Resoonsibilitie~
· Increase the coping skills of youth and address issues of personal violence,
assisting youth and families before problems occur.
· Encourage positive parenting skills, parental support of children and participation
in parenting programs so that children will identify and report violent behavior
without fear of repercussion or retaliation.
· Support education of youth by expanding comprehensive developmental
programs in accessible locations; inclusive of information on power and control
dynamics in negative relationships and between boyfriends and girlfriends.
· Engage the resources of local law enforcement agencies to identify causes of
violence, working within communities to reduce violent incidents and providing
community policing in high-risk neighborhoods.
· Promote public awareness and support Roanoke Valley agency programming that
provides essential services to youth and families in identifying violent behavior
and offering appropriate alternatives to resolve conflict.
8
Mental Health Priority Statement
Suicide is the third leading cause of death for youth in our nation. Children as
young as ten years old see so little hope for the future that they attempt to kill
themselves. Research has shown that for adolescents, often with a short time
perspective, events of the moment can be powerful incentive for impulsive acts.
Adolescents and teens face numerous pressures to fit in socially and perform well
academically. Factors which have been shown to relate to the willingness to commit
suicide include alienation from family, friends or the community; interpersonal losses
such as death of family or friends; and depression. Parents of suicide victims often
report there were no warning signs. Most parents today are unaware of reliable
screening tests that can find teens at risk. The statistics below reveal the extent of the
problem for Roanoke City youth.
Trends and Comoarisons
Youth Risk Behavior Survey
Roanoke City High School (10th & ~.2th grades)
Roanoke National
2002 2005 2003
Seriously considered attempting suicide in the17.7% 19.8% 16.8%
last 12 months.
Made a plan on how they would attempt 12.5% 13.9% 15.6%
suicide.
Actually attempted suicide in the last 12 10.4% 12.5% 7.6%
months.
Suicide attempts that resulted in need for 3.9% 4.7% 2.3%
medical intervention.
Roanoke City Middle School (6th & 8th grades)
2002 2005
Seriously considered attempting suicide in the23.9% 23.9%
last 12 months.
Made a plan on how they would attempt 10.0% 11.4%
suicide.
Actually attempted suicide in the last 12 10.9% 8.4%
months.
9
Search Institute Profiles of Student Life
Has attempted suicide one or more times:
200! 2002 2005
6th grade na 16% 16%
8th grade 21% 22% 17%
'10th grade 20% 2'l% 2'l%
12th grade 17% 19% 16%
TmDlications
In the City of Roanoke, the equivalent of two busloads of our middle and high school
aged children report that they have attempted suicide, some once, some as many as 5
or 6 times. As a community, we know the measures that need to be in place to prevent
any of our youth from seeing suicide as the only way out.
We have not made good mental health a priority. There has been no statistically
significant change in the rate teens contemplate suicide over the last two years. Our
community has failed to recognize that suicide among teens is a frighteningly real issue.
This may be because teens who contemplate suicide are alone, out of public view. The
signs are visible but we must look for them. Something must change.
Community Resoonsibilities
· Promote the use of community mental health resources for identifying and
treating youth depression.
· Promote structured after-school activities that provide a nurturing and supportive
environment.
· Offer parent resources and information about adolescent depression and ways
for them to communicate with their children.
· Provide opportunities for individuals, who work with youth, to learn how to
recognize and respond to signs of serious depression that could lead to suicide.
· Promote activities that communicate to all youth their value and worth to the
community.
· Promote the expansion of comprehensive youth development programming at
accessible, affordable, after-school settings and provide transportation as
needed.
10
Developmental Assets: A Profile of Roanoke City Youth
Search Institute's framework of Developmental Assets provides a way to assess the
health and well-being of middle and high school aged youth. The framework's 40
assets represent a common core of developmental building blocks essential for the
positive development of all young people. The assets are divided into two types:
external and internal. External assets are the networks of support, opportunities and
people that surround youth with positive developmental experiences, empowerment,
boundaries and expectations, and opportunities for constructive use of time. Internal
assets are a young person's own commitments, values and competencies. Search
]~nstitute has analyzed youth behaviors in hundreds of communities and the research
has consistently shown that youth with higher levels of assets are significantly less likely
to engage in risk-taking behaviors. Furthermore, they are more likely to exhibit
indicators of thriving, such as school success, maintaining good health, exhibiting
leadership, and impulse control.
Search l~nstitute's framework of Developmental Assets provides a way not only for
assessing our youth, but a way for mobilizing community-wide action to ensure young
people have the solid foundation they need to become tomorrow's competent,
productive, and caring adults. It highlights how every member of our community can
participate in building assets among our youth. According to Search's research, youth
demonstrate the most success in refraining from risky behaviors and thriving in school
and community when they experience 31-40 developmental assets. Each community
needs to establish a goal for what percentage of youth it seeks to be at this level.
In February of 2005, youth enrolled in Roanoke City Public Schools, in grades six,
eight, ten and twelve, completed the Search Institute Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes
and Behaviors survey. The following charts summarize the extent to which Roanoke
youth experience each of the 40 developmental assets, and how the number of assets
they experience relate to their risk-taking behaviors. Roanoke's data is in alignment
with the Search Institute's research findings in that the youth reporting the most
developmental assets engage in the least number of risk behaviors. This summary
provides direction on which assets our community needs to strengthen among our
youth to help them feel valued and supported, be successful, and choose a healthy
lifestyle.
11
Percent of Youth Reporting Each of 20 ~ntemal Assets
70%
5O%
20% -
10% -
O%
E o
._~
12
Percent of Youth Reporting Each of 20 External Assets
80%
70%
60% -
50%
40% -
30%
20%
10%
0%
The Power of Assets to Protect Against Risk-Taking Behaviors
Asset Level
21-30
The Power of Assets to Promote Thriving [ndicators
Asset Level
14
Recommendations
Engage a broader community of individuals, organizations and agencies to
assist in setting goals as well as developing and carrying out strategies to
reduce reported risk behaviors and increase positive assets among youth.
2005 survey data make it clear that the percentage of middle and high school
adolescents who are exhibiting risk behaviors is increasing not decreasing. As a
community of caring citizens we are moving in the wrong direction when it comes to
reducing risk behaviors and building positive assets for all of our children. The efforts
of our public agencies, not-for profit organizations, parents and guardians to reduce risk
behaviors among adolescents over the past two years have been insufficient and too
fragmented. Survey results clearly indicate a need to increase participation in setting
realistic goals for our children as well as a need to increase participation in the
development and implementation of strategies to reduce risk behaviors among
adolescents. The Roanoke Prevention Planning Team is ideally situated to assist in this
effort.
Create a system of accountability that utilizes, in part, YRBS and Search
Institute data to measure progress and report performance.
Collectively setting goals to reduce adolescent risk behaviors and build assets is
important but not sufficient. Reducing adolescent risk behaviors and building assets
through individual programs and partnership efforts must include measures to evaluate
effectiveness. While most agencies and organizations are held accountable for
individual prevention program efforts, there is no overall measure of effectiveness for
the collective efforts of the Roanoke Community to reduce adolescent risk behaviors.
The bi-annual YRBS and Search Institute Survey results should be used as an
accountability mechanism by which Roanoke leaders measure the "over-all" success of
their efforts.
Conduct and adequately fund the YRBS and Search Institute surveys on a
biannual basis for the purpose of tracking the condition of adolescents in our
community.
It is imperative that we monitor and track the condition of our youth on a regular and
consistent basis. The Youth Risk Behavior Survey and Search Institute Survey of
Developmental Assets provide a clear picture of adolescents in our community. The
surveys are windows into the world of adolescents and while the view may be alarming,
we need to keep a constant sentry posted to provide us with information around which
we can make decisions to improve our efforts to reduce adolescent risk behaviors.
Gathering and analyzing this information is a public not a private responsibility. The
15
City of Roanoke should budget for the cost of conducting these surveys, preparing
reports and disseminating information.
Encourage Roanoke City public policymakers, private foundations and state
government leaders to utilize the survey data to set funding priorities for the
prevention of youth risk behaviors and the development of asset building
strategies for adolescents in our community.
Decisions regarding funding priorities need to be data driven by a perspective that
includes the viewpoint of adolescents gained through the YRBS and Search institute
Survey. Public and private sector leaders can encourage effective prevention efforts by
requiring those that they fund to participate in community wide prevention efforts that
address the priorities identified in these biannual surveys.
Reproduce, widely disseminate and publicize the results of the YRBS and
Search Institute survey results as a means of increasing awareness and
knowledge of the condition of adolescents in our community.
The condition of our adolescents needs to be made public, it is no longer sufficient
to provide a small group of prevention planners and programmers with these data.
Prevention experts understand the need for and seek the participation of the entire
Roanoke Community. Caring community citizens, parents and guardians will only take
action and become involved when they understand the magnitude of need among our
adolescents. All of our children are the responsibility of all of the citizens in our
community. Responsibility for our children's care cannot and should not be relegated to
public and not-for-profit agencies and organizations. To engage our public means
educating our public by providing them with an opportunity to look through the window
into the lives of our children that these surveys provide.
16
Roanoke Prevention Planninq Team
Agencies participating in the preparation of this report:
Blue Ridge Beha¥ioral Healthcare
Carilion Medical Center for Children
Child Ad¥ocacy Center of the Roanoke Valley
City of Roanoke Parks and Recreation
Conflict Resolution Center
Council of Community Ser¥ices
Family Se~ice of Roanoke Valley
Roanoke Adolescent Health Partnership
Roanoke Area Youth Substance Abuse Coalition
Roanoke City Public Schools
Roanoke Valley CASA Foundation
Teen Pregnancy Prevention Project
17
or[ or o_.. vorm
Off, ce of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
December 22, 2005
File #60-72-236-246
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am attaching copy of Budget Ordinance No. 37270-121905 appropriating
$581,933.00 for the FY06 Workforce Investment 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, December 19, 2005, and is in
full force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP: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 19th day of December, 2005.
No. 37270-121905.
AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the FY06 Workforce Investment Act
Grant, amending and reordaining cedain 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:
Appropriations
Administrative - Fees for Professional Services
Administrative - Dues & Subscriptions
Administrative - Training & Development
Administrative - Equipment Rental/Lease
Administrative - Other Rental
Administrative - Wages
Administrative - Travel
Administrative -
Administrative -
Administrative -
Administrative -
Administrative -
Administrative -
Marketing
Supplies
Insurance
Contractual Services
Equipment
Telephone
Adult - Training & Development
Adult - Equipment Rental/Lease
Adult- Marketing
Adult - Supplies
Adult - Contractual services
Adult- Leases
Adult - Telephone
Dislocated Worker - Training & Development
Dislocated Worker - Equipment Rental/Lease
Dislocated Worker - Marketing
Dislocated Worker - Supplies
Dislocated Worker - Contractual services
Dislocated Worker - Leases
Dislocated Worker - Telephone
Youth In-School - Equipment Rental/Lease
035-633-2320-2010
035-633-2320-2042
035-633-2320-2044
035-633-2320-3070
035-633-2320-3075
035-633-2320-8050
035-633-2320-8052
035-633-2320-8053
035-633-2320-8055
035-633-2320-8056
035-633-2320-8057
035-633-2320-8059
035-633-2320-8090
035-633-2321-2044
035-633-2321-3070
035-633-2321-8053
035-633-2321-8055
035-633-2321-8057
035-633-2321-8058
035-633-2321-8090
035-633-2322-2044
035-633-2322-3070
035-633-2322-8053
035-633-2322-8055
035-633-2322-8057
035-633-2322-8058
035-633-2322-8090
035-633-2323-3070
500
845
3,022
1,813
1,613
4O,799
1,978
1,813
1,813
1,767
4O8
930
892
648
389
389
389
160,899
648
191
683
410
410
410
184,521
683
201
179
Youth In-School- Marketing
Youth In-School - Supplies
Youth In-School - Contractual services
Youth In-School - Telephone
Youth Out-of-School - Equipment Rental/Lease
Youth Out-of-School - Wages
Youth Out-of-School- Marketing
Youth Out-of-School - Supplies
Youth Out-of-School - Contractual services
Youth Out-of-School - Telephone
Revenues
Workforce Investment Act Grant FY06
035-633-2323-8053
035-633-2323-8055
035-633-2323-8057
035-633-2323-8090
035-633-2324-3070
035-633-2324-8050
035-633-2324-8053
035-633-2324-8055
035-633-2324-8057
035-633-2324-8090
035-633-2320-2320
179
179
120,383
88
74
1,920
74
74
49,682
37
581,933
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
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
December 22, 2005
File #60-72-236-246
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 37271-121905 accepting Western Virginia
Workforce Development Board Workforce Investment Act funds, in the amount of
$581,933.00, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the requisite
documents necessary to accept the funds, as more fully set forth in a letter from
the City Manager addressed to the Council under date of December 19, 2005.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, December 19, 2005, and is in
full force and effect upon its passage.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP: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 19th day of December, 2005.
No. 37271-121905.
A RESOLUTION accepting the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board
Workforce Investment Act funding of $581,933 and authorizing the City Manager to execute
the requisite documents necessary to accept the funding.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The Western Virginia Workforce Development Board Workforce Investment
Act funding of $581,933 is hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City Manager is authorized to execute, and the City Clerk is authorized to
attest, the requisite documents necessary to accept funding, and any and all understandings,
assurances and documents relating thereto, in such form as is approved by the City Attorney,
as more particularly set out in the City Manager's letter dated December 19, 2005, to City
Council.
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
December 19, 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: Funding for Western Virginia
Workforce Development Board Work-Force
Investment Act (WlA) Programs
Background:
The City of Roanoke is the grant recipient for Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
funding; thus, City Council must appropriate the funding for all grants and
other monies received in order for the Western Virginia Workforce Development
Board to administer WlA programs. The Western Virginia Workforce
Development Board administers the federally funded Workforce investment Act
(WlA) for Area 3, which encompasses the counties ofAIleghany, Botetourt,
Craig, Franklin and Roanoke, and the cities of Covington, Roanoke, and Salem.
WlA funding is for four primary client populations:
· Dislocated workers who have been laid off from employment through no
fault of their own;
· Economically disadvantaged individuals as determined by household
income guidelines defined by the U.S. Department of Labor;
· Youth who are economically disadvantaged, or who have other barriers to
becoming successfully employed adults; and
· Businesses in need of employment and job training services.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
December 19, 2005
Page 2
The Western Virginia Workforce Development Board has received a Notice of
Obligation (NO0), from the Virginia Employment Commission, allocating
$192,077 for the Youth Program which serves economically disadvantaged
youth, $181,725 for the Adult Program which serves economically
disadvantaged adults, and $208,131 for the Dislocated Worker Program which
serves workers laid off from employment through no fault of their own, for
Program Year 2005 (July 1,2005 -June 30, 2007). Ten percent of the
aforementioned totals are to be allocated to the administrative function of the
Western Virginia Workforce Development Board.
Considerations:
· Program Operations - Existing activities will continue, and planned
programs will be implemented.
· Funding - Funds are available from the Grantor agency and other sources
as indicated, at no additional cost to the City.
Recommendations:
Accept the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board Workforce
Investment Act funding of $581,933 for Program Year 2005.
Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in
the amount of $581,933 and appropriate funding of the same amount to
expenditure accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant
Fund as outlined on the attachment.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Sherman M. Stovall, Director of Management and Budget
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Jane Conlin, Director of Human Services
CM05-00180
Western Virginia Workforce Development Board 2005-2007 Budget Allocation
Org. Fund/Agency/
Name Or.q.
Adm ininstrative 35-633-2320
Total
Object Account
Code Name
8050 Wages
8090 Telephone
8052 Travel
8055 Supplies
8053 Marketing
8057 Contractual Services
8059 Equipment
8056 insurance
2010 Fees for Professional Services
3070 Equipment Rental/Lease
3075 Other Rental
2042 Dues and Subscriptions
2044 Training and Development
Council
Letter
Allocation
$ 40,799
$ 892
$ 1,978
$ 1,813
$ 1,813
$ 408
$ 930
$ 1,767
$ 5O0
$ 1,813
$ 1,613
$ 845
$ 3,022
$ 58,193
Adult 35-633-2321
Total
8090 Telephone
8058 Leases
8055 Supplies
8053 Marketing
8057 Contractual Services
3070 Equipment Rental/Lease
2044 Training and Development
$ 191
$ 648
$ 389
$ 389
$ 160,899
$ 389
$ 648
$ 163,553
Dislocated Worker
Total
35-633-2322
8090 Telephone
8058 Leases
8055 Supplies
8053 Marketing
8057 Contractual Services
3070 Equipment Rental/Lease
2044 Training and Development
$ 201
$ 683
$ 410
$ 410
$ 184,521
$ 410
$ 683
$ 187,318
Youth In-School
Total
35-633-2323
8090 Telephone
8055 Supplies
8053 Marketing
3070 Equipment Rental/Lease
8057 Contractual Services
$ 88
$ 179
$ 179
$ 179
$ 120,383
$ 121,008
Youth Out-of-School 35-633-2324
Total
Grand Total Budget Allocation
8050 Wages
8090 Telephone
8055 Supplies
8053 Marketing
3070 Equipment Rental/Lease
8057 Contractual Services
$ 1,920
$ 37
$ 74
$ 74
$ 74
$ 49,682
$ 51,861
$ 581,933
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of tho City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
December 22, 2005
File #5-20-24
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 37272-121905 amending Section 20-89,
Penalties for Unlawful Parking, Article IV, Stoppinq, Standinq and Parking, and
adding a new Section 20-90, Immobilization of Motor Vehicles Against Which
There Are Outstanding Parkinq Violations, Chapter 20, Motor Vehicles and Traffic,
Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, effective February 1, 2006, in
order to increase the availability of downtown on-street parking and to increase
the efficiency of parking enforcement fine collection efforts.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, December 19, 2005.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Attachment
Darlene L. Burcham
December 22, 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 32316
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
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police
Dana D. Long, Manager, Billings and Collections
The Honorable Evelyn W. Powers, Treasurer
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 19th day of December, 2005.
No. 37272-121905.
AN ORDINANCE amending Section 20-89, Penalties for Unlawfi;l Parking_ Article
IV, Stopping. Standimz and Parkine. and adding a new Section 20-90, Immobilization of
Motor Vehicles AgainsI Which There Are Outstanding Parking Violations. of Chapter 20,
Motor Vehicles and Traffic. Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, providing for
an effective date; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
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 20-89, Penalties for Unlawful Parking. Article IV,
Stopping. Standing and Parkine, of Chapter 20, Motor Vehicles and Traffic. to read and
provide as follows:
Sec. 20-89. Penaltie~ for unlawful parking.
Co)
Written notice from a police officer for violation of division 1 of this article
and penalties.
(1) Every person receiving written notice fi-om a police officer that he
has violated any of the sections of division I of this article may
waive his right to appear and be formally tried for the violation set
forth in the notice upon the voluntary payment, as penalty and in
full satisfaction of such violation, of the penalty set forth below.
Such penalty shall be paid to the city treasurer durin8 the regular
working hours of his office or through any other method established
by city council for the routine payment of such penalties. For
purposes of this subsection, penalties shall he deemed to have been
"paid" when full payment therefore has heen received by the city
treasurer, regardless of whether such penalty is paid in person or is
mailed. The city treasurer shall be authorized to accept partial
payment of penalties due. Penalties for parking violations shall be as
follows:
Table Inset:
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
So. ion Violation Penalty Penalty
If paid within 15 days of If paid after 15 days of the
the issuance by an officer issuance by an officer of a
of a notice of violation notice of violation
20-65(3); 20-65(6); 20- $10.00 $ 25.00
65(7); 20-65(10); 20-
65(12); 20-65(13); 20-
70; 20-72; 20-73 or 20-
75
20 65(14) or 20 68
First violation Warning Ticket N/,~
20-65(14) or 20-68 - 15. O0 30. O0
Second violation, but the
first violation on that
calendar
20-65(14) or 20-68 - $0. O0 45. O0
Second violation on the
same calendar da~
20-65(14,) or 20-68for 45. O0 60. O0
the third or more
violation on that
caleml_nr day
20-69 (except subsection 20.00 20.00
(i))
20-65(1); 20-65(2); 20- 20.00 35.00
65(5); 20-65(8); 20-
65(9); 20-66; 20-67; or
20-71
20-65(15) 25.00 40.00
20-65(4) or 20-74 33.00 48.00
20-690) or 20-76 125.00 140.00
(2)
If the applicable penalty listed in Column 2 is not paid within
fifteen (15) days of the issuance by an officer of a notice of
violation, then the applicable penalty listed in Column 3 shall apply.
A late nofce shall be sent by the city's department of billings m~at
collections to the violator. Any violator to whom such late notice is
K:kM~\Code .4an~t 20-89 pazldn8 titles 2005.dec 2
sent may pay the applicable penalty listed in Column 3 above within
fifteen (15) days of the date of such late notice. If the violator does
not pay the penalty pursuant to such late notice andifthe city elects
to pursue enforcement of the unsettled parking violation notices
through the courts, a law enforcement notice pursuant to section
46.2-941 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, shall be sent
by the city's department of billings and collections to the violator.
(c) Once the city has elected to pursue enforcement of the unsettled parking
violation notices through the courts and has sent a law enforcement notice pursuant
to section 46.2-941, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, tfa violator must d~es
::e.t pay the penalty provided for in Column 3 above within fifteen (15) days of
receipt ora the law enforcement notice ~-'
xr;~:,:~., ~"--" xz~' o~m~ ~ ~/, "~ ...... ,.-.,~.,,,~n,~, or the clerk of the general district court and the officer
responsible for issuing parking summons shall be notified of the failure to pay such
penalty, in order that a summons be issued.
2. The Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is hereby amended
and reordained by adding a new Section 20-90, Immobilization of Motor Vehicles Pmalnst
Which There Are Outstanding Parking Violations. Article IV, Stoppinz Standimz and
Parking. of Chapter 20, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 20-90. Immobilization of rnotor vehicles against which there are
outstandine varldne violation~
(a) Any motor vehicle parked on a public highway or public ground against which
there are five (5) or more unpaid or otherwise unsettled parking violation notices
may be immobilized in a manner which will prevent its removal or operation except
by authorized law-enforcement personnel.
(b) The immobilization of the vehicle pursuant to this section shall be by or under
the direction of an officer or employee of the police department.
(c) The law-enforcement officer or employee immobilizing the motor vehicle, or
directing the immobilization, shall inform as soon as practicable the owner of the
immobilized vehicle of the nature and circumstances of the unsettled parking
violation notices for which the vehicle was immobilizext
(d.) Once the vehicle is immobilized, there shah be placed on the vehicle, in a
conspicuous manner, a notice warning that the vehicle has been immobilized and
that any attempt to move the vehicle might damage it.
K:~Measm~\o...od~ Amendmma :20-89 parki~ fi~vx~ 200:~.dec 3
(e) The owner of an immobilized vehicle, or other person acting on his behalf,
shall be allowed at least twenty-four (24) hours.from the time of immobilization to
repossess or secure the release of the vehicle. Failure to repossess or secure the
release of the vehicle within that time period may result in the removal of the vehicle
to a storage area for safekeeping under the direction of law-enforcement personnel.
(/) The owner of a removed or immobilized motor vehicle, or other person acting
on his behalf, shall be permitted to repossess or to secure the release of the vehicle
by payment of the outstanding parking violation notices for which the vehicle was
immobilized and by payment of all costs incidental to the immobilization, and
storage of the vehicle, and the efforts to locate the owner of the vehicle.
(g} If the owner fails or refuses to pay the fines and costs identified in ~0 above,
or shouM the identity or whereabouts of the owner be unknown and
unascertainable, the motor vehicle may be sold in accordance with the procedures
set forth in Section 46.2-1213 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, after
giving notice to the owner at his last known address and to the holder of any lien of
record with the o~ce of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles.
3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and after February 1,
4. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second
reading of this ordinance by title is dispensed with.
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
December 19, 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 McDaniel, Council Member
Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member
Subject: Parking Ordinances
Dear Mayor Harris and Members of Council:
Background:
During 2001, the Police Department began the process of investigating new
technologies that would increase the availability of downtown on street parking
as well as increase the efficiency of parking enforcement fine collection efforts.
Recently, computer automation and hand held ticket issuance devices have
been deployed. The technology associated with these units enables the Police,
and Billings and Collections to implement new initiatives and re-engineer
outdated business processes.
The city administration has had several meetings with Downtown Roanoke, Inc.
concerning parking in the downtown area. The administration has also reviewed
parking regulations from around the commonwealth. Review of these parking
regulations, examination of the city's internal data and consultation with
Downtown Roanoke Inc. revealed that customer service and business practice
efficiency could be improved in four areas.
In an effort to enhance the downtown shopping experience, first time parking
violators should be given a warning ticket instead of a fine. Many of these first
time violators are out of town visitors shopping in our downtown. This
proposed change is supported by Downtown Roanoke, Inc.
Parking violators who receive more than one ticket on the same calendar day
should be subject to an escalation of fines. The first violation would result in a
fifteen dollar ($15.00) fine. The second violation on the same calendar day
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
December 19, 2005
Page 2
would result in a thirty dollar ($30.00) fine. The third violation on the same
calendar day would result in a forty-five dollar ($45.00) fine.
Parking violators who refuse to pay their fines should be subject to a vehicle
immobilization program which will hold their vehicle until all fines are paid.
This vehicle immobilization program should be administered through our police
department.
Finally, the court system should be used only as a remedy for redress
concerning disputes over issued violations and not as a collection agent for
unpaid fines. The city would have the option of sending a law enforcement
notice to the violator to begin the court process or to utilize other collection
methods including utilizing the vehicle immobilization program.
Updating the City parking statutes to address these four areas will enhance the
ability of the Police Department to open up on street parking spaces and reduce
excessive parking violations. Code modification allowing warning tickets will
provide for a more welcoming atmosphere in the downtown area for first time
visitors and out of town guests. The proposed changes will also increase the
efficiency of the Department of Billings and Collections when properly cited
violators fail or refuse to, complete required payments. The impact on revenues
should be minimal.
This Ordinance shall become effective February 1, 2006.
Recommended Action:
Amend and re-ordain the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by
revising code section 20-89 "Penalties for unlawful parking" and adding new
code section 20-90 "Immobilization of motor vehicles against which there are
outstanding parking violations".
The recommended revisions strengthen the ability of the City to provide
efficient and empathetic service to all downtown parking violators as well as
those persons seeking short term on street parking.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
DLB:/gws
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
December 19, 2005
Page 3
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Rolanda B. Russell, ACM for Community Development
A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police
CM05-001 82
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
December 20, 2005
File #2-53
The Honorable Brenda S. Hamilton
Clerk of Circuit Court
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Hamilton:
I am attaching a certified copy of Resolution No. 37273-121905 authorizing the
sale of not to exceed $5.5 million principal amount of general obligations of the
City of Roanoke, Virginia, in the form of General Obligation Anticipation Notes,
Series 2005. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council ofthe City
of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, December 19, 2005.
Pursuant to provisions of Section 5 of Resolution No. 37273-121905, I am
required to file a certified copy with the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, in accordance with Section 15.2-2607, Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended.
Sincerely,
5tephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
The Honorable Brenda S. Hamilton
December 20, 2005
Page 2
pc:
Donald G. Gurney, Esquire, Hawkins, Delafield and Wood, LLP, 67 Wall
Street, 1].th Floor, New York, New York ].0005
John P. Baker, Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority, 2624 Salem Turnpike, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017
The Honorable Evelyn W. Powers, City Treasurer
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Management and Budget
R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and Economic Development
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The. 19th day o£ December, 2005.
No. 37273-121905.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED FIVE MILLION
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,500,000) PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, IN THE FORM
OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES, SERIES 2005, OF
SUCH CITY, THE PROCEEDS OF WHICH ARE TO BE GRANTED BY THE CITY TO
THE ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ASSISTING SUCH AUTHORITY IN PAYING A PORTION OF THE
COSTS OF A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE CITY KNOWN AS THE SOUTH
JEFFERSON REDEVELOPMENT AREA PROJECT; DELEGATING TO THE CITY
MANAGER AND THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CERTAIN POWERS WITH
RESPECT TO THE SALE AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE DETAILS OF SUCH
NOTES AND THE BONDS IN ANTICIPATION OF WHICH SUCH NOTES ARE
BEING ISSUED, SOLD AND DELIVERED, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDING WITH
RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF SUCH NOTES AND
BONDS
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
VIRGINIA:
SECTION 1. The Council (the "Council") of the City of Roanoke, Virginia
(the "City"), hereby finds and determines as follows:
(a) On March 15, 2004, the Council adopted Resolution No. 36643-031504
(the "Authorizing Resolution"), authorizing the issuance of $5,500,000 principal amount of
general obligations of the City, in the form of General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds of
the City, the proceeds of which are to be granted by the City to the Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority (the "Authority") for the purpose of assisting the Authority in paying a
portion of the costs of a redevelopmem project in the City (the "Project") in an area known as the
South Jefferson Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area"), and authorizing the issuance of a
like principal amount of General Obligation Public Improvement Bond Anticipation Notes in
anticipation of the issuance of such Bonds.
(b) The Council has determined to authorize the sale of not to exceed
$5,500,000 principal amount of the General Obligation Public Improvement Bond Anticipation
Notes, Series 2005 (the "Notes"), pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the
Authorizing Resolution, and to delegate to the City Manager and the Director of Finance certain
powers with respect to the sale and the determination of the details of the Notes.
489511.2 027991 RES
-2-
(c) The Council has further determined to authorize the sale of not to exceed
$5,500,000 principal amount of the General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds (the
"Bonds"), in anticipation of which the Notes are being issued, pursuant to and in accordance
with the provisions of the Authorizing Resolution, and to delegate to the City Manager and the
Director of Finance certain powers with respect to the sale and the determination of the details of
the Bonds.
SECTION 2. (a) The Notes shall be sold at negotiated sale on such date and at
such price as shall be determined by the City Manager and the Director of Finance. The City
Manager and the Director of Finance, without further action of this Council, (i) are hereby
authorized to determine the dated date of the Notes, the date the Notes shall mature, the dates on
which interest on the Notes shall be payable, the aggregate principal amount of the Notes and the
principal amount of the Notes maturing in each year, and (ii) are hereby further authorized to sell
the Notes at negotiated sale to such purchaser or purchasers as shall be selected by the City
Manager and the Director of Finance and to fix the rates of interest to be borne by the Notes of
each maturity; provided, however, in no event shall the tree interest cost with respect to the
Notes exceed seven percent (7.00%). The City Manager and the Director of Finance are hereby
authorized to determine the provisions relating to the redemption of the Bonds upon the advice
of the City's financial advisor; provided, however, in no event shall any redemption premium
payable by the City exceed two percent (2.00%).
(b) The Notes shall be issued in accordance with the provisions of the
Authorizing Resolution and this Resolution.
(c) All actions and proceedings heretofore taken by this Council, the City
Manager, the Director of Finance and the other officers, employees, agents and attorneys of and
for the City in connection with the issuance and sale of the Notes are hereby ratified and
confirmed.
SECTION 3. (a) The Bonds shall be sold at competitive or negotiated sale on
such date and at such price as shall be determined by the City Manager and the Director of
Finance. The City Manager and the Director of Finance, without further action of this Council,
(i) are hereby authorized to determine the dated date of the Bonds, the date the Bonds shall
mature, the dates on which interest on the Bonds shall be payable, the aggregate principal
amount of the Bonds and the principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, and (ii) are
hereby further authorized to sell the Bonds at negotiated sale to such purchaser or purchasers as
shall be selected by the City Manager and the Director of Finance and to fix the rates of interest
to be borne by the Bonds of each maturity; provided, however, in no event shall the tree interest
cost with respect to the Bonds exceed seven percent (7.00%). The City Manager and the
Director of Finance are hereby authorized to determine the provisions relating to the redemption
of the Bonds upon the advice of the City's financial advisor;provided, however, in no event shall
any redemption premium payable by the City exceed two percent (2.00%).
(b) The Bonds shall be issued in accordance with the provisions of the
Authorizing Resolution and this Resolution.
(c) All actions and proceedings heretofore taken by this Council, the City
Manager, the Director of Finance and the other officers, employees, agents and attorneys of and
489511.2027991RES
-3-
for the City in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds are hereby ratified and
confirmed.
SECTION 4. (a) In the case of Notes and the Bonds issued hereunder the
interest on which is contemplated to be excluded fi.om gross income for purposes of federal
income taxation, the City covenants and agrees to comply with the provisions of Sections 103
and 141-150 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code") and the applicable Treasury
Regulations promulgated thereunder throughout the term of the Notes and the Bonds.
(b) (i) On March 19, 2001, the Council adopted Resolution No. 35248-
031901 approving the Redevelopment Plan, dated February 5, 2001 (the "Redevelopment
Plan"), prepared by the Authority.
(ii) The Notes and the Bonds may be issued as "qualified
redevelopment bonds" pursuant to the provisions of Section 144(c) of the Code and the Treasury
Regulations promulgated thereunder.
(iii) Under the provisions of the Code, in particular Section 147(t') of
the Code, the issuance of the Notes and the Bonds as qualified redevelopment bonds must be
approved by an "applicable elected representative" of the City after a public hearing following
reasonable public notice.
(iv) In accordance with the provisions of Section 147(0 of the Code
and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder, a notice of public hearing was published
in "The Roanoke Times" on March 1, 2004 and on March 8, 2004 giving notice that a public
hearing on the proposed issuance of the Bonds would be held by the Council on March 15, 2004
at 7:00 P.M., local time, in the Council Chamber, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215
Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011.
(v) The public hearing on the proposed issuance of the Notes and the
Bonds was held by the Council at the time and place set forth in the notice of public hearing
referred to in clause (iv).
(vi) The Council as an "applicable elected representative" of the City
desires to approve the issuance of the Notes and the Bonds for purposes of Section 147(f) of the
Code.
(c) In accordance with the provisions of Section 144(c) of the Code, the
Council hereby ratifies its approval and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and hereby
designates the Project Area as a "designated blighted area" of the City.
(d) In accordance with the provisions of Section 147(0 of the Code, the
Council as an "applicable elected representative" of the City hereby approves the issuance of the
Notes and the Bonds.
SECTION5. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of this
Resolution, certified by such City Clerk to be a true copy hereof, with the Circuit Court of the
489511.2 027991 RES
-4-
City of Roanoke, Virginia, all in accordance with Section 15.2-2607 of the Code of Virginia,
1950.
SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions and proceedings in conflict herewith
are, to the extent of such conflict, repealed.
ATTEST:
~City Clerk.
489511.2 027991 RES
JESSE A. HALL
Director of Finance
crnail: jesse halI(~ci.roanoke .va.u s
December 19, 2005
CITY OF ROANOKE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 46l
P.O. Box 1220
Roanoke, Virginia 24006-1220
Telephone: (540) 853-2821
Fax: (540) 853-6142
ANN H. SHAWVER
Deputy Director
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
C. Nelson Harris, Mayor
Beverly T Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor
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: Authorization to Issue Bond Anticipation Notes
City Council adopted Resolution 36643 in March 2004 authorizing the issuance of
$5,500,000 of Qualified Redevelopment Bonds to fund property acquisition in the
South Jefferson redevelopment project. These bonds will be included in our upcoming
bond sale, to be closed on February 8, 2006; These funds were expended on
December 15, 2005 and will be reimbursed from bond proceeds. As we have
previously discussed with Council, we have planned to issue up to $15,000,000 in
Bond Anticipation Notes (BANS) to provide cash flow and liquidity for projects included
in the upcoming bond issue. The resolution authorizing issuance of these particular
bonds didn't include authorization to issue BANS, if needed, as is typically included in
our bond resolutions.
We recommend City Council adopt the accompanying resolution authorizing the
Director of Finance and City Manager to issue up to $5,500,000 in Bond Anticipation
Notes to be reimbursed from bond proceeds from the upcoming bond sale.
Sincerely,
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
JAH:ca
C:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
c ry., or o_.. OKe
Off~ce of the C~ty Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
December 22, 2005
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
File #60-467
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am attaching copy of Budget Ordinance No. 37274-121905 appropriating funds
for the Hurt Park Community Learning Center, 2006 Roanoke Care Connection
Clinic Program, and 2006 Western Virginia Regional Science Fair, and amending
and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 School Fund Appropriations.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, December 19, 2005, and is in
full force and effect upon its passage.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Attachment
Jesse A. Hall
December 22, 2005
Page 2
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Kathy G. Stockburger, Chair Roanoke City School Board, 2506 Cornwallis
Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Cindy H. Lee, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board, P. O. Box 13145,
Roanoke, Virginia 24031
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 19th day of December, 2005.
No. 37274-121905.
AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the Hurt Park Community Learning Center,
2006 Roanoke Care Connection Clinic program, and 2006 Western Virginia Regional Science
Fair, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 School 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 School Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained to read and provide as follows:
Appropriations
Program Director
Activity Assistants
Media Assistant
Retiree Health Credit
Social Security
Virginia Retirement
Health Insurance
Indirect Costs
Contracted Services
Conference Travel
Supplies
Educational Coordinators
Retiree Health Credit
Social Security
Virginia Retirement
Health Insurance
Indirect Costs
Security Guards
Social Security
Contracted Services
Travel
Membership Fees
Instructional Supplies
Revenues
Federal Grant Receipts
Federal Grant Receipts
Local Match
Fees
030-062-6342-6000-0124
030-062-6342-6000-0141
030-062-6342-6000-0151
030-062-6342-6000-0200
030-062-6342-6000-0201
030-062-6342-6000-0202
030-062-6342-6000-0204
030-062-6342-6000-0212
030-062-6342-6000-0313
030-062-6342-6000-0554
030-062-6342-6000-0614
030-062-6511-6554-0138
030-062-6511-6554-0200
030-062-6511-6554-0201
030-062-6511-6554-0202
030-062-6511-6554-0204
030-062-6511-6554-0212
030-062-6890-6311;0195
030-062-6890-6311-0201
030-062-6890-6311-0313
030-062-6890-6311-0554
030-062-6890-6311-0581
030-062-6890-6311-0614
030-062-6342-1102
030-062-6511-1102
030-062-6890-1101
030-062-6890-1103.
42,000
52,080
11,145
231
8,050
3,036
4,880
2,010
36,950
1,723
11,238
35,991
198
2,753
4,182
5,363
1,800
279
21
2,685
4,225
500
54O
173,343
50,287
2,000
6,250
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this
ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
City Clerk.
City of Roanoke
School Board
P.O. Box 13145, Roanoke VA 24031 · 540-853-2381 · FAX 540-853-2951
Kathy G. Stockburge~
Cha~
David B. Trinkle, M.D.,
Vice £ha/r
Jason E. Bingham
David B. Carson
William H. Lindsey
Alvin L. Nash
Courtney A. Penn
Marvin ]% Thompson,
Superintendent
Cindy H. Lee,
£/erk of the Board
December 19, 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
December 13, the Board respectfully requests City Council to
appropriate the following funds:
· $173,343.00 for the Hurt Park Community Learning Center.
The 21st Century Community Learning Center federal grant
will address the critical attendance, academic, and parental
involvement needs of the Hurt Park Community Learning
Center.
· $50,287.00 for the 2005-06 Roanoke Care Connection Clinic
program to provide funds for the salary and expenses of the
educational coordinator. The program will be one hundred
percent reimbursed by State funds.
· $8,250.00 for the 2006 Western Virginia Regional Science Fair
being hosted by Roanoke City. Participating school districts
and corporate and individual contributions will contribute
toward the cost of the fair, with a local match cost to Roanoke
City Schools in the amount of $2,000.00.
Members of Council
Page 2
December 19, 2005
The School Board thanks you for your approval of the
appropriation requests.
Sincerely,
·
~ee, 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: jesse hall~ci.roanoke.va us
December 19, 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.roanokc.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 December 13, the Board has
requested City Council to appropriate the following funds:
· $173,343 for the Hurt Park Community Learning Center. The 21" Century
Community Learning Center federal grant will address the critical attendance,
academic, and parental involvement needs of the Hurt Park Community Learning
Center.
· $50,287 for the 2005-06 Roanoke Care Connection Clinic program to provide funds
for the salary and expenses of the educational coordinator. The program will be one
hundred percent reimbursed by State funds.
· $8,250 for the 2006 Western Virginia Regional Science Fair being hosted by Roanoke
City. Participating school districts and corporate and individual contributions will
contribute toward the cost of the fair, with a local match cost to Roanoke City Schools
in the amount of $2,000.
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
Department Accomplishments for 2005
Housing & Neighborhood Services
Leadership College Programs
Housing and Neighborhood Services sponsored two (2) leadership College
sessions during 2005. The Leadership College meets one evening a week for three
hours over an eight (8) week period. This interactive educational program helps citizens
understand city operations and procedures, learn how to access these services, assist
them in becoming leaders and resoumes in their neighborhoods by incorporating
conflict resolution and leadership building skills, and provide them the tools for
improving the quality of life in their neighborhoods. The spring session graduated 23
out of 24 registrants. The fall session graduated 17 out of 22 original registrants. All
City Departments collaborate in this program by presenting on their respective
Departmental activities.
City Neighborhood Organizations Online
With help from the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Services, all
neighborhood organizations in the city now have their own web pages on the internet.
Created by Housing and Neighborhood Services staff, each web page provides a brief
overview of the neighborhood the organization represents, coupled with information
regarding the neighborhood organization's officers and contact information, and meeting
time, date, and place.
Web pages will enable each neighborhood organization to build capacity by
providing information to residents and nonresidents. Future plans call for each
neighborhood organization's website to be a linked to the city's Internet community
portal. Access the Web page by visiting www.roanokeva.,qov/neighborhoodlinks.
1741 Inoperable Vehicles
Code Compliance cited 1741 inoperable vehicles and towed 217 vehicles that
were not brought into compliance. A vehicle is deemed to be "inoperable" if it is in
public view on private property and is either (1) not in operating condition or (2) does not
have current license plates and/or inspection tags.
Welcome Roanoke
Initiated in June 2004, the Welcome Roanoke program continues to welcome
newcomers to the city as well as citizens relocating within the city. To date, 1662
informational packets have been mailed to citizens who have purchased homes in the
city. These packets contain information that assists new residents in becoming
acquainted with our community and with the services provided by the city. As a result of
the program, Housing and Neighborhood Services staff has received 14 calls from
newcomers requesting their choice of either a star-shaped wicker basket or coffee mug
imprinted with the Roanoke brand, each containing a small packet of H&C coffee and
package of Virginia peanuts.
The program's goals are to create a positive city image with new residents,
improve opportunities to increase new residents' awareness and knowledge of city
operations and services, engage new citizens as municipal volunteers for city programs
and initiatives, and provide greater access to new citizens by neighborhood organization
leaders and Housing and Neighborhood Services staff.
Neighborhood Month 2005
During May 2005, Housing and Neighborhood Services sponsored the city's first
Neighborhood Month celebration. Neighborhood Month provided an opportunity for
neighborhood organizations to showcase their neighborhoods to others, and allowed
opportunities for neighbors to come together to celebrate their neighborhood. Eight (8)
city neighborhood organizations participated in the month-long event, sponsoring a
variety of activities that included how to research the history of a historic house, a 24-
block yard sale, flea markets, cookouts, a Safety Education Day, and block parties.
Weed and Trash Abatement
Code Compliance inspectors cited 1510 properties for weed and trash violations.
Weeds over 10" tall violate City Code. 1112 Owners corrected the problem when cited.
The City's contractors mowed 398 non-compliant properties - the most in the
Department's history.
Public Works
Bench stren,qth in middle manaqement. Middle managers and front-line supervisors in
Public Works continue to grow through participation in the Leadership Development
Initiative (LDI) and the Fundamentals of Leadership Excellence (FLE) programs,
thereby enabling them to step up when positions are vacant and make sure the job gets
done. Growth is further being demonstrated through presentations to City Council,
Leadership Team, Leadership College, etc. and day-to-day leadership experience in
Public Works programs and operations.
Street calming. The successful completion of three projects, which have already
demonstrated their benefit in terms of reduced speed, reduced accidents and improved
pedestrian conditions.
a) Jamison / Bullitt: reduced average vehicle speeds by 5 to 6 mph without
increasing travel time
b) Williamson Road: reduced rear-end accident rate by 77 percent
c) Grandin Road: reduced crossing distance for mid-block pedestrian crossing from
55 feet down to 22 feet.
Department of Management and Budget
Development of a Nei.qhborhood Revitalization Strate.qy Area Plan for use of CDBG
funds in the Gainsboro Neighborhood. This plan will broaden the reach of CDBG funds
beyond the use of only Iow-moderate income benefit.
The Financial Performance of the City of Roanoke in FY 2004-05 resulted in funding in
the amount of approximately $2 million being available for Capital Maintenance and
Equipment Replacement.
Planning
Adoption of a New Zoning Ordinance. On Dec. 5, City Council adopted a new zoning
ordinance and accompanying zoning map for the City. The new ordinance represents a
3-1/2 year effort by the Department of Planning Building and Economic Development to
develop a zoning ordinance, which would be consistent with the city's Vision 2001/2020
Comprehensive Plan. The process to develop the new ordinance included a citizen-
based Steering Committee, stakeholder focus group sessions, city-wide open houses,
on-line posting of draft ordinances and draft zoning maps, meetings with numerous civic
and neighborhood organizations as well as individual property owners, the publishing of
an 8-page legal advertisement supplement in The Roanoke Times, individual
notification by first class mail to all owners of the approximately 44,000 parcels of real
estate in the city, a Planning Commission public hearing followed by 15 Planning
Commission work sessions, and a City Council public hearing.
Five new neiRhborhood plans were adopted during 2005. A major milestone was
reached with the adoption of the Garden City Neighborhood Plan; it culminated a five-
year effort to ensure that each of Roanoke's neighborhoods has a plan. That work
resulted in 26 plans covering 49 neighborhoods.
Public Libraries
Library Study. The Library just completed the Comprehensive Library Study. Bill Hidell
and Associates, Consultants presented a final recommendation report in October. This
study offers recommendations on staffing, facilities, collections, technology and
programs. Staff will be moving forward in the next few months on beginning to
implement the plan.
Staffin,q. In July of 2004 primarily because of retirements there were 9 key positions
open. All positions that were vacant then are now filled with new, enthusiastic and
experienced librarians. These positions were: Head of Youth Services, Law branch,
Jackson Park branch, Virginia Room, Melrose Branch, Youth Assistant II, Raleigh Court
Branch, Virginia Room Librarian, Library Associate in Virginia Room. A reclass of
positions in July of 2004 helped to make this accomplishment possible. There is a
shortage of Librarians nationally and this helped Roanoke be more competitive in this
process.
Police Department
Dru,q dealers off the street. During 2005 the Police department was very active with
investigations, arrests, and the removal of drug dealers from our community. This year
focus was placed on the mid and upper level layers of the drug dealing community. As a
result of this effort, 13 high-level drug dealers were arrested. As a part of these
investigations investigators seized approximately $1,900,000 (street value) of cocaine.
Also seized was approximately $400,000 in currency.
Fully staffed. At the start of 2005, the police department was understaffed by
approximately 14% or 35 officer positions. In January, after the implementation of the
new pay classification system, recruitment increased tremendously. At the close of
2005, the police department is fully staffed and placing people in over hire status so that
we will be able to keep our full compliment of officers on the street, fighting crime.
Cadet Program. This cooperative program between the police department and parks
and recreation has been a resounding success. We have employed 5 college students
in the program already; one of these is now in the police academy. We are about to hire
an additional 8 cadets. During this year the Cadets have worked at several valuable
community functions, conducted over 1500 park inspections, handled over 130 traffic
control incidents, assisted over 120 motorists and relieved officers from non law
enforcement duties over 340 times. As a result of this program, we have provided extra
security in our parks and allowed our police officers to conduct the more serious
business of law enforcement while still providing the public service that the community
expects and deserves.
Civic Center Accomplishments
Event Business Manager Software (EBMS)
Installation, training, and implementation of the Civic Center's EBMS system has been
completed. Sales and Marketing, Event Services, Maintenance, Operations and
Housekeeping staff have been trained to use the system. The purpose of this program
is to increase efficiency and accountability. EBMS is a comprehensive, seamlessly
integrated-yet modular-business management system covering all aspects of venue
and event management. In addition the Civic Center staff can create notes, checklists,
follow-up traces (reminders), correspondences, spreadsheets, and more. As technology
expands, the system can be upgraded since it is comprised of modular programs. Also,
additional modules may be added in the future. The latest upgrade 15.1 has been
installed through the Department of Technology. EBMS is the complete management
solution for:
· Marketing and Contract Management
· Booking
· Contracts (imported from Microsoft Word application)
· Event Planning
· Work Orders
· Inventory
· Facility Maintenance
· Accounting
o Receivables
o Payables
o Purchasing
o General Ledger
Ticketing Technoloqy
Tickets.com has extended its ticketing agreement with the Civic Center. Included in the
agreement is the integration of the SKIDATA's new handshake wireless, web-based
access control system. It is designed to allow ticket-takers to authenticate and rapidly
process large patron volumes. The Roanoke Civic Center is the first Tickets.corn venue
to use this technology. The handshake technology will also help reduce fraudulent
tickets. In addition, this technology offers Tickets@ Home and other digital functionality.
This system will enable the Civic Center to monitor attendance and track guests in real
time. To date, this new system has been used very successfully in the Theatre for the
"Nutcracker" and "Full Monty." Patron access to the Coliseum has doubled in speed
and was very successful for the near sellout for the "Brad Paisley Concert." The staff,
especially ticket-takers, wishes that the system had been in place long ago.
Wireless Internet
An additional technological addition to the Civic Center is wireless internet access for
event promoters. Through the assistance and expertise of DoT staff, particularly Kevin
Wang and Mark Deardoff, the Civic Center can now offer wireless internet in the arena,
dressing rooms, production offices, media room, and Exhibit Hall. Plans are being
made to expand access to the Theatre. Although Wi-Fi is free of charge in the
downtown area, the Civic Center is using this feature as a revenue soume. However,
based on surveys of other venues, there are some who do not charge a fee and others
that charge either by the day, hour, or a flat fee. Wireless access is less costly for the
shows than DSL installation for each event that requires internet access. The wireless
access fee will help amortize the expense of the purchase and installation of the
system. The event promoters and the show staff are very excited about this new
convenience. This is definitely a customer service plus.
Parks and Recreation
Park Ran.qer Pro.qram
To increase safety, customer service and communication at public venues throughout
the city, the Police Cadet (Park Ranger) program was begun in 2004. The Cadet
program, under the management of the Police Department, is primarily designed to
assist their department whenever their regular officers are not available. Cadets are
also available to assist the Parks and Recreation Department for security reasons at
City parks, events and other special occasions. Since its inception, the Cadets have
performed over 1,400 park and facility inspections, and attended 24 events.
Mill Mountain Park Manaqement Plan
The Mill Mountain Land Use Plan was an exemise in green infrastructure analysis
requested and lead by the Mill Mountain Advisory Board. Through our partnership with
the School of Landscape Amhitecture at Virginia Tech, Parks and Recreation was able
to bring the amhives of previous planning efforts of the City and fuse them with current
natural resource science in the form of GIS data-layering, resulting in 5 new
management zones for Roanoke's park and natural resoume system. These
management zones will now provide the City with a definitive avenue and nexus for
decades of future holistic decision-making for Roanoke's premier urban park.
Preston Center
The newly renovated Center serves youth, intergeneretional programs, and community
events. The Center has state of the art stereo and projection systems, a fully equipped
youth recreation area with video games, a lounge setting, and computer room. The
Center was also made more ADA accessible with improvements to the walkway,
driveway, and parking areas.
Fall Waterways Cleanup
Approximately 350 volunteers and City employees participated in the Fall Waterways
Cleanup on October 1,2005. Endorsed by the City Manager and City Council, this joint
partnership involved numerous City of Roanoke departments, the Clean Valley Council,
Explore Park, the Upper Roanoke River Roundtable, Save Our Streams, and local
businesses. More than 24 tons of trash was collected through this initiative. Three
similar volunteer events are already planned for 2006.
Social Services
Eli.qibility Certification pro.qram
The Eligibility Certification program was developed by our staff in partnership with the
Radford University School of Social Work. Staff at the worker level were the primary
movers of this project. The courses cover a variety of skills that workers doing eligibility
work require and has a practice component as well. To our knowledge this is the only
such program in Virginia. Our first cohort graduated last spring and a second class is
ongoing. We believe that this is a major step in recognizing this type of work as a
distinct practice area,
Hurt Park Neighborhood Team
The Hurt Park Neighborhood Team is a pilot project for us. The team is composed of
eligibility and employment services workers who are assigned to handle cases in the
Hurt Park area. In addition they have done outreach and are making contacts with
community groups to find ways to better serve the residents.
Technology
Reclaimed #1 Spot as Top Digital City
The City's Department of Technology was ranked first in the United States
among of cities with a population between 75,000-125,000 by the Center for Digital
Government for the 4th time in 5 years. Roanoke earned the awarded based on the
city's high respected web site and GIS, eChecks on-line billing, Community Portal, and
the Downtown Wi-Fi.
New Budqet Prep System
Rather than purchasing an expensive software package, the Department of
Management and Budget and DoT teamed up to design and develop an in house
solution based on software provided at no cost by Virginia Beach. The cost savings to
the city over five years in projected to be at least $400K.
Public Safety Improvements
Police Records and Jail Management Systems now provide full records
interoperability, allowing sharing of data between the Police and Sheriff's Office,
including mugshot images. Both systems were installed using grant funding and will
provide an annual savings in support costs of $54,898.
In-car digital video cameras and the mobil computers in six new "take home"
Police patrol vehicles now interface, allowing for far greater functionality for insuring for
accurate incident reporting.
City Awarded Radio Interoperability Grants
The city was awarded a $65K grant in the spring to equip the Police Department's
Mobile Command Center with a radio infrastructure that will allow responders to utilize
their radios regardless of radio, radio system, or frequency when on the site of the
Mobile Command Center during an event.
The city was awarded a $1.2M grant on behalf of the Roanoke Metropolitan
Statistical Area (including Roanoke, Roanoke County, Salem, Craig County, Botetourt
County, and Franklin County) to implement a solution that will allow that will allow
responders throughout the MSA to communicate via radios regardless of the radio,
radio system or frequency.
Office of Communications
Web site
The City-County Communications and Marketing Association (3CMA) selected the city's
Web site for an Award of Excellence. In addition, The Communicator Awards gave the
site an Honorable Mention. And the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA)--Blue
Ridge Chapter recognized our Web site development with an Honorable Mention.
PLAY.
PLAY: The User's Guide to Roanoke Parks and Recreation received an Award of
Excellence from 3CMA, and an Honorable Mention from The Communicator Awards.
Municipal Calendar
For the first time, this year the Public Relations Society of America--Blue Ridge
Chapter selected Roanoke's Municipal Calendar as a Summit Award winner.
Roanoke Citizen ma,qazine
The Communicator Awards chose Roanoke Citizen magazine for an Award of
Distinction and the Public Relations Society of America --Blue Ridge Chapter gave it an
Honorable Mention.
Human Resources
Health Care Program
Human Resources played a key role in Roanoke's Health Care Program earning a
Program Excellence Award for Innovations in Local Government Management from the
International City/County Management Association. The city was honored for its
management of the high costs of health care.
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 @ ¢i.roanoke.va.us
December 22, 2005
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
File #514
Mr. and Mrs. Fielden Bayne
4701 Arcadia Drive, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bayne:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 37275-121905 permanently vacating,
discontinuing and closing a portion of Laura Road, N. W., located adjacent to
Official Tax Nos. 6:150604, 6:150608, 6150801, and 6:150804.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, December :19, 2005, and is in
full force and effect upon its passage.
MFP:ew
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Attachment
pc:
Ms. Christa Depas, 5502 Green Ridge Road, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24019
Ms. Patricia Keller-Reed, 5458 Cove Road, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 240:19
Mr. and Mrs. Watson Johnson, 4629 Arcadia Drive, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24019
Richard A. Rife, Chair, City Planning Commission, :1326 Grandin Road, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 240:15
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Rolanda 13. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Susan $. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Philip C. $chirmer, City Engineer
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 19th day of December, 2005.
No. 37275-121905.
AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing a certain public right-of-
way in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as more particularly described hereinafter; and dispensing with
the second reading by title of this ordinance.
WHEREAS, Fielden and Mary Bayne filed an application to the Council of the City of
Roanoke, Virginia ("City Council"), in accordance with law, requesting City Council to permanently
vacate, discontinue and close the public right-of-way described hereinafter;
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, after giving proper notice to all concerned as
required by {}30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and after having conducted a
public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to Council;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on such application by City Council on December 19,
2005, after due and timely notice thereof as required by {}30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979),
as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were afforded an opportunity to be
heard on such application;
WHEREAS, it appearing fi.om the foregoing that the land proprietors affected by the
requested closing of the subject public right-of-way have been properly notified; and
WHEREAS, fi.om all of the foregoing, City Council considers that no inconvenience will
result to any individual or to the public fi.om permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing such
public right-of-way.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, that the
public right-of-way situate in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and more particularly described as
follows:
An approximate 50' x 240' portion of Laura Road, N.W., adjacent to parcels bearing
Official Tax Nos. 6150604, 6150608, 6150801 and 6150804
be, and is hereby permanently vacated, discontinued and closed, and that all right and interest of the
public in and to the same be, and hereby is, released insofar as City Council is empowered so to do
with respect to the closed portion of the right-of-way, reserving however, to the City of Roanoke and
any utility company, including, specifically, without limitation, providers to or for the public of cable
television, electricity, natural gas or telephone service, an easement for sewer and water mains,
television cable, electric wires, gas lines, telephone lines, and related facilities that may now be
located in or across such public right-of-way, together with the right of ingress and egress for the
maintenance or replacement of such lines, mains or utilities, such right to include the right to
remove, without the payment of compensation or damages of any kind to the owner, any
landscaping, fences, shrubbery, structure or any other encroachments on or over the easement wh/ch
impede access for maintenance or replacement purposes at the time such work is undertaken; such
easement or easements to terminate upon the later abandonment of use or permanent removal from
the above-described public right-of-way of any such municipal installation or other utility or facility
by the owner thereof.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the applicant shall submit to the Subdivision Agent,
receive all required approvals of, and record with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of
Roanoke, a subdivision plat, with such plat combining all properties which would otherwise be
landlocked by the requested closure, or otherwise disposing of the land within the right-of-way to be
vacated in a manner consistent with law, and in a manner which divides the vacated right-of-way
evenly between the four (4) aforereferenced adjacent parcels, and combines such vacated right-of-
2
way with such four adjacent parcels, such resulting parcels not to be further subdivided or combined,
and retaining appropriate easements, together with the right of ingress and egress over the same, for
the installation and maintenance of any and all existing utilities that may be located within the right-
of-way~
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the applicant shall, upon meeting all other conditions to
the granting of the application, deliver to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, a certified copy of this ordinance for recordation where deeds are recorded in such Clerk's
Office, indexing the same in the name of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as Grantor, and in the name
of the Petitioner, and the names of any other parties in interest who may so request, as Grantees, and
pay such fees and charges as are required by the Clerk to effect such recordation.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the applicant shall, upon a certified copy of this
ordinance being recorded by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, where
deeds are recorded in such Clerk's Office, file with the City Engineer for the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, the Clerk's receipt, demonstrating that such recordation has occurred.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if the above conditions have not been met within a
period of twelve (12) months from the date of the adoption of this ordinance, then such ordinance
shall be null and void with no further action by City Council being necessary.
BE IT FINALLY ORDAINED that pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City
Charter, the second reading of th/s 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
December 19, 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:
Request from Fielden and Mary Bayne to permanently vacate,
discontinue and close a portion of Laura Road, N.W.,
adjacent to parcels bearing Official Tax Nos. 6150604,
6150608, 6150801 and 6150804.
Planning Commission Action:
Planning Commission public hearing was held on Thursday, November
17,2005. Mr. Bayne presented his request. There was no audience comment.
By a vote of 6-0 (Mr. Chrisman absent), the Commission recommended that
Council approve the closure application.
Background:
The petitioners request vacation of an approximately 12,000 square foot
portion of Laura Road, N.W. The petitioner owns Official Tax No. 6150608. The
owners of Official Tax Nos. 6150604, 6150608, and 6150804 have agreed to
the petition and will split the property evenly with the petitioner if this request
is approved.
A map provided by the petitioner shows that Laura Road between Arcadia
Drive and Cove Road was "closed but not vacated by Roanoke County
Supervisor" on April 25, 1972. The City Attorney advised that since the City tax
map shows this portion of Laura Road as a paper street that it could only be
acquired through this petition and subsequent plat recordation. The City
annexed this'land from Roanoke County in 1976.
Mr. Talevi asked staff to reword the first condition (A) of the staff report
so as to state that the vacated right -of-way would be divided evenly between
the four property owners. Staff replied that such would be feasible and that the
intention of the condition is to ensure that the division of the property would
not allow one or two of the property owners to acquire a lot that a primary
dwelling could be built upon.
Mr. Marietta asked staff if the vacation could result in any additional
building on any of the four lots. Staff replied that there could be no additional
primary structures due to the single-family zoning, and that the only potential
building expansion would be in the form of accessory structures, which are
limited to 40% of the size of the primary structure.
Considerations:
The parcels adjoining the subject portion of Laura Road are all zoned RS-
3, Residential Single-Family District, and the land use of the petitioners' and
the surrounding properties is predominantly single-family residential.
Staff received comments from AEP, Roanoke Gas Company, Verizon, and
the Western Virginia Water Authority. All of these utility companies have
facilities in the subject portion of Laura Road and will need to retain
easements. The City Traffic Engineer advised that the request would not pose
any transportation issues.
The petitioner has a swimming pool and a fence that is encroaching into
the subject portion of Laura Road. Vacation of this portion of Laura Road would
extend the petitioners' property line enough to eliminate the encroachment. A
driveway from Green Ridge and Cove Roads to Official Tax No. 6150801 is also
in the subject portion of Laura Road.
The Department of Real Estate Valuation estimated the value of the
portion of right-of-way at $18,500. Staff advised the petitioner that if he were
to solely acquire the subject portion of Laura Road that staff's recommendation
would be to sell the property at its assessed value. The minimum lot size in the
RS-3 zoning district is 5,000 square feet. As a condition of vacation, the
petitioner should be requested to split the vacated right-of-way between the
adjoining property owners. This condition would then render the divided,
vacated right-of-way as having limited value as compared to its value in its
current configuration.
Recommendation:
By a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
petitioner's request to vacate, discontinue and close the subject portion of
Laura Road, N.W., subject to the conditions listed below and further
recommends that the petitioners not be charged for this property provided that
a plat is recorded that will divide the subject portion of right~of-way between
the owners of Official Tax Nos. 6150604, 6150608, 6] 50801 and 6150804.
The applicant shall submit a subdivision plat to the Agent for
the Planning Commission, receive all required approvals of, and
record the plat with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of
Roanoke. Said plat shall combine all properties which would
otherwise dispose of the land within the right of way to be
vacated in a manner consistent with law, and retain appropriate
easements for the installation and maintenance of any and all
existing utilities that may be located within the right-of-way,
including the right of ingress and egress. Said plat will divide
the vacated righbof-way evenly between the adjoining property
owners.
Upon meeting all other conditions to the granting of th e
application, the applicant shall deliver a certified copy of this
ordinance for recordation to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Roanoke, Virginia, indexing the same in the name of the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, as Grantor, and in the name of the petitio her,
and the names of any other parties in interest who may so
request, as Grantees. The applicant shall pay such fees and
charges as are required by the Clerk to effect such recordation.
Upon recording a certified copy of this ordinance with the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, the
applicant shall file with the Engineer for the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, the Clerk's receipt, demonstrating that such
recordation has occurred.
If the above conditions have not been met within a period of
one year from the date of adoption of this ordinance, then said
ordinance shall be null and void with no further action by City
Council being necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard A. Rife, Chairman
Roanoke City Planning Commission
CC:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
RolandaJohnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Petitioner
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
IN RE: )
Application of Fielden and )
Mary Bayne for vacation )
of a portion of Laura Road, NW )
1st AMENDED APPLICATION
for VACATING, DISCONTINUING AND
CLOSING OF A PORTION OF
LAURA ROAD, NW
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL:
Fielden Bayne apply to have an approximately 50' x 240' portion of Laura
Road, N.W., in the City of Roanoke, Virginia permanently vacated, discontinued,
and closed, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2 - 2005 and Section 30-14
Code of the City of Roanoke (1979) as amended. This portion of Laura Road,
N.W., is more particularly described on the map attached and as follows:
From the southeastern corner of Official Tax No.6150608 extending in a
northwesterly direction approximately 240' to the northeastern corner of Official
Tax No.6150604, extending approximately 50' to the northwestern corner of
Official Tax No.6150801, extending in a southeasterly direction approximately
240' to the southwestern corner of Official Tax No.6150804, and extending
approximately 50' in a southwesterly direction to its point of odgin.
The petitioner states that the grounds for this application are as follows: all
four property owners adjoining the subject portion of Laura Road, N.W., are in
agreement with this petition; the property to be vacated is presently beings used
as a driveway and yard space by the adjoining property owners; and the
petitioners and adjoining property owners desire to use the property as additional
yard space.
Wherefore, the petitioner respectfully requests that the above -described
portion of Laura Road, N.W. to be vacated by the Council of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.2 -2006 and Section 30-14
Code of the City of Roanoke, Virginia (1979) as amended.
Respectfully submitted,
LIST OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
Official Tax No. &
Street Address Name of Property Owner Mailing Address
6150608 4701 Arcadia Drive,NW
4701 Arcadia Fielden and Mary Bayne Roanoke, VA 24019
Drive, NW
6150604 5502 Green Ridge Road, NW
5502 Green Ridge Christa Depas Roanoke, VA 24019
Road, NW
6150801 5458 Cove Road, NW
5458 Cove Road, Patricia Keller-Reed Roanoke, VA 24019
NW
6150804 4629 Arcadia Drive, NW
4629 Arcadia Watson and Mary Johnson Roanoke, VA 24
Drive, NW
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, xr~rginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us -
December 6, 2005
File #514
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clcrk
Mr. and Mrs. Fielden Bayne
4701 Arcadia Drive, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bayne:
Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City
of Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, I have advertised a public hearing for
Monday, December 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter
may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, on the request of Fielden and
Mary Bayne, that a portion of Laura Road, N. W., located adjacent to Official Tax
Nos. 6150604, 6150608, 6150801, and 6150804, be permanently vacated,
discontinued and closed.
For your information, I am enclosing copy of a report of the City Planning
Commission and a notice of public hearing. Please review the documents and if
you have questions, you may contact Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney, at
540-853-2431. Questions with regard to the City Planning Commission report
should be directed to the Department of Planning, Building and Development at
540-853-1730.
It will be necessary for you, or your representative, to be present at the
December 19 public hearing. Failure to appear could result in a deferral of the
matter until a later date.
MFP:ew
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
L:\CLERKXDATA\CKEWI~Public HearingsLOublic Hearings 2005XDec 05~Attomeys and Adjoining Properly Owners.doc
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-I145
E-mail: ¢lerk@ci.roanoke.va.us-
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
December 6, 2005
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
File #514
Ms. Christa Depas
5502 Green Ridge Road, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Ms. Patricia Keller-Reed
5458 Cove Road, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Mr. and Mrs. Watson Johnson
4629 Arcadia Drive, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City
of Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, I have advertised a public hearing for
Monday, December 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter
may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, on the request of Fielden and
Mary Bayne, that a portion of Laura Road, N. W., located adjacent to Official Tax
Nos. 6150604, 6150608, 6150801, and 6150804, be permanently vacated,
discontinued and closed.
The City Planning Commission is recommending approval of the request, subject
to certain conditions. If you would like to receive a copy &the report of the City
Planning Commission, please call the City Clerk's Office at 540-853-2541.
This letter is provided for your information as an interested property owner and/or
adjoining property owner. If you have questions with regard to the matter, please
call the Department of Planning, Building and Development at 540-853-1730.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parkek, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
L:\CLERK~DATA\CKEw 1 ~Public Hearings~Public Hearings 2005~De¢ 05~Attomcys and Adjoining Property Owners.doc
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
08786992
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
V~inia.~ r._ Sworn and subscribed before me this
~'--'~-r~a~e~.Decemberzzm~ z s ~z 2005. Witness my hand and
~ -Notar
PUBLISHED ON: 12/02 12/09
TOTAL COST:
FILED ON:
270.48
12/09/05
NO11CE OF PUBLIC
flEMfllG
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a Public Hearing on December 19, 2005, at
7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chamber in the Noel C.
Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., on an application to permanently abandon,
vacate, discontinue and close, to the extent the City has any legal interest in said public right-of-way,
the following public right-of-way:
An approximate 50' x 240' portion o£Laura Road, N.W., adjacent to parcels bearing
Official Tax Nos. 6150604, 6150608, 6150801 and 6150804.
A copy of this proposal is available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk,
Room 456, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. All parties in interest may appear on the above date
and be heard on the question. If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for
this public hearing, contact the City Clerk's Office, 853-2541, by Thursday, December 15, 2005.
GIVEN under my hand this 29th day of November ,2005.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
K \NOTICES/N CLOSE LAURA ROAD (BAYNE).DOC
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Friday, December 2, 2005 and Friday, December 9, 2005.
Send bill and affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
PERTAINING TO THE CLOSURE REQUEST OF:
Pt. of Laura Road, N.W., between Tax Nos. 6150804 and
6150608
)
)AFFI DAVIT
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) TO-WIT:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary
to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this
affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of
the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail on
the 28th day of October, 2005, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 17th day
of November, 2005, on the closure captioned above to the owner or agent of the
parcels listed below at their last known address:
_Tax No. Name
6150608 Petitioner
Address
6150804
6150604
6150801
Watson F. and Mary J. Johnson
Christa Depas
Patricia G. Keller
4629 Arcadia Drive, NW
Roanoke, VA 24017
5502 Green Ridge Road
Roanoke, VA 24019
5458 Cove Road, NW
Roanoke, VA 24019
MaAha Pace Franklin
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, this 28th day of October, 2005.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: ~ -c:~'- O~]
TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
PERTAINING TO THE CLOSURE REQUEST OF:
Pt. of Laura Road, N.W., between Tax Nos. 6150804 and
6150608
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
)AFFIDAVIT
)
) TO-WIT:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary
to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this
affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of
the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail on
the 20th day of September, 2005, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 20~
day of October, 2005, on the rezoning captioned above to the owner or agent of the
parcels listed below at their last known address:
Tax No.
6150608
6150804
6150604
6150801
.Name
Petitioner
Watson F. and Mary J. Johnson
Christa Depas
Patdcia G. Keller
Address
4629 Arcadia Drive, NW
Roanoke, VA 24017
5502 Green Ridge Road
Roanoke, VA 24019
5458 Cove Road, NW
Roanoke, VA 24019
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, this 20~ day of September, 2005.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY OF ROANOKE PLANNING
COMMISSION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing on Thursday, November 17, 2005, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon as the
matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C.
Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., to consider the
following:
Request from Fielden and Mary Bayne to permanently vacate,
discontinue and close an undeveloped portion of Laura Road, N.W.,
between Arcadia Drive, N.W., and Cove Road, N.W., said
portion of Laura Road being bounded by properties bearing Official
Tax Nos. 6150608, 6150804, 6150604 and 6150801.
A copy of the document is available for review in the Department of
Planning Building and Development, Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building.
All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date
and be heard on the matter. If you are a person who needs
accommodations for this hearing, please contact the Department of
Planning Building and Development at 853-1730 before 12:00 noon on
the Monday before the date of the hearing listed above.
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary
City Planning Commission
Please print in newspaper on Tuesday, November 1 and 8, 2005
Please bill:
Fielden and Mary Bayne
4701 Arcadia Drive, NW
Roanoke, VA 24019
(540) 5627! 269
Please send affidavit of publication to:
Martha P. Franklin
Department of Planning Building & Development
Room 166, Municipal Building,
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24011
(540) 853-1730
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, V'uginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@ci.roanol~¢.va.us -
October 21, 2005
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
File #514
Richard A. Rife, Chair
City Planning Commission
1326 Grandin Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear Mr. Rife:
Pursuant to Section 30-14, Procedure for altering or vacating City streets or
alleys; fees therefor, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I
am enclosing copy of an amended petition received in the City Clerk's Office on
October 21, 2005, from Fielden and Mary Bayne, requesting that approximately
a 50' by 240' portion of Laura Road, N. W., be permanently vacated,
discontinued and closed, as amended.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Enclosures
pc:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Mr. and Mrs. Fielden Bayne, 4701 Arcadia Drive, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24019
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
J. Frederick Gusler, City Planner II
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
IN RE: )
Application of Fielden and )
Mary Bayne for vacation )
of a portion of Laura Road, NW )
1st AMENDED APPLICATION
for VACATING, DISCONTINUING AND
CLOSING OF A PORTION OF
LAURA ROAD, NW
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL:
Fielden Bayne apply to have an approximately 50' x 240' portion of Laura
Road, N.W., in the City of Roanoke, Virginia permanently vacated, discontinued,
and dosed, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2- 2005 and Section 30-14
Code of the City of Roanoke (1979) as amended. This portion of Laura Road,
N.W., is more particularly described on the map attached and as follows:
From the southeastern corner of Official Tax No.6150608 extending in a
northwesterly direction approximately 240' to the northeastern corner of Official
Tax No.6150604, extending approximately 50' to the northwestern corner of
Official Tax No.6150801, extending in a southeasterly direction approximately
240' to the southwestern corner of Official Tax No.6150804, and extending
approximately 50' in a southwesterly direction to its point of origin.
The petitioner states that the grounds for this application are as follows: all
four property owners adjoining the subject portion of Laura Road, N.W., are in
agreement with this petition; the property to be vacated is presently beings used
as a ddveway and yard space by the adjoining property owners; and the
petitioners and adjoining property owners desire to use the property as additional
yard space.
Wherefore, the petitioner respectfully requests that the above -described
portion of Laura Road, N.W. to be vacated by the Council of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.2 -2006 and Section 30-14
Code of the City of Roanoke, Virginia (1979) as amended.
Respectfully submitted,
LIST OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
Official Tax No. &
Street Address Name of Property Owner Mailing Address
6150608 4701 Arcadia Drive,NW
4701 Arcadia Fielden and Mary Bayne Roanoke, VA 24019
Drive, NW
6150604 5502 Green Ridge Road, NW
5502 Green Ridge Christa Depas Roanoke, VA 24019
Road, NW
6150801 5458 Cove Road, NW
5458 Cove Road, Patricia Keller-Reed Roanoke, VA 24019
NW
6150804 4629 Arcadia Ddve, NW
4629 Arcadia Watson and Mary Johnson Roanoke, VA 24
Drive, NW
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Reanoke, Vuginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk @ ci.roanoke.va.us
August 31, 2005
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
File #514
Richard A. Rife, Chair
City Planning Commission
1326 Grandin Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear Mr. Rife:
Pursuant to Section 30-14, Procedure for altering or vacating City streets or
alleys; fees therefor, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I
am enclosing copy of an application received in the City Clerk's Office on
August 31, 2005, from Fielden and Mary Bayne, requesting that approximately
a 50' by 119' portion of Laura Road, N. W., which property is located to the east
side of the property line at 4701 Arcadia Drive, N. W., and to the west side of
the property line at 4629 Arcadia Drive, be permanently vacated, discontinued
and closed.
Sincerely,/~ .~'~' C~C~~
Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Enclosures
pc:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Mr. and Mrs. Fielden Bayne, 4701 Arcadia Drive, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24019
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
J. Frederick Gusler, City Planner II
MARY 1F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, ~r~rginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk @ ci.roanoke.va.u s
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
December 22, 2005
File #323-424
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. 37276~112105, approving the Roanoke
Library Comprehensive Study and amending Vision 2001 - 2020, the City's
Comprehensive Plan to include the Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, December 19, 2005, and is in
full force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Enclosure
pc:
Stanley G. Breakell, Chair, Roanoke Public Library Board, 3256 Allendale
Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Sheila S. Umberger, Acting Director, Roanoke City Libraries
Robert A. Clement, Jr., Neighborhood Services Coordinator, Neighborhood
Partnership
Darlene L. 13urcham, City Manager
Rolanda B. 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 19th day of December, 2005.
No. 37276-121905.
AN ORDINANCE approving the Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study, and
amending Vision 2001 - 2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Roanoke
Library Comprehensive Study; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by
title.
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study (Ihe "Study") was presented
to the Planning Commission;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 17, 2005,
and recommended adoption of the Study and amending Vision 2001 - 2020, the City's
Comprehensive Plan (the "Comprehensive Plan"), to include such Study; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of {}15.2-2204, Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, a public hearing on the proposed Study was held before this Council on
Monday, December 19, 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 Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study
and amends Vision 2001- 2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Roanoke
Library Comprehensive Study 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.
City Clerk.
Architectural Review Board
Board of Zoning Appeals
Planning Commission
CITY OF ROANOKE
PLANNING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 166
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: ($40) 853-1730 Fax: ($40) 853-1230
E-mail: planning @ ci.roanoke.va.us
December 19, 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:
Amendment of Vision 2001-2020, the City's comprehensive
plan, to include the Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study.
Planning Commission Action:
Planning Commission public hearing was held on Thursday, November
17, 2005. After presentation and public comment, the Commission, by a vote
of 6-0 (Mr. Chrisman absent) recommended that City Council approve the
amendment of Vision 2001-2020 to include the Roanoke Library
Comprehensive Study.
Background:
In April 2004 the City of Roanoke contracted with Hidell-Katz-McConnell
& Associates to prepare a comprehensive plan for the Roanoke public library
system. They were asked to identify and make recommendations regarding
system services, facilities, funding, and the possible benefits of integrating
with the Roanoke County System. As part of the assessment, the consultant
team conducted a series of neighborhood and public work sessions, and
detailed telephone surveys and questionnaires of system users and key
stakeholders.
Considerations:
This Library Study identifies several positive aspects of the City and
County library systems (e.g., the Virginia Room and neighborhood loyalty to
their branch); however its major conclusions are that the current budget levels
for library staffing, facilities, collections, technology, and programs are
inadequate. These conclusions are substantiated by the following findings:
· Over 60% of City of Roanoke residents do not use the City of
Roanoke Library.
· State of Virginia funding for the Roanoke Public Library has
decreased over 21% from $248,581 to $195,947 over the past six
years.
· Staffing for both the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County library
systems is declining and is well below all peer library comparisons.
· All but one of the city and county libraries were built before the
mid-1970s. The only newer addition is the law library, which was
initiated in 1982.
· The library facilities are not inviting. They are small, lack seating,
have insufficient lighting, and don't provide enough programming
space or parking.
To address these issues the consultants recommend significant changes
and improvements to the City library system. It suggests coordinating and
consolidating selected library operations of the County and City systems,
building new facilities to serve regional and neighborhood needs, and further
developing services that current patrons want, such as better access to
information technology and alternative media, such as books on compact disc
and e-books.
After presentation from Sheila Umberger, Acting Director of Libraries, Mr.
Rife opened the floor for public comment. He advised that he had received a
letter of support from M. Caldwell Butler (attached). The following persons
spoke.
Joyce Waugh, Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce
· Said the Chamber supports a regional library system and felt that
investments in the library system would enhance the entire valley-
wide system.
Mike Ramsey, President of the Roanoke Public Library Foundation
· Spoke in favor of the library plan.
Owen Stultz, member of the steering committee and advisory board
· Encouraged the Commission to not only adopt the plan but
officially support the community effort. He said that libraries were
a municipal issue that need much attention and were on equal
stature, in terms of support, with police and fire.
Kirk Navratil, Member, Friends of the Library
· Said that Friends of the Library want to see the plan as part of the
City's comprehensive plan because libraries are a critical part of
what cities offer to their citizens and what citizens need from their
cities.
John Garland, Secretary, Friends of the Library
· Said that libraries have both a social and economic impact. He said
that Friends of the Library endorse the plan and asked that the
Commission make a strong recommendation to City Council.
Mary Ann Johnson, Member, Roanoke Library Foundation
· Said that libraries contributed greatly to the quality of life in a
community and were a draw to people from communities outside
the City,
Stan Breakell
· Said the plan contained a lot of good data and felt it was important
to keep in mind that both the City and County had the same data.
He said that the key to success was City/County collaboration and
he felt that would happen in the future.
Nancy Patterson (by letter read by Mr. Breakell)
· Said she is a supporter of libraries and expressed her gratitude for
the resources in our libraries and complimented the library staff.
Recommendation:
By a vote of 6-0, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study as a component of Visio, 2001-2020
and further recommends that the City Council pursue the creation of a new
authority to oversee a regional library system.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard A. Rife, Chairman
Roanoke City Planning Commission
CC:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Rolanda Russell, Assistant City Manager
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
This 17th day of November, 2005
A RESOLUTION recommending the adoption of the Roanoke Library
Comprehensive Study as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS, representatives from the City and County Library systems, members
of the City and County Administrations, the Steering Committee for the Roanoke
Library Comprehensive Study, and various focus groups and key stakeholders in the
community have met a number of times;
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study has been reviewed by
the City of Roanoke Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study 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 November 17, 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 Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study, dated
August 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 plan to City Council.
Chairman
Planning Building and Economic Development.
Noel C Taylor Municipal Building, Room 166
215 Church Ave SW.
Roanoke, VA 24011.
Dear Commissioners.
I am aware of your meeting presently scheduled for November 17 at 1:30 p.m. to
consider the Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study. As a member of the Roanoke
Library Foundation, a lifelong user of the Roanoke library, and a son of the founder of
the Roanoke public library (Sarah Caldwell Butler), I am vitally interested in the
Roanoke Library System, and its future, and I regret that I am of the unable to be at this
meeting.
However, I have read the Resolution of the Library Advisory Board, and
enthusiastically endorse every part of it, particularly the two suggestions requiring
immediate action by the City Council. In addition, I do think that this Commission and
the Council should affirm their intention and desire to maximize the coordination of all
library related activities, including planning, of the City and County with the objective of
establishing a City-County library authority as soon as possible.
More specifically, I suggest that the city and county should explore NOW the
possibility of joint participation in the tentatively planned library branch in Roanoke
County to the end that it may incorporate all the recommendations of the comprehensive
study and provide a fine example of what our libraries can and should be in the future.
I appreciate your service to the City.
Sincerely
M. CaldwellButler
A RESOLUTION JOINING THE CITY OF ROANOKE LIBRARY ADVISORY
BOARD IN ITS SUPPORT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOUND IN A
COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE CITY'S LIBRARY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke's libraries are a vital tool in promoting the
education of the citizens of the City of Roanoke; and
WHEREAS, City Council for the City of Roanoke commissioned a
comprehensive study of the City of Roanoke's public library system in an effort to ensure
that the City of Roanoke continued to provide its citizens with a vibrant accessible library
system, and
WHEREAS, City of Roanoke Library Advisory Board has received and reviewed
this comprehensive study commissioned by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, aRer a review of this comprehensive study the Libxrary Advisory
Board adopted a resolution encouraging City Council to adopt a phased funding program
to meet the capital and operational needs of the City's library system as recommended by
the study; and
WHEREAS, the School Board supports the recommendations made by the
Library Advisory Board in its resolution to the Roanoke City Council to encourage the
implementation of a phased funding program for the City's library system.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Roanoke City School Board that it joins
the City of Roanoke Library Advisory Board in its support of the findings of the
comprehensive library study and encourages the City Council of the City of Roanoke to
begin a phased funding program to address the capital and operational needs for the
City's library system.
DATE:
ATTEST:
NOTICE
The Attachment to the City Planning Commission report for the
Comprehensive Library Study is too large to scan and may be reviewed at
the Office of the City Clerk, 215 Church Avenue, S.W.
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
08786984
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
Vi~qinia. Sworn and subscribed before me this
__~_h~__day of December 2005. witness my hand and
of~ seal.
My
..... .
PUBLISHED ON: 12/09
TOTAL COST:
FILED ON:
154.56
12/09/05
befMe~l
of Roanol
Mary F. Psrkei.. City Clerl(.
(87M,9~4)
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 Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study as an element of such
Comprehensive Plan.
A copy of the proposed Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study 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 hearing will be held before the Council of the City of Roanoke on Monday,
December 19, 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 hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office (853-2541), before 12:00 noon on Thursday,
December 15,2005.
GIVEN under my hand this 29th day of November
,2005.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Friday, December 9, 2005.
Send bill and affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Tribune once on Thursday, December 8, 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
Attn: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
215 Church Ave. SW, Rm 456
Roanoke, VA 24011
Date 12/23/05 Inv. #C-10999
PO Box 6021 Roanoke, VA24017 540 -343-0326. Fax 343 -7366
Making and Recording Black History Since 1939
Caption
Notice of Public Headng
NOtice of Pub c Hearing
Dates 2005 Runs Size Total Size P. Order Net Rate Net Total
6.5"
6.75"
$6.00 I $39.00
$6.00 $40.50
Any questions in reference to this invoice contact
Stan Hale (540) 343-0326
The Honorable C. Nelson Harris
Mayor
City of Roanoke
215 W. Church Avenue
Roanoke, VA 24011
December 19, 2005
ROANOKE
REGIONAL
CHaMBEr Of
COMMERCE
Dear Mayor and members of City Council:
On behalf of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce and our 1,400 members, we
support the recommendations outlined in the Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study and
encourage action on the first phase.
The library study makes several points well: · Transactions, program attendance, and collection turnover rates are declining.
· Attention must be made to correct striking deficiencies, including customer
service (retail model) and creating a welcoming atmosphere.
· Libraries are an integral part of their communities.
· To have top tier libraries, investments are needed.
· Quality of life issues continue to weigh more heavily in the decision-making
process of employers and employees.
In The Rise of the Creative Class by Richard Florida, amenities like libraries play an
increasingly larger role in people's lives and in determining where entrepreneurs wish
to live and work. Dr. Sabine O'Hara, president of Roanoke College, recently outlined
Quality of Life factors in a keynote address at the Chamber's Economic Summit II,
entitled, "Five Pillars of Economic Development - Building the Region's Assets." A
particular quality is required of a library system, as a threshold and as an important
part of the community culture, adding to the vibrancy of the region's econom.
The Chamber supports a regional library system. While this doesn't appear to be in the
immediate offing, investments in the City's library will enhance the entire valley-wide
system.
Sincerely,
newva
212 S JEFFERSON STREET
ROANOKE, VA 24OI1-1702
(5401 983-0700
FAX (540) 983-0723
businessL~roanokechamber, org
WWW. ROANOKECHAM B ER ORG
Roanoke City Council
19 DEC 2005
For the past six decades, The Roanoke Public Library Foundation has
provided funding for programs to serve the citizens of the Roanoke Valley.
These programs include:
Annual summer reading programs serving children and
adults;
Annual Valley BookFest that showcases regional writers,
many with national reputations; and
Cafb Nights at the branch libraries.
In addition to programs, we:
Financed the purchase of a security system that stopped
chronic inventory shrinkage that paid for itself within a
year and freed scarce funding to buy new materials
instead of replacing lost materials;
Made possible the creation of a full-time staff member to
expand program offerings and increase attendance at
those programs; and
Provided new equipment to help the Virginia Room staff
more efficiently meet the increasing requests for special
genealogical research materials.
The Foundation Trustees are eager to build on our successes - to support
more programs for more citizens.
In order to do that, we need an expanded and updated library physical plant
because the current facilities barely meet current usage levels and are
inadequate to meet demand for expanded services.
We urge you to adopt the Library Comprehensive Facilities Study and its
conclusions as a part of Roanoke City's Comprehensive Plan.
Respectfully,
Michael L. Ramsey, President
Roanoke Public Library Foundation
Annette Loschert, Executive Director
Literacy Volunteers of Roanoke Valley
5002 Williamson Road
Roanoke, VA 24012
Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council: Literacy Volunteers of Roanoke
Valley is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit community-based educational organization,
fully accredited by ProLiteracy America. We provide Basic Literacy and
English-for-Speakers-of-Other Languages services to nearly 300 adults
every year through a corps of more than 100 volunteer tutors. Our services
help individuals improve their lives and bring value to our community
through improved employee productivity, increased tax revenues, reduced
housing and health care subsidies, more discretionary income, and a better
economic development climate. Our tutors are professionally trained in our
learning center located at the comer of Williamson and Hershberger Roads,
but the learning experience that takes place between leamer and tutor
generally occurs in the City libraries thanks to a long-standing collaborative
partnership between Literacy Volunteers and the Roanoke City Library
system.
Literacy Volunteers of Roanoke Valley has more than 120 leamers who
regularly meet with their tutors in libraries throughout the City of Roanoke,
with the majority of our learners and tutors using space in the Downtown
(48) and Williamson Road (31) Libraries. Small spaces accommodate tutors
who work with one or two leamers at a time, and at both the Downtown and
Williamson Road libraries conference room/special event space is provided
to accommodate larger English Language/Civics classes.
We regularly have 40-50 individuals waiting to be matched with a tutor, and
as these tutor/learner relationships are forged, these individuals all need a
public space in which to work. The libraries are bursting at the seams. With
the influx of potential learners who come through our doors daily, there is a
critical need to expand available space for tutor/learner use. We applaud
those who have worked on the Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study and
their plan to provide for additional small meeting room space as well as
larger classroom space in our City libraries.
We urge the Council to amend Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive
Plan, to include the Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study and to begin the
process of designating funding for Phase I of the system capital
improvements recommended by the Study.
MARY F. 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.roanoke.va.us
December 22, 2005
File #24-175
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
The Honorable John S. Edwards
Member, Senate of Virginia
P. O. Box 1179
Roanoke, Virginia 24006-1179
The Honorable William H. Fralin, Jr.
Delegate, House of Representatives
P. O. Box 20363
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Honorable Onzlee Ware
Delegate, House of Representatives
P. O. Box 1745
Roanoke, Virginia 24008
Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 37277-121905 requesting the 2006
Session of the General Assembly to add a Section ~9.1 to the Roanoke Charter
of 1952 in order to authorize advisory referenda in the City on any proposed
question or group of questions relating to the affairs of the City.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, December 19, 2005.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Enclosure
The Honorable John S. Edwards
The Honorable William H. Fralin, Jr.
The Honorable Onzlee Ware
December 22, 2005
Page 2
pc.: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Thomas A. Dick, Legislative Liaison, 1108 E.
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Main Street,
Suite 904,
The Roanoke Times
~oanoke, 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
08848658
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
Virginia. Sworn and subscribed before me this
___~__ day of December 2005. Witness my hand and
o~1 seal.
.j
PUBLISHED ON: 12/07
TOTAL COST:
FILED ON:
165.60
12107/05
C#Ain~ ~
mis i
Signature: _ __, Billing Services Represent~ativ
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 19th day of December, 2005.
No. 37277-121905.
A RESOLUTION requesting the 2006 Session of the General Assembly to add a Section 19.1
to the Roanoke Charter of 1952 in order to authorize advisory referenda in the City on any proposed
question or group of questions relating to the affairs of the City.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of§l 5.2-202, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,
at least ten days' notice and an informative summary of the amendment desired has been published in
a newspaper of general circulation in the City, of the time and place ora public hearing for citizens
to be heard to determine if they desire that City Council request the 2006 Session of the General
Assembly to amend the Roanoke Charter of 1952;
WHEREAS, the required public hearing was conducted on December 19, 2005; and
WHEREAS, after considering the matter and the comments made during the public hearing,
Council desires to request the General Assembly to amend its Roanoke Charter of 1952.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The Council hereby requests that the 2006 Session of the General Assembly add a
Section 19.1 to the Roanoke Charter of 1952 in order to authorize advisory referenda in the City on
any proposed question or group of questions relating to the affairs of the City, such Section to read
and provide as follows:
§ 19.1. Advisory referenda.
The council shall have authority to order, by resolution directed to the Circuit Court
of the City of Roanoke, the submission to the registered voters of the city for an
advisory referendum on any proposed question or group of questions relating to the
affairs of the city. Upon receipt of such resolution, the Court shall order an election to
be held at the next general election. The election shall be conducted and the result
thereof ascertained and determined in the manner provided by general law of the
Commonwealth for the conduct of referendum elections, and by the regular election
officials of the city. Following certification of the election results by the Electoral
Board to the Circuit Court, the Court shall enter an order proclaiming the results of
the election, and shall transmit a duly certified copy of the order to the council.
Ifa petition requesting the submission ora question or group of questions relating to
the affairs of the city, set forth in such petition, signed by registered voters equal in
number to twenty-five percent, or 5,000, whichever number is the greater, of the
largest number of votes cast in any general or pr/mary election held in the city during
the five years immediately preceding, each signature to which has been witnessed by
a person whose affidavit to that effect is attached to the petition, and the address of
each signator having been given along with the signature, is filed with the clerk of the
Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, the clerk shall forthwith certify that fact to the
Court after the city's registrar has verified that the requisite number of persons
registered to vote in the city have signed the petition. Upon certification the Court
shah order an election to be held at the next general election after the receipt of such
resolution, in which such proposed question or questions shall be submitted as a
resolution to the registered voters of the city for their approval or disapproval. Such
election shall be conducted and the result thereof ascertained and determined in the
manner provided by general law of the Commonwealth for the conduct of referendum
elections, and by the regular election officials of the city. Ifa majority of those voting
approve the proposed referendum, then the clerk of the Court shall communicate such
result to the council for its consideration as an advisory resolution.
2. The City Clerk is directed to send two attested copies of this resolution, a copy of the
requested amendments to the Roanoke Charier of 1952, a publisher's affidavit showing that the
public hearing on this request was advertised, and a certified copy of Council's minutes showing the
action taken at the advertised public hearing to the Honorable John S. Edwards, Member, Senate of
Virginia, the Honorable Onzlee Ware, Member, House of Delegates, and the Honorable William H.
Fralin, Jr., Member, House of Delegates, with the request that they introduce a bill in the 2006
Session of the General Assembly to amend the Roanoke Charter of 1952.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
December 19, 2005
2:00 p.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on
Monday, December 19, 2005, at 2:00 p.m., the regular meeting hour, in the
Roanoke City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Mayor C. Nelson
Harris presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, City
Council, Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure, Rule 1, 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 Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel,
Brian J. Wishneff, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T.
Fitzpatrick, 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 Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
was led by Mayor Harris.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
CITY CODE-CITY CHARTER-ELECTIONS: Pursuant to instructions by
the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday,
December 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may
be heard, on a proposal of the City of Roanoke to amend the City Charter
to add new Section 19.1, authorizing advisory referenda in the City of
Roanoke on "any proposed question or group of questions relating to the
affairs of the City", the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The
Roanoke Times on Wednesday, December 7, 2005; and in The Roanoke
Tribune on Thursday, December 15, 2005.
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution:
· (#37277-121905) A RESOLUTION requesting the 2006 Session of
the General Assembly to add a Section 19.1 to the Roanoke Charter of
1952 in order to authorize advisory referenda in the City on any proposed
question or group of questions relating to the affairs of the City.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70.)
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37277-
121905. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea.
Mr. Bill Tanger, 129 Thurston Avenue, N. E., spoke in support of
including the right to referenda in the City's 2006 Legislative Program. He
stated that Senator Edwards has agreed to serve as patron of the Charter
bill and it was not clear as to whether either of the two Delegates have
agreed to co-sponsor the bill; however, he encouraged the Members of
Council to be supportive of the bill and to encourage support by the City's
representatives to the General Assembly. He advised that the right to
referenda is a tool of democracy that works well in America's
representative democracy as something that can be brought to the
forefront in those cases when there is a need for clarification regarding
the wishes of the public; this tool of democracy has been used by many
other cities in various ways in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and other
cities in Virginia that have exercised this right are Charlottesville,
Chesapeake, Falls Church, Hampton, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Richmond, Salem,
and Virginia Beach. He stated that advisory referenda is an excellent
mechanism that every city in the Commonwealth of any size should have;
and a recent Mason-Dixon poll showed that 84 percent of those persons
who were polled supported a referendum on a particular issue. He pointed
out that when the right to referenda is needed, in most cases it is too late
because it takes approximately 18 months to complete the process for
approval by the General Assembly; therefore, he expressed appreciation
for Council's willingness to submit the matter to the City's representatives
to the General Assembly.
K:~E)rafis - Minutes~ecembet 19, 2005 Charier Amcndmem ExCetlX.doc
2
Mr. Allen Scanlan, 1631 Center Hill Drive, S. W., advised that he
previously resided in a community in another state that adopted advisory
referenda and the option was used very sparingly during the past several
years; and advisory referenda was used with effective results to resolve
those issues that citizens could not agree upon, it has made the jobs of
employees in local government easier, and it has allowed citizens to make
decisions. He stated that Roanoke has a wealth of knowledgeable,
informed, interested, engaged, and dedicated people and the passage of
advisory referenda will help many citizens feel connected to the
community; therefore, he encouraged that Council give favorable
consideration to the matter.
Ms. Susan Osborne, 1902 Blair Road, S. W., advised that advisory
referenda will be a visionary step if the Council stands behind and
supports the proposed Charter bill. Therefore, she requested that Council
vote in favor of the resolution and support the proposed City Charter bill,
There being no further speakers, the Mayor declared the public
hearing closed.
Council Member Wishneff spoke in support of advisory referenda
because there are certain issues that citizens should be permitted to vote
on.
There being no further comments by Council, Resolution No. 37277-
121905 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Lea, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, and
Mayor Harris ................................................. 6.
NAYS: Council Member McDaniel ............................ ~..
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
K:~rafls ~ MinmesXDecembcr 19, 2005 Cha~le; Amendmem Exce~x.doc
3
There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting
adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
ATTEST:
S/Mary F. Parker
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
APPROVED
S/C. Nelson Harris
C. Nelson Harris
Mayor
A Tru~/t~ Testa:
WILLIAM M. HACKWORTH
CITY ATTORNEY
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
December 7, 2005
TIMOTHY R. SPENCER
STEVEN J. TALEV!
GARY E, TEGENKAMP
DAVID L. COLLINS
HEATHER P. FERGUSON
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: Charter Amendment
Dear Mayor Harris and Council Members:
As requested by the Legislative Committee during its meeting on December 5,
2005, I have prepared the attached resolution requesting the General Assembly to amend
the City Charter to add a new Section 19.1 that would authorize advisory referenda in the
City.
Please let me know if you have any questions about the proposed measure.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
William M. Hackworth
City Attorney
WMH/vt
Attachment
cc: Darlene Burcham, City Manager
aryHall, Director of Finance
Parker, City Clerk
Tom Dick, Legislative Liaison
The Roanoke Times
~oanoke~ Virginia
Affidavit of Publication
The Roanoke Times
NARY F. PARKER
CITY OF ROANOKE CLERK'S OFFICE
215 CHURCH AVE SW RM 456
NOEL C. TAYLOR MUNICIPAL BLDG.
ROANOKE VA 24011
REFERENCE: 32143302
08848658
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
Virginia. Sworn and subscribed before me this
~ day of December 2005. Witness my hand and
~1 seal.
----/~_~___~_ ~otary Public
My/ co~mi~s, on e~y' ~~_~_~(~_~__.
PUBLISHED ON: 12/07
TOTAL COST:
FILED ON:
165.60
12/07/05
¥0 THE CITIZENS OF CIT~ OF
ROANOKE:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
the
citizens desire City Counclq
to request the General
Assembly to amend the CRy
Charter to add a new
Section 19,1 &uthor~zlng
advisory reteren¢/e In the
City on 'any proposed
question or g;oup of
questions relating to the
affairs of theCIty.' A copy
of the text of the
proposed char,tar
amendment may he
reviewed in the Office of
the City Clink, Room 456,
Noel C, Taylor Municipal
Ali parties In Interest may
appear on the above date
Authorize d~_~_ _~_
Signature: ~ __, Billing Services Representative
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON PROPOSED CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT
TO THE CITIZENS OF CITY OF ROANOKE:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GiVEN that the Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a public
hearing on Monday, December 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber in the Noel C. Taylor
Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., in the City, at which time citizens of the City shall
have an opportunity to be heard to determine whether such citizens desire City Council to request the
General Assembly to amend the City Charter to add a new Section 19.1 authorizing advisory
referenda in the City on "any proposed question or group of questions relating to the affairs of the
City." A copy of the text of the proposed charter amendment may be reviewed in the Office of the
City Clerk, Room 456, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building.
All parties in interest may appear on the above date and be heard on the question. If you are a
person with a disability who needs accommodations for this public hearing, contact the City Clerk's
Office, 853-2541, by Thursday, December 15, 2005.
GiVEN under my hand this 6th day of December, 2005.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Publisher:
Pleaser un as soon as possible. (Please publish in the Roanoke Times once on Wednesday,
December 7, 2005.)
Send bill and publisher's affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
456 Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON PROPOSED CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT
TO THE CITIZENS OF CITY OF ROANOKE:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a public
heating on Monday, December 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber in the Noel C.
Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., in the City, at which time citizens of the
City shall have an opportunity to be heard to determine whether such citizens desire City Council
to request the General Assembly to amend the City Charter to add a new Section 19.1
authorizing advisory referenda in the City on "any proposed question or group of questions
relating to the affairs of the City." A copy of the text of the proposed charter amendment may be
reviewed in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building.
All parties in interest may appear on the above date and be heard on the question. If you
are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this public hearing, contact the City
Clerk' s Office, 853-2541, by Thursday, December 15, 2005.
GIVEN under my hand this 6th day of December, 2005.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Publisher:
Please publish in the Roanoke Tribune on Thursday, December 15, 2005.
Send bill and publisher's affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
456 Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541)