HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 02-19-02 CARDER
35750-021902
ROANOKE CITY CO UNCIL
REGULAR SESSION
February 19, 2002
2:00P. M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL
Call to Order--Roll Call. (All present.)
The Invocation was delivered by Father Peter E. Papanikolaou, Holy
Trinity Greek Orthodox Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
was led by Mayor Ralph K. Smith.
Welcome. Mayor Smith.
NOTICE:
Today's meeting will be taped by RVTV Channel 3, to be replayed on
Channel 3 on Thursday, February 21, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday,
February 23, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. Council meetings are now being 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 THURSDAY 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 NOW 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.ROANOKEGOV. COM,
CLICK ON THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL ICON, CLICK ON
MEETINGS AND AGENDAS, AND DOWNLOAD THE ADOBE
ACROBAT SOFTWARE TO ACCESS THE AGENDA.
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL ARE
REQUESTED TO REGISTER WITH THE STAFF ASSISTANT WHO
IS LOCATED AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBER.
ON THE SAME AGENDA ITEM, ONE TO FOUR SPEAKERS WILL BE
ALLOTTED FIVE MINUTES EACH, HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE
MORE THAN FOUR SPEAKERS, EACH SPEAKER WILL BE
ALLOTTED 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 TO OBTAIN AN APPLICATION.
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
Introduction of Youth Chinese Opera troupe.
File #80-327
Proclamation declaring March 1 - 2, 2002 as Habitat for Humanity Days.
File//3-399
e
CONSENT AGENDA
(APPROVED 7-0)
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE
CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE MEMBERS OF CITY
COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE
WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. IF
DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM
THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
C-1
Minutes of the regular meetings of Council held on Monday,
December 17, 2002, Monday, January 7, 2002, and an extract of the regular
meeting held on Tuesday, January 22, 2002.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispense with the reading thereof and
approve as recorded.
C-2
A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council
convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss acquisition of real property for public
purpose, where discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the
bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the City, pursuant to Section
2.2-371 l(A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in request.
File #104-132
C-3
Qualification of the following persons:
Ralph K. Smith as a member of the Hotel Roanoke
Conference Center Commission, to fill the unexpired term
of James D. Grisso, resigned, commencing
February 1, 2002, and ending April 12, 2004; and
Dolores Y. Johns as a member of the Blue Ridge
Behavioral Healthcare, Board of Directors, for a term
ending December 31, 2004.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
Removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
REGULAR AGENDA
C-3
Qualification of the following persons:
Ralph K. Smith as a member of the Hotel Roanoke
Conference Center Commission, to fill the unexpired term
of James D. Grisso, resigned, commencing
February 1, 2002, and ending April 12, 2004; and
Dolores Y. Johns as a member of the Blue Ridge
Behavioral Healthcare, Board of Directors, for a term
ending December 31, 2004.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
The matter was tabled, Council Members White, Hudson, and Mayor
Smith voted no.
File//15-110-247-314
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
4
5. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
ao
A communication from Kaye Hale, Executive Director, West End
Center for Youth, to address the new policy for CDBG awards and
potential funding for local organizations.
The matter was referred to the Council's Financial Planning
Session to be held on Friday, March 8, 2002, and to Fiscal Year
2002-03 Budget Study.
Council Members Bestpitch and Wyatt requested that the City
Manager provide the following information:
The amount of funds provided by the City through
Community Development Block Grant funds for certain
programs that have a demonstrated history of success;
i.e.: the West End Center, the Presbyterian Center,
Magic Place, TOP Program, etc., compared with the
amount of funds that will be needed to increase the
human services budget to insure ongoing support of
such programs.
How much would the admissions tax have to be
increased City-wide for all venues, excluding City
operated facilities, in order to generate additional
revenues for social and cultural service organizations?
File #60-236-296-304
bo
A request of Dr. Cheri W. Hartman, Director of Teen Outreach, Family
Service of Roanoke Valley, to address youth services in the City of
Roanoke.
The matter was referred to the Council's Financial Planning
Session to be held on Friday, March 8, 2002, and to Fiscal Year
2002-03 Budget Study.
Council Members Bestpitch and Wyatt requested that the City
Manager provide the following information:
The amount of funds provided by the City through
Community Development Block Grant funds for certain
programs that have a demonstrated history of success;
i.e.: the West End Center, the Presbyterian Center,
Magic Place, TOP Program, etc., compared with the
amount of funds that will be needed to increase the
human services budget to insure ongoing support of
such programs.
How much would the admissions tax have to be
increased City-wide for all venues, excluding City
operated facilities, in order to generate additional
revenues for social and cultural service organizations?
File #60-236-304
6. REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
a. CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS: NONE.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
A communication recommending execution of a contract with
Rosser International, Inc., for architectural and engineering
services for the proposed stadium-amphitheater complex to be
constructed on a site across from the Roanoke Civic Center, in
the amount of $1,250,000.00.
Adopted Resolution No. 35750-021902. (5-0, Council
Member Hudson and Mayor Smith voted no.)
File #122-192-405
6
o
A communication recommending acceptance of the bid
submitted by The Richardson-Wayland Electrical Corporation,
for improvements and signalization at Williamson Road and
Hildebrand Road, N. W., in the amount of $47,844.00; and
transfer of $52,600.00 in connection with the project.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35751-021902 and
Ordinance No. 35752-021902. (7-0)
File #20-46-60-264-472-514
A communication recommending acceptance of the bid
submitted by Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corporation for the
purchase of a 1500 GPM fire engine with water tower for the
Fire-EMS Department, in the amount of $429,767.00; and
appropriation of funds.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35753-021902 and
Resolution No. 35754-021902. (7-0)
File #60-70-354-472
A communication recommending authorization to use
competitive negotiation as the method to secure vendors to
provide software and software services for the Police
Department and the Department of Technology.
Adopted Resolution No. 35755-021902. (7-0)
File #5-262
o
A communication recommending acceptance of a V-STOP
Domestic Violence Grant from the Virginia Department of
Criminal Justice Services, in the amount of $27,003.00; and
appropriation of funds.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35756-021902 and
Resolution No. 35757-021902. (7-0)
The City Manager was requested to provide a more indepth
report on the V-STOP Grant.
File #5-60-236
o
A communication recommending approval of an extension
contract with Appalachian Power Company for electric service
on a bundled basis from July 1, 2002 - June 30, 2007; and an
extension of the City's street lighting contract from
July 1, 2002 - July 30, 2007.
Adopted Resolution No. 35758-021902. (7-0)
File//46-433-514
b. CITY CLERK:
A report requesting that Council establish certain dates in
connection with appointment of two Trustees to the Roanoke City
School Board for terms commencing July 1, 2002, and ending
June 30, 2005.
Concurred in the request.
File #110-467
c. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
A report recommending appropriation of $227,651.00, in
connection with CDBG program income from the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority and CDBG miscellaneous
program income.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35759-021902. (7-0)
File #60-178-236
7. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
ao
A communication from the Roanoke City School Board requesting
appropriation of funds for various school accounts; and a report of the
Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in the request.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35760-021902. (7-0)
File #60-467
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
0
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: NONE.
10. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
ao
Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Members of
City Council.
Council Member White called attention to increased litter within the
City of Roanoke, and requested that the matter be referred to the
City Manager for response.
File #144
Council Member Hudson referred to litter in the Mud Lick Road
area.
File #144
In view of the current water situation, Council Member Wyatt
inquired as to the feasibility of establishing a water hotline for
citizens to report water leakage.
File #468
A motion was adopted that, effective immediately, all open meetings
of Roanoke City Council which are held in the City Council
Chamber will be televised in their entirety, including Hearing Of
Citizens Upon Public Matters, Mayor Smith voted no.
File #132
As a water conservation tip, the Mayor encouraged citizens to
repair leaking faucets and flush tanks.
File #468
bo
Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees
appointed by Council.
11. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
9
12. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR CITIZENS
TO BE HEARD. IT IS ALSO A TIME FOR INFORMAL DIALOGUE
BETWEEN COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITIZENS. MATTERS
REQUIRING REFERRAL TO THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE
REFERRED IMMEDIATELY FOR RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION
OR REPORT TO COUNCIL.
Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., requested clarification with
regard to the proposed closing of fire stations in the City of Roanoke.
File #70
Mr. Donald W. Hussey, 1612 Shamrock
recommendations for water conservation.
File #468
Road, N. W., presented
The meeting was declared in recess for one closed session.
CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION. (4-0, Vice-Mayor Carder and
Council Members Bestpitch and Harris were out of the Council Chamber
when the vote was recorded.)
THE MEETING OF COUNCIL WAS DECLARED IN RECESS TO BE
RECONVENED AT 5:00 P.M., IN THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS
CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM, ROOM 159, NOEL C. TAYLOR
MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 215 CHURCH AVENUE, S. W., FOR A
JOINT MEETING OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL AND THE
ROANOKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECONVENED AT 7:00
P.M., IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, FOURTH FLOOR, NOEL
C. TAYLOR MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 215 CHURCH AVENUE, S. W.
lO
JOINT MEE TING
CITY COUNCIL~CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
5:00P. M.
EMERGENCY OPERA TIONS CENTER
CONFERENCE ROOM
e
Welcome/Opening Remarks.
Invocation.
Mayor Smith.
Dinner
o
Presentation of 2001 Annual Report. Mr. Manetta.
Discussion with regard to the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Manetta.
e
Discussion issues by City Council/City Planning
Commission.
THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING WAS DECLARED IN RECESS AT
6:30 P.M., TO BE RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M., IN THE CITY
COUNCIL CHAMBER, FOURTH FLOOR, NOEL C. TAYLOR
MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 215 CHURCH AVENUE, S. W., CITY OF
ROANOKE.
11
ROANOKE CITY CO UNCIL
REGULAR SESSION
February 19, 2002
7:00P. M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
A GEND/t FOR THE COUNCIL
Call to Order-- Roll Call. (Mr. White was absent.)
The Invocation was delivered by Council Member C. Nelson Harris.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
was led by Mayor Ralph K. Smith.
Welcome. Mayor Smith.
NOTICE:
Tonight's meeting will be taped by RVTV Channel 3 to be replayed on
Thursday, February 21, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, February 23, 2002,
at 4:00 p.m. Council meetings are now being offered with closed captioning
for the hearing impaired.
12
Ae
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Public hearing to consider an amendment of Vision 2001-2020, the
adopted Comprehensive Plan for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, dated
August 20, 2001, to include Outlook Roanoke Update, an updated
development plan for downtown Roanoke. Robert B. Manetta, Chair,
City Planning Commission.
A resolution amending Vision 2001-2020., the City's adopted
comprehensive plan, to include the Outlook Roanoke Update as an
element of the comprehensive plan, was tabled.
File #200
B. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR CITIZENS
TO BE HEARD. IT IS ALSO A TIME FOR INFORMAL DIALOGUE
BETWEEN COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITIZENS. MATTERS
REQUIRING REFERRAL TO THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE
REFERRED IMMEDIATELY FOR RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION
OR REPORT TO COUNCIL.
Mr. Robert Gravely, 1617 Hanover Avenue, N. W., expressed concern with
regard to the overall condition of the City of Roanoke; i.e.: the City's
vision does not include disadvantaged and minority citizens, the City
supports the affluent and outside business interests, and the City's support
of downtown Roanoke as opposed to other parts of the City.
File #66
Mr. E. Duane Howard, 508 Walnut Avenue, S. W., spoke with regard to
action taken by Council at its 2:00 p.m. session in regard to reinstating
RVTV coverage of the City Council meeting in its entirety. He stated
that citizens will continue to lobby City Council to reinstate citizen
comments under the Petitions and Communications section of the City
Council agenda.
File #66-132
13
WHEREAS,
Habitat for Humanity International (ttFHI) was founded in 1976
by Linda and Millard Fuller and is an ecumenical Christian
housing ministry that seeks to eliminate poverty housing from the
world and to make decent shelter a matter of conscience and
action; and
WHEREAS,
Habitat for Humanity in the Roanoke Valley, Inc., **'as founded in
1986 as an affiliate of HFHI and its mission is, "to improve the
lives of God's people in need by providing quality homes in
partnership with homeowners and volunteers for the enhancement
of our community"; and
WHE~S, since 1976, Habitat has built more than I00,000 houses in more
than 80 countries and the United States; and
WHEREAS, Habitat for Humanity in the Roanoke Valley has provided 108
homes for 170 adults and 265 children over the last 15 years; and
WHEREAS,
March 1-2, 2002, marks the first HFHI Central Atlantic Regional
Conference to be held in the Roanoke Valley, unifying 214
affiliates in five states as they draw attention to the housing needs
in the Blue Ridge and beyond and
the Board of Directors and Staff of Habitat for Humanity in the
Roanoke Valley invite the Roanoke community to attend the
Habitation service at First Baptist Church on Friday, March 1,
2002, at 7:00 p.m. to celebrate in word, worship and music the
work of Habitat for Humanity in the Roanoke community and
beyond.
NOW, THEREFORE, L Ralph K. Smith, Mayor of the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
do hereby proclaim March 1-2, 2002, throughout this great All-America
City, as
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY DA YS.
Given under our hands and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this nineteenth day of
February in the year two thousand and two.
ATTEST:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ..... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
December 17, 2001
2:00 p.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday,
December 17, 2001, at 2:00, the regular meeting hour, in the City Council Chamber,
fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of
Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2,
Administration, Article II, City Council, Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure, Rule 1,
Rec~ular Meetings, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended.
PRESENT: Council Members W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., C. Nelson Harris, William D.
Bestpitch, William White, Sr., William H. Carder, Linda F. Wyatt and Mayor
Ralph K. Smith .................................................................................................. 7.
ABSENT: None ............................................................................... -0.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; James D. Grisso, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk.
The meeting was opened with a prayer by The Reverend Dr. James W. Austin,
Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor Ralph K. Smith.
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-DOWNTOWN ROANOKE, INCORPORATED:
Inasmuch as R. Matthew Kennell, President, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., will resign his
position, effective December 21,2001, Mr. Hudson offered the following resolution
expressing appreciation for his service since May, 1994.
(#35684-121701) A RESOLUTION paying tribute to R. Matthew Kennell upon
his resignation as President of Downtown Roanoke, Inc., effective December 21,
2001, and expressing to him the appreciation of this City and its people for his
exemplary service.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 65, page 318.)
Mr. Hudson moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35684-121701. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ...................... , ..................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
The Mayor presented a ceremonial copy of the above referenced measure and
a gold star paper weight to Mr. Kennell.
PROCLAMATIONS:: The Mayor presented a proclamation declaring Saturday,
December 8, 2001, as Roanoke AIIstars - 1951 Santa Claus Bowl Reunion Day in the
City of Roanoke.
Dean Price representing the Roanoke Ail-Stars-1951 National Midget Football
Champions, offered ~to work with the City in connection with the donation and
display of trophies and wearing apparel from the 1951 championship game.
CONSENT AGENDA
The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent Agenda were
considered to be routine by the Members of Council and would be enacted bY one
motion in the form, or forms, listed on the Consent Agenda, and if discussion was
desired, that item would be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered
separately. He advised that there were three requests for Closed Session.
MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Thursday,
October 18, 2001, and recessed until Friday, October 19, 2001, were before the body.
(For full text, see Minutes on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
Mr. White moved that the reading of the Minutes be dispensed with and that
the Minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ................................................................................. -0.
COMMITTEES-COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor Ralph K. Smith
requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss personnel matters
relating to vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees
appointed by the Council, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended, was before the body.
Mr. White moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to convene
in a Closed Meeting to discuss personnel matters relating to vacancies on various
authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by the Council,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0.
COMMITTEES-COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor Ralph K. Smith
requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss a personnel matter,
specifically to conduct an interview for an appointment to the Industrial
Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(1),
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body.
Mr. White moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to convene
in a Closed Meeting to discuss a personnel matter, specifically to conduct an
interview for an appointment to the Industrial Development Authority of the City of
Roanoke, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None 0.
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE-COMMITTEES-COUNCIL: A communication from
Council Member C. Nelson Harris, Chair, Roanoke City Council Personnel
Committee, requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss
appointment of a new Director of Finance, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code
of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body.
Mr. White moved that Council concur in the request of Council Member Harris
to convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss appointment of a new Director of Finance,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... -0.
MUNICIPAL AUDITOR~COMMITTEES-AUDIT COMMITTEE: Minutes of a
meeting of the Audit Committee which was held on Monday, December 3, 2001, were
before the body.
The following items were considered by the Audit Committee:
FINANCIAL AUDITS:
KPMG June 30, 2001 Reports:
City of Roanoke Letter of Recommendations on Procedures and
Controls
City of Roanoke Report to the Audit Committee
City of Roanoke Pension Plan Letter to the Pension Committee
City of Roanoke Independent Accountant's Report on Applying Agreed-
UpOn Procedures
PERFORMANCE AUDITS:
Fire-EMS-Fuel Management
Information Center
Facilities Management
Fleet Management
Police Department D.A.R.E. Account
School Board Engagement Letter
School Board Annual Audit Plan for FY2002
Update on City's Audit Plan
Briefing on Audit Department's Website
Mr. White moved that the Minutes be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ................................................................................... -0.
4
BUSES-MUNICIPAL AUDITOR-AUDIT COMMITTEE: Minutes of a meeting of the
Greater Roanoke Transit Company Audit Committee which was held on Monday,
December 3, 2001, were before the body.
The following items were considered by the Greater Roanoke Transit
Company Audit Committee:
FINANCIAL AUDITS - KPMG Reports:
GRTC - Transit Operation Financial Statements - 6/30101 and 2000
GRTC - Report to Board of Directors - 6/30/01
Southwestern Virginia Transit Management Company, Inc. Retirement
Plan Financial Statements and Schedules - 12/31/00 and 1999
Southwestern Virginia Transit Management Co., Inc. Retirement Plan -
Letter to Pension Committee - 12/31/00
Mr. White moved that the Minutes be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ................................................................................... ----0.
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE-COMMITTEES-HOTEL ROANOKE CONFERENCE
CENTER: A communication from James D. Grisso, Director of Finance, tendering his
resignation as a Commissioner of the Hotel Roanoke Conference Center
Commission, effective January 31, 2002, was before the body.
Mr. White moved that the communication be received and filed and that the
resignation be accepted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None. O.
COMMITTEES-LIBRARIES: A communication from the City Clerk advising of
the resignation of Eugene Wirt, Jr., as a member of the Roanoke Public Library
Board, effective immediately, was before the body.
Mr. White moved that the communication be received and filed, and that the
resignation be accepted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
ELECTIONS: A communication from Gilbert E. Butler, Jr., Secretary, Roanoke
City Electoral Board, transmitting a certified copy of the following Abstracts of Votes
cast in the General Election held in the City of Roanoke on November 6, 2001, was
before the Council:
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke
at the November 6, 2001 General Election, for:
, Virginia,
GOVERNOR
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTY ID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES)
MARK L. EARLEY (R)
MARK R. WARNER (D)
WILLIAM B. REDPATH (L)
9,147
15,348
204
0
0
Total Write-in Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] .............
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office ...........................
Total Number of Undervotes For Office ............................ 175
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 6, 2001, do hereby certify that the above
is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 8th day of November, 2001.
A copy teste:
(Seal)
SI Carl T. Tinsley
SI Frances V. Garland
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
, Chairman
, Vice Chairman
, Secretary
, Secretary, Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OFVOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke
at the November 6, 2001 General Election, for:
, Virginia,
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTYID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES)
JAY K. KATZEN
TIMOTHY M. KAINE
GARY A. REAMS'
(R) ................................. 9,154
(D) ................................ 14,328
(L) ................................ 383
Total Write-in Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] ............ 0
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office .......................... 0
Total Number of Undervotes For Office .......................... 1,009
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 6, 2001, do hereby certify that the above
is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 8th day of November, 2001.
A copy teste:
(Seal)
SI Carl T. Tinsley
SI Frances V. Garland
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
, Chairman
, Vice Chairman
, Secretary
, Secretary, Electoral Board
7
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke , Virginia,
at the November 6, 2001 General Election, for:
ATTORNEY GENERAL
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTYID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES)
JERRY W. KILGORE
A. DONALD McEACHIN
(R) .............. ................ 12,673
(D) .............................. 11,328
Total Write-in Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] ........... 4
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office ......................... 0
Total Number of Undervotes For Office ........................ 869
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 6, 2001, do hereby certify that the above
is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this
A copy teste:
(Seal)
day of November, 2001.
SI Carl T. Tinsley
SI Frances V. Garland
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
, Chairman
, Vice Chairman
, Secretary
, Secretary, Electoral Board
WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION
ROANOKE
COUNTY x CITY
X General
Special Election
Attorney General
OFFICE TITLE
November 6, 2001
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
Page I of 1
WRITE-INS - SUMMARY
TOTALVOTES
RECEIVED
[IN FIGURES]
1. Invalid Write-Ins ....................................
2. Valid Write-Ins ........................................
3. Total Write-Ins ........................................
[ENTER THIS FIGURE ON LINE FOR TOTAL WRITE-IN VOTES
ON ABSTRACT FOR THIS OFFICE.]
3
ENTER TOTALINVALID
1
ENTER TOTALVALID
4
ADD LINES1 AND2
VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL
LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON
CONSTRUCTION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS
WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON
LINE 2 ABOVE.
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(In Figures)
John Edwards ....... I
We, the undersigned Electoral BOard, upon examination of the official records deposited with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 6, 2001, do hereby certify that, with the
continuation pages indicated, the above is a true and correct certification of the write-in votes cast
at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 8th day of November, 2001.
A copy teste:
(Seal)
SI Carl T. Tinsley
SI Frances V. Garland
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
, Chairman
, Vice Chairman
, Secretary
, Secretary, Electoral Board
9
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke , Virginia,
at the November 6, 2001 General Election, for:
MEMBER
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
11TM
ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER
TOTALVOTES
RECEIVED
NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTYID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES)
Clifton A. "Chip" Woodrum .............................. 9,139
Total Write-in Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] .........
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office ........................
Total Number of Undervotes For Office .......................
4
0
4,923
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 6, 2001, do hereby certify that the above
is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 8th day of November, 2001.
A copy teste:
(Seal)
SI Carl T. Tinsley
SI Frances V. Garland
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
, Chairman
, Vice Chairman
, Secretary
, Secretary, Electoral Board
tO
WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION
ROANOKE
COUNTY x CITY
X General
Special Election
Member House of Dele~lates
OFFICE TITLE
November 6, 2001
11th
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
Page 1 of 1
WRITE-INS - SUMMARY
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
[IN FIGURES]
1. Invalid Write-Ins .................................
2. Valid Write-Ins ..................................
3. Total Write-Ins ..................................
[ENTER THIS FIGURE ON LINE FOR TOTAL WRITE-IN VOTES
ON ABSTRACT FOR THIS OFFICE.]
4
ENTER TOTALINVALID
0
ENTER TOTAL VALID
4
ADD LINES I AND 2
VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL
LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON
CONSTRUCTION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS
WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON
LINE 2 ABOVE.
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
[IN FIGURES]
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 6, 2001, do hereby certify that, with the
continuation pages indicated, the above is a true and correct certification of the write-in votes cast
at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this
A copy teste:
(Seal)
8th day of November, 2001.
SI Carl T. Tinsley
SI Frances V. Garland
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
, Chairman
, Vice Chairman
, Secretary
, Secretary, Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke
at the November 6, 2001 General Election, for:
, Virginia,
MEMBER
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
17th
ENTER DISTRICT NUMBER
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTYID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES)
A. Victor Thomas ................................. 7,345
Total Write-in Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] ...........
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office .........................
1
0
Total Number of Undervotes For Office ......................... 3,462
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 6, 2001, do hereby certify that the above
is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 8th day of November, 2001.
A copy teste:
SI Carl T. Tinsley
SI Frances V. Garland
S/Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
, Chairman
, Vice Chairman
, Secretary
, Secretary, Electoral Board
(Seal)
WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION
ROANOKE
COUNTY
Attorney General
OFFICE TITLE
x CITY
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
X General
Special Election
November 6, 2001
Page 1 of I
WRITE-INS - SUMMARY
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
[IN FIGURES]
1. Invalid Write-Ins ...................................
2. Valid Write-Ins ....................................
3. Total Write-Ins~ ....................................
[ENTER THIS FIGURE ON LINE FOR TOTAL WRITE-IN VOTES
ON ABSTRACT FOR THIS OFFICE.]
ENTER TOTALINVALID
1
ENTER TOTAL VALID
4
ADD LINES 1 AND 2
VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL
LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON
CONSTRUCTION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS
WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON
LINE 2 ABOVE.
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
[IN FIGURES]
John Edwards ......................... 1
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 6, 2001, do hereby certify that, with the
continuation pages indicated, the above is a true and correct certification of the write-in votes cast
at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 8th day of November, 2001.
A copy teste:
(Seal)
SI Carl T. Tinsley
SI Frances V. Garland
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
, Chairman
., Vice Chairman
, Secretary
, Secretary, EleCtoral Board
WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION
ROANOKE
COUNTY x CITY
X General
Special Election
Member House of Delegates
OFFICE TITLE
November 6, 2001
17th
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
Page 1 of 1
WRITE-INS - SUMMARY
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
[IN FIGURES]
1. Invalid Write-Ins ..................................
2. Valid Write-Ins ...................................
3. Total Write-Ins ...................................
[ENTER THIS FIGURE ON LINE FOR TOTAL WRITE-IN VOTES
ON ABSTRACT FOR THIS OFFICE.]
ENTER TOTALINVALID
0
ENTER TOTAL VALID
1
ADD LINES 1 AND 2
VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL
LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON
CONSTRUCTION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS
WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON
LINE 2 ABOVE.
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
[IN FIGURES]
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 6, 2001, do hereby certify that, with the
continuation pages indicated, the above is a true and correct certification of the write-in votes cast
at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 8th day of November, 2001.
A copy teste:
(Seal)
SI Carl T. Tinsley
SI Frances V. Garland
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
, Chairman
, Vice Chairman
, Secretary
, Secretary, Electoral Board
14
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke
at the November 6, 2001 General Election, for:
, Virginia,
COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTYID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES)
Donald S. Caldwell
18,349
Total Write-in Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] ............
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office
Total Number of Undervotes For Office .........................
6,522
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 6, 2001, do hereby certify that the above
is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election and do, therefore, determine and declare
that the following person has received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said
election:
Given under our hands this
A copy teste:
(Seal)
Donald S. Caldwell
8th day of November, 2001.
SI Carl T. Tinsley
SI Frances V. Garland
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
, Chairman
, Vice Chairman
, Secretary
, Secretary, Electoral Board
WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION
ROANOKE
COUNTY x CITY
X General
Special Election
Commonwealth's Attorney
OFFICE TITLE
November 6, 2001
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
Page 1 of I
WRITE-INS - SUMMARY
TOTALVOTES
RECEIVED
[IN FIGURES]
1. Invalid Write-Ins .................................
2. Valid Write-Ins ..................................
3. Total Write-Ins ..................................
[ENTER THIS FIGURE ON LINE FOR TOTAL WRITE-IN VOTES
ON ABSTRACT FOR THIS OFFICE.]
ENTER TOTALINVALID
0
ENTER TOTAL VALID
3
ADDLINESlAND2
VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL
LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON
CONSTRUCTION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS
WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON
LINE 2 ABOVE.
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
[IN FIGURES]
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 6, 2001, do hereby certify that, with the
continuation pages indicated, the above is a true and correct certification of the write-in votes cast
at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 8th day of November, 2001.
A copy teste:
(Seal)
SI Carl T. Tinsley
SI Frances V. Garland
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
S/Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
, Chairman
, Vice Chairman
, Secretary
, Secretary, Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke
at the November 6, 2001 General Election, for:
, Virginia,
SHERIFF
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTYID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES)
Octavia L. Johnson
9,278
Geor~le M. McMillan
............................... 13,857
Total Write-in Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] ...........
0
0
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office .........................
Total Number of Undervotes For Office ........................ 1,739
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 6, 2001, do hereby certify that the c, bove
is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election and do, therefore, determine and declare
that the following person has received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said
election:
GeorRe M. McMillan
Given under our hands this
A copy teste:
(Seal)
8th day of November, 2001.
SI Carl T. Tinsley
SI Frances V. Garland
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
, Chairman
, Vice Chairman
, Secretary
, Secretary, Electoral Board
17
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke
at the November 6, 2001 General Election, for:
, Virginia,
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTYID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES)
J. Patrick H. Green
Sherman A. Holland
............................... 7,762
............................... 14,325
Total Write-in Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] ............
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office
Total Number of Undervotes For Office ..........................
0
2,786
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 6, 2001, do hereby certify that the above
is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election and do, therefore, determine and declare
that the following person has received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said
election:
Sherman A. Holland
Given under our hands this
A copy teste:
(Seal)
8th day of November, 2001.
SI Carl T. Tinsley
SI Frances V. Garland
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
, Chairman
, Vice Chairman
, Secretary
, Secretary, Electoral Board
WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION
ROANOKE
COUNTY x CITY
Commissioner of Revenue
OFFICE TITLE
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
X General
Special Election
November 6, 2001
Page I of 1
WRITE-INS - SUMMARY
1. Invalid Write-Ins .................................
2. Valid Write-Ins ...................................
3. Total Write-lns. ...................................
[ENTER THIS FIGURE ON LINE FOR TOTAL WRITE-IN VOTES
ON ABSTRACT FOR THIS OFFICE.]
VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL
LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON
CONSTRUCTION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS
WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON
LINE 2 ABOVE.
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
[IN FIGURES]
1
ENTER TOTALINVALID
0
ENTER TOTAL VALID
1
ADDLINESlAND2
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
[IN FIGURES]
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 6, 2001, do hereby certify that, with the
continuation pages indicated, the above is a true and correct certification of the write-in votes cast
at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 8th day of November, 2001.
A copy teste:
(Seal)
SI Carl T. Tinsley
SI Frances V. Garland
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
, Chairman
, Vice Chairman
, Secretary
, Secretary, Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke
at the November 6, 2001 General Election, for:
, Virginia,
TREASURER
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH PARTYID AS SHOWN ON BALLOT (IN FIGURES)
David C. Anderson
19,758
4
0
Total Write-in Votes [SEE WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION] .....
Total Number Of Overvotes For Office ....................
Total Number of Undervotes For Office ...................
5,112
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 6, 2001, do hereby certify that the above
is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election and do, therefore, determine and declare
that the following person has received the greatest number of votes cast for the above office in said
election:
David C. Anderson
Given under our hands this
A copy teste:
(Seal)
8th day of November, 2001.
SI Carl T. Tinsley
SI Frances V. Garland
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
S/Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
, Chairman
, Vice Chairman
, Secretary
, Secretary, Electoral Board
2O
WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION
ROANOKE
COUNTY
Treasurer
x CITY
OFFICE TITLE
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
X General
Special Election
November 6, 2001
Page 1 of 1
WRITE-INS - SUMMARY
1. Invalid Write-Ins ................................
2. Valid Write-Ins ................................
3. Total Write-Ins ................................
[ENTER THIS FIGURE ON LINE FOR TOTAL WRITE.IN VOTES
ON ABSTRACT FOR THIS OFFICE.]
VALID WRITE-INS - DETAIL
LIST VALID WRITE-INS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BELOW AND ON
CONSTRUCTION PAGES, AS NEEDED. ALL VALID WRITE-INS
WHEN ADDED TOGETHER MUST EQUAL TOTAL ENTERED ON
LINE 2 ABOVE.
Frank Smith
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
[IN FIGURES]
3
ENTER TOTALINVALID
1
ENTER TOTAL VALID
4
ADD LINES1 AND2
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
[IN FIGURES]
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 6, 2001, do hereby certify that, with the
continuation pages indicated, the above is a true and correct certification of the write-in votes cast
at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 8th day of November, 2001.
A copy teste:
(Seal)
SI Carl T. Tinsley
SI Frances V. Garland
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
SI Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
, Chairman
, Vice Chairman
, Secretary
, Secretary, Electoral Board
2!
Mr. White moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
ZONING-ROANOKE NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIP STEERING COMMITTEE-
OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES: The following reports of qualification were before
Council:
Charles W. Hancock, Jr., as a member of the Roanoke Neighborhood
Partnership Steering Committee for a term ending November 30, 2002;
and
Philip H. Lemon as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals to fill the
unexpired term of J. Clayton Grogan, resigned, ending December 31,
2003.
Mr. White moved that the reports of qualification be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
REGULAR AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BLUE RIDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE-BLUE RIDGE COMMUNITY
SERVICES: William Lee, Chair, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, presented
program highlights for the period July 1, 2000 -June 30, 2001. He advised that in
fiscal year 2001, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare staff delivered 316,871 units of
service to 10,582 Roanoke residents, at a value of $11,214,594.00; the City's fiscal
year 2001 local tax contribution to agency operations was $389,708.00, which means
that Roanoke City residents received $28.78 worth of services for each tax dollar
allocated to the Community Services Board.
He reviewed the following examples of how Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare
is working for the City of Roanoke:
Assessment and Counseling Services provide the single gateway
to agency services, crisis response, comprehensive assessment
and short-term interventions for all mental disabilities.
Child and Family Services provide a continuum of prevention,
early intervention, and therapeutic services and support for
families with children who are at risk of developing, orwho have
serious emotional disorders, mental retardation and substance
abuse disorders.
Community Support Services provide the necessary services and
support to consumers with long-term mental disabilities to
maximize each individual's potential for independence, improved
quality of life and optimum level of functioning.
Ms. Wyatt commended Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare for addressing the
needs of citizens of the Roanoke Valley and responding with compassion and
caring. She stated that sometimes it is necessary to look beyond the way things
have always been done to the way things should be done in order to do the right
thing.
Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the briefing would be
received and filed.
ANNUAL REPORTS-DOWNTOWN ROANOKE, INCORPORATED: Don J.
Harrison, Chair, Downtown Roanoke, Inc. presented the Annual Report of Downtown
Roanoke Inc. He called attention to the following successes during the past year:
The relocation of the Downtown Roanoke, Inc. office to its new
location on the Roanoke City Market which brings the
organization closer to those that it serves on a daily basis.
"Big Lick", the new sidewalk cleaning machine.
Update of the Outlook Downtown Roanoke Plan which was
completed by Urban Design Associates, focusing on
development and continuing revitalization of the downtown area.
The Norfolk & Western Passenger Station which will be
converted to a museum for development.
Grand opening of Frankie Rolens Steak House, the Roanoke
Higher Education Center, Shaftman Performance Hall, Daily
Grind Coffee House, 611 Steak House, Qusinow's, Family Service
building, and American Express.
Mr. Harrison advised that Downtown Roanoke, Inc., is appreciative of its
partnership with the City of Roanoke, renewal of the agreement to manage the
Downtown Service District for another five years, and renewal of the contract to
manage the Farmers' Market. He expressed appreciation for the approval of the
bond issue which will bring about positive events for the City and especially its
downtown area, including the amphitheater/stadium and the civic center renovation
and expansion project.
Without objection by Council, the Mayor adv. ised that the briefing would be
received and filed.
COMPLAINTS-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: Dr. Jeanette D. Manns, Co-Chair,
Washington Park Neighborhood Alliance, introduced Ms. Bessie Bond, representing
residents of the Lincoln Terrace community, to present certain concerns.
Ms. Bond advised that residents of Lincoln Terrace request the installation of
screen doors on their housing units for safety purposes, and clothes lines in their
backyards, since housing units do not have washing/drying facilities.
Dr. Manns presented copy of a petition signed by approximately 56 residents
of Lincoln Terrace in support of installation of screen doors on housing units.
Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue. N. E., appeared before Council in
support of the request of Lincoln Terrace residents. She called attention to a
meeting in which officials of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
advised that screen doors would not be installed. She stated that there is a trend
that certain persons represent Lincoln Terrace residents, however, those persons
do not represent all occupants of Lincoln Terrace. She spoke in support of the
request for installation of screen doors and windows.
Mr. Bestpitch advised that there appears to be a lack of communication
between Lincoln Terrace residents and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority; whereupon, he enlisted the help of Council Member Harris, Council's
liaison to the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, to emphasize options
regarding the provision of screen doors. He stated that staff of the Housing
Authority indicate that it would cost approximately $45,000.00 to install screen doors
on all Lincoln Terrace units; when considering the total budget for improvements
at Lincoln Terrace, $45,000.00 is approximately one-tenth of one per cent of the total
cost to be invested in the area, which, in the context of the total project as a whole
is a reasonable request on the part of residents.
24
Mr. White advised that if there is a consensus that residents are desirous of
having screen doors, he would support their request and ask that the City Manager
work with officials of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority to identify
funds.
The City Manager advised that she would confer with the Executive Director
of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority for a clarification on the
intent of the Housing Authority, and funding issues will be addressed.
Ms. Wyatt requested that the City Manager also inquire about the installation
of clothes lines for housing units.
COMMITTEES-ROANOKE NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIP: Council Member
William D. Bestpitch, Council Liaison, Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering
Committee, presented a communication advising that since the Neighborhood
Partnership is now 21 years old and extensive restructuring has occurred recently
within City government, a review of the design, role, and responsibilities of the
Steering Committee is in order; the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership has grown
to 26 neighborhood groups and two business associations; three additional
neighborhood groups are forming, and greater effort has been placed upon involving
youth and the business community; and while the Partnership maintains its tradition
of working closely with volunteers, training and developing neighborhood leaders,
administering and managing community development grants, and serving as a
liaison between neighborhoods and City government, there have been other
significant changes which suggest that a review is needed, i.e.:
There is a newly created Department of Housing and
Neighborhood Services, of which the Neighborhood Partnership
is a part. Previously the Partnership was part of the Planning
Department and reported to the Director. Greater emphasis is
being placed on service delivery to the neighborhoods by all City
departments.
The Coordinator's role has expanded. Effective August 1,2001,
the Coordinator's internal responsibilities include management
of the staff and overall operation of the Citizen's Service Center,
administration of the Respond database, and training for City
departments on the use of Respond. The City now looks to the
Partnership to play a key role in quality assurance.
All Partnership staff positions are fully funded by the City. The
City has adopted the Partnership as one of its institutions.
In summary, Mr. Bestpitch pointed out that the role of the Partnership within
City government has changed; the Partnership has an expanded internal customer
base represented by various departments within City government who now look to
the Partnership for feedback, assistance, and leadership in responding to
community issues; at the same time, the demand from the community for training,
support, mediation, and advocacy has increased; the primary function of the
'Steering Committee has been working closely with Partnership staff to cultivate a
"partnership" between the City and the community to address these needs; and the
question is how best to assist the Steering Committee so that the Partnership
remains strong and community needs are met.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that Council concur in the appointment of an ad hoc,
committee composed of two members of City Council, two members of the City staff,
and three members of the current Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering
Committee to receive the structure and role of the Roanoke Neighborhood
Partnership Steering Committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder.
Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., raised the following questions:
Are members of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership
Steering Committee considered to be employees of the
City of Roanoke?
If so, would the City's hiring policy be applicable to those
persons?
How has the role of the Neighborhood Partnership
Coordinator been expanded?
Will recommendations of the Study Committee be reported
publicly prior to implementation by the City?
Mr. Bestpitch requested that the remarks of Ms. Bethel be referred to the City
Manager for response.
The motion offered by Mr. Bestpitch, seconded by Mr. Carder, was
unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS:
CITY GOVERNMENT: The City Manager introduced a briefing on the City of
Roanoke Citizens Survey 2001. She introduced Susan Walton, representing The
Virginia Tech Center for Survey Research, to present a summary of the findings.
Ms. Walton advised that the methodology used in conducting the survey
included random sampling design, survey instrument capability, survey pre-test,
survey administration via telephone, and 505 completed telephone interviews were
conducted during the period of September 24 - October 1, 2001.
Highlights of the survey include the following:
Government Initiatives:
Expansion of cooperative efforts with other local governments: up 12
per cent to 71 per cent
Services worth taxes paid by citizens: up 9 per cent to 75 per cent
Government can be trusted to do what is in the best interest of citizens:
up 6 per cent to 69 per cent
Government is "very" or "somewhat" effective in meeting community
needs: up 1 per cent to 80 per cent
Government performance is improving in Roanoke: up 3 per cent to 76
per cent.
Percentage Ratinq of Services As Excellent/Good:
Fire Protection (91)
Emergency & Rescue (90)
Public Library Services (83)
911 Emergency Call Center (76)
Beautification Programs (76)
Weekly Trash Collection (76)
Police Services (74)
Water Utility Services (74)
Recycling Services (71)
Sewer Utility Services (70)
Civic Center Events (69)
Convenience of Paying Bills (68)
Recreation Facility Maint. (68)
Large Item/Brush Pick-Up (67)
Street Lighting (66)
Mowing Govt. Property (64)
Recreation Programs (64)
Leaf Collection (63)
Cultural Activities/Events (62)
Health Department (62/81)*
Animal Control (61)
Disaster/Emergency Mgt. (61/80)*
Information to Citizens (61)
Snow/Ice Removal (61)
Govt. Building Maint. (56)
Valley Metro Bus System (56~77)*
Public Schools (55)
Parking at Civic Center (54)
Neighborhood Org. Support (53)
Street Sweeping (53)
Storm Drainage System Maint. (51)
Street Paving and Repair (51)
Traffic Planning (49)
Response to Citizen Complaints (45)
Govt. Parking Facilities (43)
Building Inspections (42~62)*
Economic Development Assistance (42~62)*
Curbs/Gutter/Sidewalks (41)
Regulation/Zoning Land Use (37~55)*
Weed Abatement (37)
Building Permit Process (34/61)*
Keeping Alleys Clean (33)
Services With the Highest Mean Rankings, Excluding "Don't Know"
Responses (Mean Rating of "Good -Excellent":
Fire Protection
Emergency and Rescue
Public Library
911 Emergency Center
Health Department
Emergency Management
Beatification Programs
Valley Metro
Water Utility Services
Weekly Trash Collection
Services with Lowest Mean Rankings Excluding "Don't Know" Responses
(Mean Rating of "Good):
Keeping Alleys Clean
Weed Abatement
Government Parking Facilities
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk Repair
Response to Citizen Complaints
Street Paving and Repair
Regulation/Zoning for Land Use
Traffic Planning
Street Sweeping
Civic Center Parking
2000-01 Increases in Service Ratin~js:
Civic Center Parking - 6.5 per cent
Pick up 0f Large Items/Brush - 6.1 per cent
Recycling Services - 5.2 per cent
2000-01 Decreases in Service Ratinqs:
Government Parking Facilities - 14.2 per cent
Weekly Trash Collection - 10.4 per cent
Public Schools - 8.9 per cent
911 Call Center - 6.7 per cent
Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Repair - 6.5 per cent
Snow and Ice Removal - 6.3 per cent
Animal Control - 6.2 per cent
Street Lighting - 6.2 per cent
Sewer Utility Services - 6.0 per cent
Convenience of Paying Bills - 5.4 per cent
Emergency/Disaster Management - 5.2 per cent
Health Department - 4.9 per cent
Emergency and Rescue - 1.5 per cent
Opinions Reqardincj Customer Service 2000-01 Comparison:
Government employees are generally friendly, courteous and helpful:
up 1 per cent to 88 per cent.
It is easy to contact the appropriate government office when you need
a particular service or have a question: down 1 per cent to 71 per cent.
Government employees provide prompt service: up 3 per cent to 77 per
cent.
Government employees treat citizens fairly: remained the same at 79
per cent
Convenient parking at government offices is generally available: up 4
per cent to 44 per cent.
Government office locations are convenient: up 6 per cent to 75 per
cent
Government office hours are convenient: up 2 per cent to 78 per ent
Top Attributes Cited As Most Favored By Respondents in Rank Order:
Convenience of Living in the City of Roanoke/Activities
Quality of Life
People
Cost of Living
Educational Opportunities
Effective Government/Government Services
Respondents were requested to answer the following questions:
What method of communication do you prefer for receiving the City of
Roanoke government information?
What do you like most about living in the City of Roanoke?
Following discussion, questions and comments by the Members of Council,
without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the briefing would be received
and filed.
FIRE DEPARTMENT-EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES: The City Manager
introduced a briefing on the Fire/EMS ISO (Insurance Service Office) rating change;
whereupon, she called upon Fire Chief James Grigsby to present the briefing.
Chief Grigsby advised that the Insurance Service Office (ISO) is an
independent organization that serves insurance companies by providing information
about a community's fire risk; each community is rated from a Class 1 (exemplary)
to a Class 10 (does not meet minimum criteria) scale; virtually all United States
insurers of homes and business property use ISO's Public Protection Classification
in calculating premiums; and better fire protection, as measured by the public
protection classification program, leads to lower fire losses.
3O
He stated that ISO's Public Protection Classification Program accurately
measures the quality of public fire protection in 45,000 fire districts across the
country: three areas are evaluated under the ISO classification system: the Fire-
EMS Department, including equipment, staffing, training and geographic distribution
of fire companies; Water Supply System, including validating the condition and
maintenance of hydrants, and a careful evaluation of the amount of available water
'compared with the amount needed to suppress fires; and the E-911 Center, including
validating telephone systems, telephone lines, staffing, and dispatching.
Chief Grigsby advised that Roanoke Fire-EMS is pleased to announce that the
Insurance Service Office has reclassified the City of Roanoke as a "Class 2 City,
which improved rating is the culmination of a three-year preparation period for a
review of the Fire-EMS Department, Water Supply System, and E-911 Center. He
stated that the Class 2 rating is an upgrade from Roanoke's 1990 classification as
a Class 3 City; major areas of improvement made during this time period to attain the
higher classification include: fire apparatus purchase and distribution, training,
records management, additional hydrants installed throughout the City, fire
preplanning of City businesses, and addition of the Computer Aided Dispatch
System and 800 MHz system in the E-911 Center.
For the citizens of Roanoke, he explained that this improved rating means a
safer City in which to live and work, a City that is better prepared to handle fire
emergencies, fire insurance premiums may be reduced or will not increase as fast,
marketing the City from an economic development standpoint, and ISO rating will
be used as a tool for future plans (i.e.: water mains and hydrant location, fire
training, etc.. He explained that a Class 2 rating is good for ten years and with
proper planning, Roanoke could achieve a Class 1 rating in ten to twenty years, and
Fire-EMS will analyze each area of department operations to determine if changes
are needed to provide the level of service and to achieve a higher ISO rating.
Mr. Martin Jeffrey, 3912 Hyde Park Drive, S. W., Roanoke County, expressed
appreciation for the work of the City's public safety personnel. He stated that the
local fire association does not agree with all of the conclusions of the Fire Chief and
the direction of the Fire Department in regard to significant proposed changes. He
added that while Roanoke may be in line to receive a Class 2 ISO rating,
implications of the changes could have a devastating effect on the ISO rating in the
future and on insurance rates of homeowners; therefore, he encouraged Council to
think long range and not be shortsighted. He advised that the proposed changes
have potentially significant equipment and staffing implications, and suggested that
an insurance expert be called upon to review potential implications since there could
be additional criteria that insurance companies use, separate and apart from the ISO
rating. He also suggested that firefighters be invited to provide their input, and there
should be a city-wide public hearing on proposed changes, particularly as they
relate to staffing and equipment and long term implications on insurance rates.
Carl D. Cooper, 2020 Carroll Avenue, N. W., Chair, Public Service Task Team
for the Comprehensive Plan, advised that the Task Team reviewed police, fire, solid
waste and environmental issues and was charged with the responsibility of
forwarding recommendations to be considered in the Comprehensive Plan. On
behalf of the Task Team, he commended the City on its achievement of a Class 2
ISO rating and noted that his remarks-do not speak to any of the other issues
regarding firefighting. He applauded the City's accomplishments and its efforts to
be receptive to input offered by citizens who were a part of the Comprehensive Plan
process.
Following discussion, comments and questions by the Members of Council,
without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the briefing would be received
and filed.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
FIRE DEPARTMENT-EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES: The City Manager
submitted a communication advising that the Fire-EMS Department's Strategic
Business Plan is based on the mission, vision and values of the department, plus
national, state and local service standards; the Plan is comprehensive in nature,
covering most aspects of department operations and offering nine major
recommendations, which range from routine station and equipment maintenance to
relocating and constructing several fire-EMS stations; recommendations contained
in the Business Plan support City Council's priorities of effective government,
regional cooperation, improved neighborhood services and include a long-range
perspective to service delivery; and approval of the Strategic Business Plan will
support the mission, values and vision of the Roanoke Fire-EMS Department, meet
community needs by providing quality Fire-EMS services, position the department
to meet future community service needs, improve department performance,
efficiency and cost effectiveness, help achieve and maintain a national accreditation
certification, enhance regional cooperation, relocate several Fire-EMS stations,
provide modern Fire-EMS stations to accommodate state-of-the-art Fire-EMS
equipment, enhance employee work environments and employee safety,' relocate
Fire-EMS administrative offices, and avoid the cost of maintaining deteriorating Fire-
EMS stations.
It was further advised that administratively, several aspects of the Plan have
already been adopted and implemented, helping to improve the City's ISO (Insurance
Service Office) rating from a Grade 3 to a Grade 2 category city; two aspects of the
Plan that received the most comments concerned the potential loss of any positions,
as well as the construction of new stations and relocation of existing service to
those new locations; nothing contained in the Business Plan advocates a reduction
of personnel; while there is some concern and opposition to relocating existing
stations, the City Manager expressed the opinion that there is more support to
provide the Fire-EMS Department with the needed infrastructure to meet current and
future service needs with properly sized and located stations than there is
opposition to the Plan; and construction of new stations will provide the needed
capacity to house modern firefighting equipment (several current station apparatus
bays are too small for new fire pumpers and larger aerial ladder trucks), plus take
advantage of recent roadway improvements permitting more efficient travel from
north to south via Peters Creek Road Extension and improvements to the bridges
at Second, Fifth and Tenth Streets.
It was explained that including new Station ~, (south Peters Creek Road) and
the construction of three additional stations, a total of four new stations will provide
services to the community by the end of the third phase of the recommended
construction period; included in each new station design will be consideration of
other community services, aS feasible; the Strategic Business Plan allows for a
reallocation, not reduction, of department personnel; the closing of Station #12
(Salem Turnpike), as approved by Council, permitted the reallocation of 12 positions;
and six positions will support co-staffing the Clearbrook station in Roanoke County
which will serve the 220 South/Southern Hills area of the City, and six positions for
staffing one additional ambulance which will primarily serve the
western/southwestern section of the City, bringing the total number of front-line
ambulances to seven.
The City Manager recommended that Council approve, in concept, the Fire-
EMS Department Strategic Business Plan with the three-phase construction
program, as follows:
Phase 1: Construct a new Station #1 in or around the downtown area.
Consolidate the present #1 (Church Avenue) and #3 (6t~ Street) stations
into the new Station #1.
Phase I1: Construct a new station in or around the Melrose Avenue area
between 16t~ and 20th Streets. Consolidate the present #5 (12th Street
and Loudon Avenue) and ~9 (24t~ Street and Melrose) stations into the
new facility.
Phase II1: Construct a new station in the northern Williamson Road
area. Relocate the residential component currently assigned to the
Airport station to the new facility.
With approval by Council, staff will develop specific recommendations
in regard to financing, station locations and land acquisitions,
architectural and engineering design and community input and plans
for re-use of current stations. Council action will be requested at each
subsequent step of the Strategic Business Plan. Action at this time will
allow for capital improvement planning.
Mr. Carder offered the following resolution:
(#35687-121701) A RESOLUTION approving the Fire-EMS Department Strategic
Business Plan.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 65, page 322.)
Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35687-121701. The motion
was seconded by Mr. White.
Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., advised that those fire stations
which are proposed to be closed present serious concerns for some citizens of
Roanoke, and further advised that the closing of Fire Station No. 12 was a tragedy.
She stated that the City could do a better job of informing citizens, and public
meetings are needed so that citizens will hear the same information at the same
time. She asked if the City has contacted the Virginia Department of Fire Programs
to conduct an evaluation of the Roanoke Fire Department in view of the seriousness
of the matter. She stated that it is not fair to take fire stations out of northwest
Roanoke; response time is critical and most of northwest Roanoke is composed of
hilly terrain, therefore, response times will differ. She suggested the renovation of
fire stations in lieu of the closing of stations.
Joyce Waugh, Vice-President, Public Policy and Strategic Issues, Roanoke
Regional Chamber of Commerce, a group of 1,450 members whose goal is to
advocate improvements for businesses, appeared before Council in support of the
Emergency Operation Plan. She advised that public safety and fire protection could
not be more important than it is today; and the Roanoke Fire/EMS proposal for
assuring the highest level of service in an area of pre-hospital medical care, fire
prevention, fire safety education and fire suppression is commendable. She stated
that the Chamber of Commerce further supports containing costs, while effectively
providing quality Fire/EMS services, relocating Fire/EMS stations to more efficiently
provide improved services in the region, efforts that enhance regional cooperation,
and measures that improve department performance, efficiency and cost
effectiveness. She added that change is rarely easy, but often is needed to respond
to changing community needs and the Chamber of Commerce looks forward to
learning more about the Fire/EMS Strategic Plan as it unfolds in a effort to create a
safer environment for all persons in the Roanoke region. She congratulated the City
upon achieving a Class 2 ISO rating.
Ms. Perneller Wilson, 3045 Willow Road, N. W., expressed concern for the
wellbeing of the citizens of the City of Roanoke who deserve four distinct services
from their City, i.e.: hospitals, a fire department, a life saving crew and a police
department. She stated that citizens of Roanoke are concerned about the closing
of fire stations and presented the Mayor with a petition signed by homeowners,
taxpayers and voters who refuse to have fire stations closed, and advocate
renovation in lieu of closure. She commended the firefighters on 24th Street for the
service they provide to protect and save lives.
34
Mr. Martin Jeffrey, 3912 Hyde Park Drive, S. W., Roanoke County, advised that
if the Fire/EMS Strategic Plan is valid and if all assumptions are correct, the City
should be willing to participate in public discussion including homeowners and
firefighters. He stated that there are clearly staffing implications in the strategic plan
and it is the responsibility of Council to explore all angles before making a decision,
particularly one with such far reaching implications for life, property damage and
loss. He advised that the northwest quadrant of the City has been dealing with
change for years, much to its detriment as a result of shortsighted decisions and
decisions made too quickly and in favor of business. He stated that there are
serious implications regarding safety issues and property damage.
R. Matthew Kennell, President, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., advised that the
Board of Directors of Downtown Roanoke, Inc., is supportive of the Fire Strategic
Business Plan which is well prepared and addresses the overall needs of the City.
He stated that Downtown Roanoke, Inc. is excited about the prospect of Fire Station
No. 1 becoming a museum to celebrate the heritage of firefighting and emergency
medical services in the Roanoke Valley, and about the possibility of a new fire
station being located in the downtown area which will benefit not only downtown
Roanoke, but the southeast quadrant of the City and other surrounding
neighborhoods.
Mr. Hudson advised that he does not support the closing of fire stations,
although renovation is needed on some fire facilities. He stated that he would not
vote for any action that will jeopardize the safety and security of citizens.
Mr. Bestpitch advised that five old, and, in some cases, poorly located fire
stations, which are inadequate to accommodate the equipment of today, are not
simply being closed or eliminated, but are to be replaced with four modern up-to-
date stations of adequate size to accommodate today's state of the art equipment
in firefighting techniques. He called attention to road improvements that will allow
vehicular equipment to move throughout the City more efficiently, improvements in
communications technology which will provide the capability to process incoming
calls, dispatch equipment in a faster way, and overall to provide continuing
improvements in the City's ability to protect the life and property of its citizens as
related to fire safety. He commended the Fire Chief on his efforts to communicate
the plan in 21 different meetings to over 200 citizens. He stated that there has been
significant public discussion and encouraged the Members of Council to support
Fire/EMS Strategic Plan.
Ms. Wyatt advised that the Fire/ EMS Strategic Plan is the most racist
proposition ever to be placed before the Council. She called attention to certain
action affecting the northwest quadrant of the City with regard to neighborhood
schools that were closed because it was economically feasible as a cost saving
mechanism, but when it was time to continue the process to close and consolidate
elementary schools such as Fishburn Park, Raleigh Court, Grandin Court, Wasena,
and Highland Park, the rules suddenly changed when it was decided that those
schools were needed to stabilize the neighborhoods and the City was willing to pay
the extra money. Although it was a good decision, she added that it was a decision
that was reached too late for the schools in the northwest quadrant of the City. She
'called attention to old fire stations in the southern half of the City which are not
scheduled for change; and advised that the Crystal Spring Fire Station could have
been moved to Franklin Road and could have served the Southern Hills population.
She stated that four fire stations: Loudon Avenue, Rorer Avenue, Salem Turnpike
and 24th Street, out of the fiv® stations to be closed, are located in the northwest
quadrant of the City; and one station is proposed to be constructed, which leaves
two fire stations in the entire northwest section of the City.
Resolution No. 35687-121701 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................................................................. 5.
NAYS: Council Members Hudson and Wyatt ............................................... -2.
FIRE DEPARTMENT-EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES: The City Manager
submitted a communication advising that the City of Roanoke prepares and
maintains the Emergency Operations Plan, in accordance with Section 2-126, Code
of the City of Roanoke, 1979, as amended, and the Commonwealth of Virginia
Emergency Services and Disaster Laws, Title 44, Chapter 3.2; Council adopted the
current Plan on November 4, 1996; pursuant to the City's Local Partnership
Performance Agreement, signed with the Virginia Department of Emergency
Management, the Plan requires reauthorization at the end of the fifth calendar year;
the Plan provides an organizational framework and response capability from which
the City can respond to any type of disaster or large-scale emergency, whether the
cause is natural, technological orwar related; associated departments reviewed and
revised the applicable sections of the Plan and said changes have been
incorporated; and the Plan provides that emergency services operations be
structured around existing constitutional governments and that City Council, in the
event of an emergency, confer upon the City Manager, or a predetermined
representative in the absence of the City Manager, the authority to act pursuant to
Section 44-146.21, Declaration of local emergency.
The City Manager recommended that Council reauthorize the Emergency
Operations Plan for the City of Roanoke.
Mr. Carder offered the following resolution:
(#35688-121701 ) A RESOLUTION readopting the Emergency Operations Plan
for the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 65, page 322.)
Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35688-121701. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder and Mayor Smith--5.
NAYS: Council Members Hudson and Wyatt ............................................. 2.
BUDGET-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that the Virginia Department of Social Services issued a
Request for Proposals to use Federal funds to provide job search, job coaching and
job retention services for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Hard-To-
Serve recipients; theCity of Roanoke Department of Social Services responded to
the request for proposals with a proposal outlining its intent to work collaboratively
with TAP - This Valley Works to provide work-related services above listed; under
the proposal, eligible TANF recipients who must obtain employment, but are not in
compliance with certain regulatory requirements, will have customized job search
assistance; case managers will work with these individuals to develop and initiate
an individualized plan of action to meet compliance requirements and to assist in
securing and maintaining employment; and the City of Roanoke was awarded
$473,411.00 in grant funding under the TANF Hard-to-Serve Project for fiscal years
2001 and 2002.
The City Manager recommended that Council authorize acceptance of the
grant award, appropriate Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funding,
totaling $473,411.00, and establish a revenue estimate of $473,411.00 in accounts to
be established by the Director of Finance.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following emergency budget ordinance:
(#35689-121701) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2001-2002 Grant Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 65, page 323.)
· Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35689-121701. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
37
AYES: Council Members Harris, Bestpitch, Whit, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution:
(#35690-121701) A RESOLUTION authorizing acceptance of a grant award from
the Virginia Department of Social Services under the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) Hard-to-Serve project for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and
authorizing execution of any and all necessary documents to comply with the terms
and conditions of the grant and applicable laws, regulations and requirements
pertaining thereto.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No.65, page 324.)
Mr. Bestpitch .moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35690-121701. The
motion was seconded by Mr.-Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ....... , ............................................................................ ~ .... 0.
PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-DONATIONS/CONTRIBUTIONS-
ARMORY/STADIUM: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that on
May 21, 2001, Council authorized the City Manager to begin negotiations for
acquisition of property across Orange Avenue from the Roanoke Civic Center for the
purpose of constructing a multipurpose stadium/amphitheater facility; and the City
has received an offer to transfer certain property described as Official Tax No.
3070318, owned by Calvin W. and Mary C. Powers and Theodore J. & Judy P. Sutton,
as a gift.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to accept property
described as Official Tax No. 3070318 as a gift to the City, and that Council adopt
a resolution expressing appreciation to Calvin W. and Mary C. Powers and
Theodore J. and Judy P. Sutton for their property donation.
Mr. Carder moved that the following ordinance be placed upon its first
reading:
(#35691) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager's acceptance of a
donation to the City of Roanoke of a parcel of land identified as Official Tax No.
3070318, and expressing appreciation to Calvin W. and Mary C. Powers and
Theodore J. and Judy P. Sutton for the donation.
(Ordinance No. 35691 was adopted by Council on its second reading on
Tuesday, January 22, 2002.)
The motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None .............................................. -. .......................................... 0.
PUBLIC WORKS-EQUIPMENT-STREETS AND ALLEYS: The City Manager
submitted a communication advising that the Capital Maintenance and Equipment
Replacement Program (CMERP) has identified the need to purchase one street
sweeper for Streets and Traffic; the lowest bids, submitted by Virginia Public Works
Equipment Company for Base Bid and Alternate 1, took exceptions on the following
requirements: vacuum dust control package, vario brush requirement, conveyor
system and main broom for. the sweeping system, water
requirements/recommendations for dust control and high dump sweeper
requirement; said exceptions are substantial and cannot be waived as informalities,
therefore, bids are non-responsive; and the next lowest bid, submitted by Tennant
Sales and Service Company was in the amount of $109,750.00, and took one
exception in the type of seat covering to be provided, which is considered to be an
informality.
The City Manager recommended that Council accept the bid of Tennant Sales
and Services Company, authorize issuance of a purchase order in the total amount
of $109,750.00, and reject all other bids received by the City.
Mr. Harris offered the following resolution:
(#35692-121701) A RESOLUTION accepting the bid of Tennant Sales and
Service Company made to the City for the procurement of a street sweeper; and
rejecting all other bids made to the City.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 65, page 325.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35692-121701. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY CODE-PUBLIC ASSEMBLY: The City Attorney submitted a written report
advising that from time to time, groups wish to use City property, such as parks or
rights-of-way; for example, a group may wish to hold a block party on a cul-de-sac,
or a parade in a street, or use a large area within a park; the current City ordinance
which regulates the issuance of permits for such activities is deficient in several
aspects and does not adequately address current administrative and legal needs;
competing needs for the use of public property and the many issues that arise in
relation to the use of public property mandate consideration of a new public
assembly ordinance; the City's ability to enact a public assembly ordinance which
addresses the needs of the City and the general public is constrained by
constitutional protections of First Amendment activities, which include picketing or
holding signs, making speeches or engaging in prayer, and distributing literature,
among other activities; the United States Supreme Court and other courts have
construed the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to prohibit overly
broad prior restraints by government on speech, subjective evaluations of an
assembly or the message being broadcast by the assembly, and actions'by a
government which may have a chilling effect on a group's ability to exercise its First
Amendment rights.
It was further advised that the City Attorney's Office has worked closely over
a considerable period of time with a team of City employees, consisting of
representatives of the Police Department, the Parks and Recreation Department, the
Streets and Traffic Division, and the Special Events Committee, to prepare a new
public assembly ordinance and to devise a new internal system for administration
of the ordinance; and representation from various City departments helped to ensure
that the needs of the City and the general public were met as much as possible,
given the constitutional constraints.
It was noted that a proposed ordinance requires that before any person or
group, unless exempted from its provisions, assembles on a sidewalk, in a street,
in a public park, or on public property, they must obtain a public assembly permit;
in general, groups of under 100 persons would not need a permit to use an area
within a public park (unless any temporary structures, such as a stage, are needed),
and a group of under six persons would not need a permit to conduct a public
meeting on a public sidewalk; the information solicited for a public assembly permit
varies based upon the type of public property needed for a public assembly, but all
40
groups must identify the date, time location and route, if applicable, of a public
assembly; the proposed ordinance also provides that the Director of the Department
of Public Works issue the permit, unless the Director finds that the public assembly
unduly disrupts pedestrian or vehicular traffic, interferes with the movement of fire-
fighting equipment, interferes with fire or police protection of an area adjacent to a
public assembly area or route, or that the public assembly conflicts, by virtue of its
'time or location, with another public assembly; any person orgroup may request
that a permit be issued, even though the ordinance does not require that a permit be
issued, in the event that the group wishes to ensure that it has exclusive use of an
area; and finally, the proposed ordinance provides for an administrative appeal
process in the event of denial.
Mr. Carder offered the following ordinance:
(#35693-121701) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining §20-8, Closing
streets to traffic, of Chapter 20, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, and §24-89, Reservation
of space or facilities for use by cjroups at particular time, of Chapter 24, Public
Buildinqs and Property; repealing §24-93, Permit for parades and assemblies, of
Chapter 24, Public Buildings and Property; repealing Article V, Permit for Parades
or Assemblies on Street or Sidewalks, of Chapter 30, Streets and Sidewalks, of the
Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended; and adding new Article 5.1, to be
entitled Permit for Public Assemblies, of Chapter 30, Streets and Sidewalks, of the
Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to provide for standards of a permit
system for public assemblies on public streets, sidewalks and on public property;
dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance; and providing for an effective
date.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 65, page 326.)
Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35693-121701. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris.
Vice-Mayor Carder called attention to instances during Festival in the Park
when the Patrick Henry Hotel was barricaded off for several hours and guests and
employees had to walk from as far away as three blocks to reach the hotel. He
stated that it should be taken into consideration that there are establishments that
are open for business; and there should be a procedure for notification of and
approval by those business owners who will be affected.
Ms. Wyatt called attention to the need to review parade procedures; i.e.: when
will streets be blocked off prior to commencement of parades special events.
Ordinance No. 35693-121701 was adopted by the following vote:
4!
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 6.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member White was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
PARKS AND RECREATION-COMMITTEES-COMMUNITY PLANNING: A report
of the City Planning Commission advising that the Department of Parks and
Recreation submitted a request that the Planning Commission consider the naming
of a 7.5 acre tract of land, Brown-Robertson Park, in honor of Dorothy Brown and
Hazel Robertson, two individuals who were active in the Shadeland community and
both lost their lives in the flood of 1985; whereupon the City Planning Commission
recommended that City Council name the 7.5 acre site on Shadeland Avenue, N. W.,
Brown-Robertson Park.
Mr. Carder offered the following resolution:
(#35694-121701) A RESOLUTION naming a new park in the Washington Park
neighborhood as Brown-Robertson Park.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 65, page 334.)
Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35694-121701. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 6.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member White was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board
requesting that Council approve the following appropriations, was before the body.
4?-
$15,000.00 for the FY2001-02 Chess Program to pay for chess
materials and tournament participation costs. This continuing
grant program has received a private donation.
$42,500.00 for the Blue Ridge Technical Academy Bio-Medical
Career Laboratory Program. The program which has been
endowed by Johnson and Johnson, Incorporated, will provide for
installation and operation of a bio-medical career laboratory at
the Academy. A corporate donation has been received for year
one of a three-year program.
$22,715.00 for computer network switches and transceivers at
Fairview Elementary School. The requirement is being funded
from an approved Literary Fund loan for the project.
$26,960.00 for computer network switches and transceivers at
Fishbur~n Park Elementary School. The requirement is being
funded from an approved Literary Fund loan for the project.
A report of the Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in the
request of the School Board, was also before the body.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following emergency budget ordinance:
(#35695-121701) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2001-2002 School and School Capital Projects Funds Appropriations, and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 65, page 335.)
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35695-121701. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 6.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member White was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None.
43
INTRODUCTION
RESOLUTIONS: None.
AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL:
COUNCIL: Council Member Bestpitch advised that pursuant to the new rules
of procedure for citizen participation at City Council meetings, no person who
wishes to speak at a Council meeting has been denied the right to do so.
REMARKS BY THE CITY MANAGER:
FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager ~larified that there will be a
consolidated fire station in the northwest section of the City as a result of the merger
of Fire Stations 5 and 9 and the third phase of the Fire/EMS Business Plan calls for
a new station on Williamson Road to address what is believed to be definite needs
over the next five to seven years.
At this point, the Mayor announced that RVTV, Channel 3 coverage of the City
Council meeting would conclude.
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, without objection by Council, for
response, report and recommendation to Council.
FIRE DEPARTMENT- PUBLIC ASSEMBLY- COUNCIL-REFUSE COLLECTION-
NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS-GREATER GAINSBORO PARKING GARAGE: Ms.
Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., advised that the location and proposed
parking for the Gainsboro Parking Garage was initially set forth by the Roanoke
Neighborhood Development Corporation; however, the next time the parking garage
issue was discussed, the parking garage was to be owned and operated by the City
of Roanoke.
Ms. Bethel called attention to continuing problems relative to the street
placement of the City's "big blue" refuse containers, and advised that certain
concerns of residents have not been resolved.
In reference to the proposed closing of fire stations, Ms. Bethel, advised that
some neighborhood groups have been promised the donation of the fire stations
that are proposed for closure.
44
In regard to Ordinance No. 35693-121701 previously adopted by Council, Ms.
Bethel stated that all neighborhood entities should be notified when a street is to be
closed by the City.
In reference to the new citizens participation proposal at City Council
meetings, Ms. Bethel stated that groups and organizations are given the opportunity
to make formal presentations to Council under Item 5. Petitions and
Communications, and inquired if there is a procedure in place which will permit a
citizen who is not a member of a group or an organization to address Council under
agenda Item 5. Petitions and Communications.
FIRE DEPARTMENT-EMERGENCY SERVICES-CITY COUNCIL: Ms. Helen E.
Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., addressed the Fire/EMS Business Plan and
suggested that the Virginia Department of Fire Programs be invited to conduct an
evaluation of the Roanoke City Fire Department.
She also questioned the rule of Council that prohibits applauding during City
Council meetings, except as a part of ceremonial matters, and advised that
enforcement of the rule should be applied consistently to all persons appearing
before Council.
At 5:15 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess to be
reconvened at 5:30 p.m., in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room,
Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., for a joint
meeting of Roanoke City Council and the Roanoke City School Board.
The Council meeting reconvened at 5:35 p.m., for a joint meeting of Council
and the Roanoke City School Board in Room 159, Emergency Operations Center
Conference Room, with Vice-Mayor William H. Carder and School Board Chair,
Sherman L. Lea presiding.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., C. Nelson Harris,
William D. Bestpitch, William White, Sr., Linda F. Wyatt and Vice-Mayor William H.
Carder ............................................................................................... -6.
ABSENT: Mayor Ralph K. Smith ................................................................. 1.
SCHOOL TRUSTEES PRESENT: Charles W. Day, Marsha W. Ellison, Gloria P.
Manns, Melinda J. Payne, Ruth C. Wilson and Chairman Sherman P. Lea ................ 6.
ABSENT: Brian J. Wishneff- ...................................................................... 1.
Following dinner, the business session convened at 5:55 p.m.
SCHOOLS: Chairman Lea presented information on the Roanoke City Schools
anticipated budget needs and projected financial shortfalls for fiscal year 2002-03
and beyond. He advised that in August, the School Board discussed the anticipated
need for an increase of some $3 million in the School system's operating budget
over the next several years; the recent highly publicized deficits in State revenues
and the events of September 11 have altered the Board's request; and the reality of
these events make it unrealistic for the Roanoke City School Board to make the
same request today that the Board had previously discussed with Council.
With regard to revenue history, Mr. Lea advised that State funds have
'increased by over $19 million since fiscal year 1995; average i'ncrease from fiscal
year 1995 to fiscal year 2000 was $4.6 million; increase in State funds declined by
almost $3.3 million from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2002; State funding is
tentatively projected to increase by less than $500,000.00 for the fiscal year 2003;
and fiscal year 2003 estimate is preliminary with the Governor's proposed biennium
budget to be released later this month.
In connection with the revenue estimate, he pointed out that fiscal year
revenue increase is at its lowest since fiscal year 1991 when revenue actually
declined; State revenue is adversely affected by stagnant State sales tax collections
and a slight decline in enrollment because of declining birth rates; the City's
increase is slightly more than one half of the fiscal year 2002 increase; and Federal
and the revenue is increasing as the result of growth in special education tuition
and pupil transportation reimbursements.
Mr. Lea reviewed operating budget priorities; i.e.: the proposed fiscal, year
2003 budget identifies three levels of budget reductions ranging from $1 million to
slightly under $2 million in savings; the objective is to maintain direct services to
the classroom and to continue the current level of class size which averages 18 to 1;
last year, employee salaries increased by two per cent while neighboring localities
provided a three to five per cent increase; and Roanoke's high schools are one of
the few in the State with a six period day while a seventh period would improve
elective options open to students.
Mr. Lea discussed operating efficiencies; i.e.: proposed budget reductions
have focused on central office and support staffs; all programs and services have
been reviewed to determine where savings could be achieved and still meet State
and Federal mandates; consolidation of services has been analyzed to combine
support services both internally and with the City; and School staff is working with
the City to review the potential for the consolidation of transportation maintenance
services.
With regard to maintaining educational services, he advised that health
insurance costs continue to escalate, with a 15 per cent increase projected for fiscal
year 2003, and the objective is to avoid passing health insurance increases on to
the employee; inflation continues to increase fixed costs, particularly property and
casualty insurance which is projected to increase by approximately 50 per cent;
personnel lapse averages about $500,000.00 per year because of employee
retirements and resignations; and for the next four years, the net increase to
maintain the current level of educational services is estimated to range from a Iow
of $300,000.00 to a high of $800,000.00.
In connection with a plan to improve employee salaries, Chairman Lea advised
that salaries for teachers at the midpoint of the scale are about $750.00 lower than
Roanoke County's salaries, but the City's salaries for senior teachers are
approximately $2,100.00 more than Roanoke County; elementary principal salaries
at small schools are $5,000.00 less than Roanoke County, but salaries for larger
elementary, middle and high school principals are equal to County salaries; the
salary plan is to raise the City's salary scale by five per cent over the next four years
in addition to tier and step raises provided to employees; the objective is to increase
employee salaries by an average of 4.5 to 5 per cent annually; and a minimum of $3
million per year is required to meet the salary objective.
Mr. Lea stated that the cost to add a seventh period to the high school
schedule exceeds $1 million; because of revenue uncertainties, the high cost of the
seven period day precludes its implementation in the near future, and he has
recommended that its implementation be deferred until the initial phase of high
school improvements is completed.
With regard to'the capital plan, Chairman Lea advised that in the mid-1980's
Council and the School Board worked cooperatively and made a decision not to
close schools in Roanoke City; the commitment was to renovate outdated school
facilities as a way to keep neighborhoods vibrant; in 1987, the School Board
embarked on an ambitious renovation plan, beginning with the oldest schools, so
that over time (the next two decades) all school facilities in Roanoke City would be
equipped to prepare students for success. He stated that the capital improvement
plan began with the renovation of the seven oldest elementary schools, with the first
being completed in 1988; next, the four oldest middle schools were renovated;
during this period from 1987-1998, other elementary and middle schools received
major improvements such as central air conditioning, additional classrooms and two
elementary schools received the addition of a gymnasium; and approximately $95
million has been spent on capital projects since the inception of the plan in 1987.
He described the following capital plan priorities beginning with the 2002 school
year and beyond:
The new Roanoke Academy of Mathematics and Science will be
completed by July 2003 with its capital cost shared equally with
the City.
Elementary school classroom additions and air conditioning will
be completed at seven schools by the summer of 2005.
High school improvements will start in the spring of 2004 at
Patrick Henry High School; and projects may be phased in
because of revenue constraints; and
47
Upgrade of technology infrastructure will occur in coordination with
improvements at each school; State funds may be available to assist
with technology upgrades;
Annual debt service for projects will increase by $550,000.00 to
$750,000.00 per year for each of the next four years.
By 2005 all elementary school improvements planned in 1996 will be
completed.
High school completion schedule will be finalized in 2003 based on
revenue projections.
Mr. Lea advised that fiscal year budget priorities are: cost to meet the School
Board's budget priorities for fiscal year 2003 includes an employee average salary
raise of 4.65 per cent; and the net total cost increase is $2.5 million which includes
budget reductions of 38 personnel positions and $525,000.00 in operating
expenditures; preliminary revenue increase of $400,000.00 will allow for only a 1.45
per cent average salary raise for employees; the net Maintenance of Services budget
will decrease by over $500,000.00 with the inclusion of $1.5 million in budget
savings; and unfunded priorities total $2.1 million including an additional three per
cent raise for employees.
Chairman Lea advised that revenue shortfall has serious long term
consequences for employee salaries, capital project completion, class size and
instructional program services; and standards of accreditation go into full effect in
2004 and the progress that the School system has made in meeting the new
standards will be eroded.
There being no further business, the Vice-Mayor declared the Council meeting
in recess at 6:35 p.m., to be recommended at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber.
On Monday, December 17, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., the Roanoke City Council
reconvened in regular session in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C.
Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with the
following Council Members in attendance, Mayor Smith presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., C. Nelson Harris,
William D. Bestpitch, William White, Sr., William H. Carder, Linda F. Wyatt and Mayor
Ralph K. Smith .................................................................................................. 7.
ABSENT: None ............................................................................ -0.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; James D. Grisso, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk.
The reconvened meeting was opened with a prayer by Council Member
C. Nelson Harris.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor Smith.
PRESENTATIONS AND' ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT- POLICE DEPARTMENT: The Mayor
recognized and commended Mr. Bobby Firebaugh, Mr. E. V. Gillespie and Mr. Ralph
Hoskins for going above and beyond the call of duty as citizens when, on September
14, 2001, they witnessed a bank robbery at the First Union Bank in the 4200 block of
Melrose Avenue. He advised that they observed the bank robber getting ip. to a
station wagon parked near the bank, they followed the vehicle to a nearby residential
street and telephoned police, which helped police officers to respond and locate the
suspect's car which ultimately led to an arrest. The Mayor advised that the
assistance of Mr. Firebaugh, Mr. Gillespie and Mr. Hoskins enabled police officers
to make a quick arrest that could have gone unsolved without their assistance.
Mr. Carder offered the following resolution:
(#35685-121701) A RESOLUTION recognizing Bobby Firebaugh, E. V. Gillespie,
and Ralph Hoskins for their assistance to Roanoke police officers in the
apprehension of a criminal.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 65, page 319.)
Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35685-121701. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
The Mayor presented Messrs. Firebaugh, Gillespie and Haskins with a
ceremonial copy of the above referenced measure and a gold star.
The Mayor also recognized and commended Mr. John Eichenberger for going
above and beyond the call of duty as a citizen, when on November 8, 2001, a man
entered the pharmacy area at the back of the CVS Pharmacy on Grandin Road with
a shirt over his face, carrying a crowbar, and demanding drugs from the pharmacist.
He stated that Mr. Eichenberger, who was a customer in the store at the time, was
able to remove the crowbar from the robber's hand and restrain him with package
sealing tape, which enabled the police to respond to the incident, arrest the man
who was charged with attempted robbery, assault and wearing a mask in public.
The Mayor advised that the bravery of Mr. Eichenberger prevented a crime from
occurring.
Mr. Harris offered the following resolution:
(#35686-121701) A RESOLUTION recognizing John J. Eichenberger for his
assistance to Roanoke police officers in the apprehension of a criminal.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 65, page 321.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35686-121701. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
The Mayor presented Mr. Eichenberger with a ceremonial copy of the above
referenced measure and a gold star.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
ZONING: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council on
Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday,
December 17, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,
on the request of Vaughn & Jamison, LLC, to rezone three tracts of land loCated at
the intersection of Route 419 and Keagy Road, S. W., identified as Official Tax Nos.
5130119, 5130121 and 5130122, containing 1.117 acre and 2.948 acres, from RS-l,
Residential Single-Family District, to CN, Neighborhood Commercial District, and
RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development District, subject to certain conditions
proffered by the petitioner, the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, November 30, 2001, and Friday, December 7, 2001.
A report of the City Planning Commission advising that the petitioner requests
that a 1.117-acre portion of land in the northwest section of the development be
rezoned to CN, Neighborhood Commercial District, to allow for development of a
bank branch; and the remaining 2.948 acres of land to the south and east is
requested fOr rezoning to RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development District, for
a ten-lot subdivision, was before Council.
The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the
request for rezoning, subject to certain proffered conditions, and advised that given
the adjacent land uses and zoning patterns, the subject properties are well suited
for a combination of commercial and residential development and the proposed
rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; in addition, the proposed
development plan and requested zoning changes provide a reasonable approach to
development of the property that can be supported by the neighborhood association.
Mr. Bestpitch _offered the following ordinance:
(#35696-121701) AN ORDINANCE to amend §36.1-3, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 513, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of
Roanoke, to rezone certain property within the City, subject to certain conditions
proffered by the applicant; and dispensing with the second reading of this
ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 65, page 337.)
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35696-121701. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Hudson.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to address
Council in connection with the matter.
Bob Caudle, President, Greater Roanoke Neighborhood Association, spoke
in support of the request for rezoning.
There being no further speakers, Ordinance No. 35696-121701was adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None 0.
The Mayor declared the public hearing closed.
$!
CITY CODE-ZONING-TOWING CONTRACT: The City Clerk having advertised
a public hearing for Monday, December 17, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter
as the matter may be heard, on the proposed amendment of Section 36.1-25,
Definitions, Chapter 36.1, Zoning, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
to amend the definition of tow truck operation to facilitate in the proper classification
and location of such use and to assist in code enforcement activities pertaining to
such uses, the matter was before the body.
A report of the City Planning Commission advising that on November 15,
2001, the Planning Commission voted to approve the proposed amendment and
forwarded a recommendation to Council; however, since the Planning Commission's
meeting, additional public comment has been received.
The City Planning Commission recommended that the City's Towing Advisory
Board be informed of the proposed amendment and provided with appropriate
information, and requested that the proposed amendment defining a tow truck
operation be referred back to the City Planning Commission for further
consideration.
Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the matter would be
referred back to the City Planning Commission for further report to Council.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS-EASEMENTS-CITY PROPERTY: Pursuant to
Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council on Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk
having advertised a public hearing for Monday, December 17, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., or
as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of the City of Roanoke
to convey City-owned property identified as Official Tax No. 2760603, commonly
known as 4037 Vermont Avenue, N. W., on which a drainage ditch is constructed to
protect adjacent properties from stormwater runoff and retaining appropriate
easements or rights-of-way to maintain the drainage ditch, to the adjacent property
owner, Paul L. Honaker, thereby relieving the City of Roanoke of the cost of
maintaining the property and returning same to the tax base, the matter was before
the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, November 30, 2001, and Friday, December 7, 2001.
A report of the City Manager advising that the City acquired a lot located on
Vermont Avenue, N.W., Official Tax No. 2760603, to construct a drainage ditch to
protect adjacent properties from stormwater runoff; an adjacent property owner
Paul L. Honaker, has agreed to accept the lot with the drainage ditch, thereby
relieving the City of the responsibility of maintenance and for return to the tax base;
the other adjacent property owner, Vera A. Stuart, has signed a letter indicating that
she is not interested in owning the lot, or a portion thereof; the lot is of no benefit
to the City, may be declared surplus, conveyed to Mr. Honaker for no consideration,
and retaining appropriate easements or rights-of-way to maintain the drainage ditch,
as before Council.
The City Manager recommended, following the public hearing, that she be
authorized to execute the appropriate documents to convey said property to Paul L.
Honaker, with appropriate documents to be approved as to form by the City Attorney.
Mr. Carder offered the following ordinance:
(#35697-121701) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to execute a
deed providing for the conveyance of City-owned property located at 4037 Vermont
Avenue, N. W., and identified as Official Tax No. 2760603, upon certain terms and
conditions, and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 65, page 338.)
Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35697-121701. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to address
Council in connection with the matter. There being none, Ordinance No. 35697-
121701 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
The Mayor declared the public hearing closed.
ARMORY/STADIUM-CITY PROPERTY-HOSPITALS-LEASES: Pursuant to
Resolution No. 25523 adopted bythe Council on Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk
having advertised a public hearing for Monday, December 17, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., or
as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of the City of Roanoke
to lease a portion of City-owned property located at Victory Stadium to Carilion
Medical Center, to provide up to a maximum of 300 parking spaces, the matter was
before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, November 30, 2001, and Friday, December 7, 2001.
A report of the City Manager advising that Carilion Medical Center, an affiliate
of Carilion Health System, plans to construct a new addition to the Medical Center,
as well as a new 1,000 occupancy parking facility; construction will create a
temporary shortage of parking spaces for staff, physicians, residents, patients and
visitors at the Medical Center, with construction scheduled to begin in January 2002;
Carilion has requested to lease parking at Victory Stadium for employees who will
be displaced by construction projects; a minimum of 200 and a maximum of 300
parking spaces are requested for an initial period of up to two years, subject
thereafter to a monthly renewal by mutual agreement of the parties; and the City has
unused parking space available at Victory Stadium located on property adjacent to
the footbridge connecting Wiley Drive to the grounds of Victory Stadium, was before
Council.
It was further advised that a Lease Agreement has been prepared, effective
January 1, 2002, specifying that Carilion Medical Center has exclusive right to the
use of the leased property on business days (Monday-Friday) and during business
hours (6:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m.) for a term of up to two years; the lease may be extended
on a month-to-month basis, upon mutual agreement between the City and Carilion
Medical Center; the Medical Center shall pay to the .City $8.00 per month per space,
or a minimum of $1,600.00 or per month for 200 parking spaces, and if additional
spaces are required, the monthly rental rate will be increased proportionately; a
minimum of $38,400.00 in estimated revenue collected from the lease agreement will
be deposited in Parks and Recreation Recovered Cost Account No. 001-620-7110-
8076 to be utilized for improvements to Parks and Recreation programs; the Medical
Center will be responsible for maintenance of the leased property, including
improvements to the lot; and the Medical Center will also provide security for the
leased property and carry the appropriate amount of insurance during the lease
period.
The City Manager recommended, following the public hearing, that she be
authorized to execute an agreement, approved as to form by the City Attorney
between the City and Carilion Medical Center for a period of two years, with monthly
renewal options thereafter, and to take such further action as reasonably necessary
to implement and administer said agreement.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following ordinance:
(#35698-121701) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to execute a
lease agreement between the City of Roanoke and Carilion Medical Center for the
lease of parking spaces at Victory Stadium, and dispensing with the second reading
of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 65, page 339.)
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35698-121701. The mution
was seconded by Mr. Harris.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to address
Council in connection with the matter. There being none, Ordinance No. 35698-
121701 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White, Carder, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
The Mayor declared the public hearing closed.
The Mayor announced that RVTV Channel 3 coverage of the Council meeting
would conclude~
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, without objection by
Council, for response, report or recommendation to Council.
CITIZEN OF THE YEAR: Dr. E. T. Burton, 1640 Flora Lane, N. W., expressed
appreciation to the Members of Council and citizens of the City of Roanoke upon
receiving the honor of Roanoke's 2001 Citizen of the Year.
COMPLAINTS-FIRE DEPARTMENT-PENSIONS: Mr. W. A. Drewery, 844 Dillon
Drive, Vinton, Virginia, retired Roanoke City Fire Fighter, addressed Council in
connection with his retirement package, mismanagement of the Fire Department and
certain other City departments.
TRAFFIC-COMPLAINTS-STREETS AND ALLEYS: Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East
Gate Avenue, N. E., called attention to a dangerous curve in the vicinity of King
Street, N. E., adjacent to the Parkway Wesleyan Church. He also referred to the
corner of 20th Street and Orange Avenue and advised that the business
establishment at that location has requested an adjustment to the location of the
median to enable vehicles traveling Route 460 in the direction of the City of Salem
to have access to its parking lot. He requested that the matters be referred to the
City Manager for investigation.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-COMPLAINTS-HOUSING/AUTHORITY-CITY
EMPLOYEES: Mr. Robert Gravely, 617 Hanover Avenue, N. W., addressed issues in
connection with neglect of the City's infrastructure in the inner City communities,
inadequate wages for the City work force, mismanagement of certain City
departments, neglect of citizen needs, crime in the City of Roanoke, improper
housing for Roanoke's disadvantaged population, and lack of services for senior
citizens.
At 7:50 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for three closed
sessions.
At 8:35 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with all
Members of the Council in attendance, Mayor Smith presiding.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Mr. Harris
moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her knowledge
that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2) only such
public business matters as were identified in any motion by which any Closed
Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Harris, Carder and Mayor Smith .......... -4.
NAYS: None ..................................................................................... ,---0.
(Council Members Hudson, White and Wyatt were out of the Council Chamber when
the vote was recorded.)
OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-INDUSTRIES: The Mayor advised that there
is a vacancy on the Industrial Development Authority created by the resignation of
Thomas Pettigrew, and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Carder placed in nomination the name of Charles E. Hunter, II1.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Hunter was appointed as a member
of the Industrial Development Authority to fill the unexpired term of Thomas
Pettigrew resigned, ending October 20, 2004, by the following vote:
FOR MR. HUNTER: Council Members Hudson, Harris, Bestpitch, White,
Carder, Wyatt and Mayor Smith ......................................................................... 7.
There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned
at 8:40 p.m.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
C-1
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ..... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
January7,2002
12:15 p.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday,
January 7, 2002, at 12:15 p.m., the regular meeting hour, in the City Council
Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W.,
City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding, pursuant to Chapter
2, Administration, Article II, City Council, Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure, Rule 1,
Regular Meetings, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended.
PRESENT: Council Members William H. Carder, William White, Sr.,
W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., William D. Bestpitch, Linda F. Wyatt, and Mayor
Ralph K. Smith .................................................................................................. 6.
ABSENT: Council Member C. Nelson Harris ................................................ 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager;
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; James D. Grisso, Director of Finance; and
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
WATER RESOURCES: The City Manager called attention to measures which
were taken last week to initiate voluntary water conservation in the City of Roanoke;
whereupon, she called upon Michael McEvoy, Director of Utilities, to review water
issue activities.
Mr. McEvoy advised that as of January 7, 2001, Carvins Cove is 18.7 feet below
the spillway which is about 3.5 feet below what is typically experienced in January,
and Carvins Cove is about 2t/2 feet above its level during the 1999 drought. He stated
that Carvins Cove operates solely on rainfall and snowfall; the treatment plant is
currently producing approximately 14 million gallons of water per day and a typical
annual average is 15 to 15.5. He explained that rainfall is down and in 2001, the area
received approximately 60 per cent of what it would have received on an annual
average; and since October 2000, the level is more than 22" below normal, with
Roanoke experiencing moderate drought conditions. He added that on January 3,
the City issued a press release calling for voluntary water conservation; voluntary
water conservation is the first phase in the water management plan; if the situation
continues, at 22 feet it is proposed that the City will go to a partial restriction where
no outdoor watering will be allowed between the hours of 10:00 a.m., and 7:00 p.m.,
which is the biggest evaporation period; and the City is also looking at suspending
the sewer exemption credit program. He stated that if the City goes to full restriction
at 26 feet, it would then begin purchasing water from surrounding localities and the
two tier conservation rate providing for billing at a higher water rate will go into
effect, thereby providing economic incentives for citizens to conserve water and to
recover the costs of purchasing water, both of which require action by Council.
In regard to infrastructure, he advised that the Crystal Spring Plant is under
construction, with an expected completion date of December 2002. He stated that
discussions have taken place with Health Department officials with regard to placing
Crystal Spring back on line in the event that the drought continues.
Mr. McEvoy presented an update on the ground water development program
which was initiated after the 1999 drought when wells were drilled at various
locations throughout the City, with mixed results. He noted that the wells at the
Carvins Cove Filter Plant are somewhat productive, generating between 200,000 -
300,000 gallons per day; a fairly successful well was drilled near Mill Mountain in the
vicinity of an old landfill site, however, there were concerns about the well being put
into production, and it was later abandoned; there was a fairly productive well at the
Muse Springs site located on the corner of Bennington Street and Riverland Road
which appears to be productive, however, issues have arisen and the City is
currently leasing the water from Muse Spring to the Fred Whittaker Company, and
if the well becomes operational, it could impact the Muse Spring water. In addition,
he stated that the well at Muse Spring is in the path of 1-73, therefore, the site has
certain construction issues. He stated that management issues are being
addressed though public education items, the City's annual calendar, the Citizen
Magazine, spots on RVTV Channel 3 Inside Roanoke, messages on water bills,
public service announcements, updates on the City's Web site, all of which are
intended to provide additional water conservation information.
He called attention to discussions with Roanoke County regarding cooperative
efforts; i.e.: the 1999 water contract which allows a level of water sharing through
a trading of water concept, thus allowing maximization of the infrastructure. He
called attention to discussions with his counterpart in Roanoke County, along with
the City Manager with her counterpart in Roanoke County, on the concept of a
regional water authority; and the City Manager has charged him with the
responsibility of discussing issues and benefits with the County's Utility Director
to determine necessary actions for the two existing budgets to be combined into one
authority, would other jurisdictions in the area be interested in participating in a
water authority, etc., and it is in the best interest of the citizens in the long term if
certain immediate short term issues can be resolved.
He stated that the City is not in a crisis situation as yet, the City is in the first
stage of the water conservation plan and trying to heighten awareness by
encouraging citizens to begin thinking about their water usage. He further stated
that this is the best time of the year to fill Carvins Cove; typically, the Cove fills in the
late winter/early spring; and historically, there are 50+ years of operation at Carvins
Cove, with Carvins Cove having experienced only two significant droughts, the 1999
drought being the most significant, therefore, the odds are in the City's favor. He
advised that the National Weather Service is reporting average to dry conditions over
the next 90 days and there is a good chance of getting an average rainfall and
replenishing Carvins Cove.
Mr. McEvoy explained that during the upcoming weeks, a public education
campaign will continue; if the City is required to go to mandatory water restrictions,
the necessary documents will be prepared for action by Council; and City officials
will continue to work with the Health Department regarding the reactivation of the
Crystal Spring water supply, while continuing to investigate other resources for
increasing the City's water supply.
There was discussion with regard to the condition of the City's water lines;
actions as a result of the 1999 drought in regard to a water contract with Roanoke
County; the status of wells that were authorized in 1999; a recent newspaper article
that Roanoke County may not have sufficient water to sell the City; a regional water
authority; placing the Crystal Spring Filter Plant back in operation as soon as
possible; significant problems which are being experienced by much of the
southeastern part of the United States, with lower than average rainfall in recent
times, and regardless of the types of agreements that are currently in place, if the
water is not available, it cannot be shared; a method of injecting a synthetic material
inside the water main that adheres to the inside of the pipe and allows at least
another 50 years of use, which could provide a more economical approach to
replacing pipes; and another technology that pulls a cutter head which destroys the
old pipe while pulling in new pipe.
With regard to a regional water authority, the City Manager advised that the
Mayor and the City Manager have met on a monthly basis with their counterparts in
Roanoke County to discuss, among other things, the issue of a regional water and
perhaps sewer authority, with direction to City and County staffs to initiate the
detailed work that is necessary to move the localities toward a regional authority.
She stated that the movement to an authority can be compared to a second marriage
where there are "yours, mine and our children", where certain things are brought to
the table and certain new things happen as a result of the union. She added that this
is the kind of approach that the localities will have to use in order to accomplish
what appears to be in the best interest of the citizens, because each locality brings
something different to the table and each locality has a different investment in its
respective water system. She further stated that it is also clear that the City, while
it has the cheapest water rates in the state, should spend more money on its
infrastructure, lines need to be repaired and replaced, and because of other
priorities, a master utility plan has not been prepared for the City, in order to plan for
repairs and improvements, as opposed to participating in a kind of preventative
maintenance or repair mode. She explained that the City has recently commissioned
an organization to submit a recommendation for a multi year, multi phased program.
She called attention to areas of the City where water pressure is a problem because
housing units have changed over time, therefore, infrastructure responsibilities will
exist in a regional system. She advised of the necessity to study additional water
resources for the future and that the localities should not be content with the
resources that each bring to the table. She stated that moving to a water authority
will not occur over night and it is anticipated that there will be a need to engage an
independent consultant to review issues such as rate setting, among other things.
She added that Council has set the stage for water conservation through approval
of a recommendation during the latter part of last year with regard to a water rate
increase system that stresses conservation, the kinds of messages that are being
sent regarding what Roanoke wants to do as a community in order to become more
environmentally sensitive, and to encourage citizens to appreciate, preserve and
protect current resources. She assured the Members of Council that the water issue
will be a priority for her administration while, at the same time, managing water
resources in a prudent manner on a daily basis. She reiterated that the City is not
in a crisis mode at the present time, but the City is being a good steward by initiating
an awareness of the circumstances and planning for the future.
Ms. Wyatt raised the following questions for response by the City Manager at
a later date:
What will be the overall cost to upgrade the City's water system? What
will be the rate/billing impact on the average daily Citywater customer?
If a water authority is established, what overall costs will be passed on
to the City relative to the Spring Hollow Reservoir? How much will the
average City water bill increase?
In the interim, using the City's current water system, what will be the
cost to the City to purchase water? What will be the rate/billing impact
on the average daily City water customer?
If a water authority is established, how will the cost for the Spring
Hollow Reservoir be addressed? Will a portion of the costs to upgrade
the City's water system be included in the budget of the water authority,
or will the water authority fund improvements? What will be the overall
4
cost to the City and to the average City water customer? What will be
the cost to establish and maintain a water authority? Will there be cost
savings? Will there be fewer personnel if the two water systems are
combined, or will there be another level of bureaucracy to be funded?
If a water authority is established, what will be the status of the long
term contract with Roanoke County for the purchase of water?
Why were wells drilled in certain areas where it was anticipated that
potential problems could exist?
In addressing a regional water authority, Ms. Wyatt requested that the
City Manager make a concerted effort to keep citizens adequately
informed.
Mr. McEvoy responded that a document could be provided within 60 - 90 days
which will address the questions raised by Ms. Wyatt.
Mr. McEvoywas requested to summarize the progress of the long range water
supply committee which is staffed by the Roanoke Valley-Allegheny Commission;
whereupon, he advised that the committee is composed of elected representatives
from jurisdictions within the Fifth Planning District; however, because of funding
issues, a regional water study which was proposed by the committee has not been
prepared. He added that a request for state funds and funding by local businesses
was denied:
Mr. McEvoy was requested to provide an update on the Falling Creek water
supply; whereupon, he advised that Falling Creek is a little below normal for this
time of year; Falling Creek does not supply a large amount of water, with a yield of
0.8 to 1 million gallons per day, and Falling Creek is a small facility that helps to
serve the eastern service boundary, but does not have a major impact on the City's
total water consumption.
The Mayor requested information on the number of gallons of water required
to fill Carvins Cove, how many millions of gallons of water currently exist in Carvins
Cove, and the status of the Spring Hollow Reservoir.
In regard to the use of wells, Mr. McEvoy advised that the City does not use
a large amount of well water; two wells are in operation at the Carvins Cove Filter
Plant that go through the treatment process and provide approximately 200,000 -
300,000 gallons of water per day which is a small amount compared with the 14
million gallons per day produced at Carvins Cove. Other than the two wells at
Carvins Cove, he stated that the City does not use wells for potable water
consumption within the City limits, some businesses use wells that were drilled after
the 1999 drought and a percentage of customers in the northeast section of the City
rely on wells for their water consumption.
The Mayor requested that all significant potable sources of water for the
Roanoke Valley be provided in written format.
The City Manager advised that it is important to stress that the City is
engaging in pre planning, looking ahead and to the extent possible, averting any
unusual and extraordinary conditions, and citizens are requested to help by
conserving water. She assured the community that the City will be as open and as
public as possible in the sharing of information; and the City will provide tips on
how to conserve water by inviting school age children and the adult community to
offer suggestions as a community project. She stated that everyone will work
together to find solutions to the water situation, water issues are not unique to
Roanoke and to the Roanoke Valley, but it is an issue that will be with the Roanoke
Valley for many years to come as we work toward getting through the winter season
and discussions regarding a regional authority. She further stated that citizens will
have to be vigilant in the future, better conservators of water and look for new water
resources, and she pledged to work toward meaningful solutions that will be
acceptable to the community, with water issues to be discussed on a regular basis
in the future.
COMMITTEES-COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor Ralph K. Smith
requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss personnel matters
relating to vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees
appointed by the Council, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended, was before the body.
Mr. Carder moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to convene
in a Closed Meeting to discuss personnel matters relating to vacancies on various
authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by the Council,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The motion
was seconded by Mr. White and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
COUNCIL: A communication from Council Member C. Nelson Harris, Chair,
City Council Personnel Committee, requesting that Council convene in a Closed
Meeting to discuss a matter with regard to the performance of three Council-
Appointed Officers, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, was before the body.
Mr. White moved that Council concur in the request of the Chair of City
Council's Personnel Committee to convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss a matter
with regard to the performance of three Council-Appointed Officers, pursuant to
Section 2.2-3711(A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................ -0.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
At 1:20 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess to be reconvened at
2:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber.
At 2:00 p.m., on Monday, January 7, 2002, the regular meeting of City Council
reconvened in the Roanoke City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor
Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with the following
Council Members in attendance, Mayor Smith presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members William H. Carder, William White, Sr.,
W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., William D. Bestpitch, Linda F. Wyatt and Mayor
Ralph K. Smith .................................................................................................. 6.
ABSENT: Council Member C. Nelson Harris ................................................ 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager;
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; James D. Grisso, Director of Finance; and
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
The reconvened meeting was opened with a prayer by The Reverend
Pamela P. Crump, Director of Christian Education, High Street Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor Smith.
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA
The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent Agenda were
considered to be routine by the Members of Council and would be enacted by one
motion in the form, or forms, listed on the Consent Agenda, and if discussion was
desired, that item would be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered
separately.
MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Monday,
November 5, 2001, were before the body.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that the reading of the Minutes be dispensed with and
that the Minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................ -0.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY PROPERTY-FLOOD
REDUCTION/CONTROL: A communication from the City Manager advising that
pursuant to the requirements of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the City of
Roanoke is required to hold a public hearing on the proposed conveyance of
property rights; whereupon, the City Manager requested that a public hearing be
advertised for Tuesday, January 22, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, in connection with the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project
- subdivision and conveyance of property rights, was before Council.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................ -0.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
NEWSPAPERS-LEASES-AIR RIGHTS: A communication from the City
Manager advising that pursuant to the requirements of the Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended, the City of Roanoke is required to hold a public hearing on the
proposed conveyance or lease of property rights; whereupon, the City Manager
requested that a public hearing be advertised for Tuesday, January 22, 2002, at 7:00
p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in connection with a request
of the Times-World Corporation for the lease of air rights over Second Street, S. W.,
was before Council.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................ -0.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA BUILDING-BUILDINGS/BUILDING
DEPARTMENT-LEASES: A communication from the City Manager advising that the
General Services Administration (GSA) of the Federal Government currently leases
space within the Commonwealth Building; the GSA uses the second floor of the
building for the Federal Bankruptcy Court and its affiliated offices; the lease also
includes one office on the first floor; and the current lease expires on
January 31, 2002, the GSA is interested in extending the current lease for one year,
pursuant to the terms of the current lease, which is $6.50 per square foot, plus $3.93
per square foot for operating costs (increased annually based on consumer price
index), with an annual rent amount of $129,549.60, was before Council.
The City Manager requested that a public hearing be advertised for Tuesday,
January 22, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in
connection with extension of a lease agreement with the General Services
Administration for space within the Commonwealth Building.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................. 0.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
TRAFFIC-COMMITTEES-TOWING CONTRACT: A communication from
Sergeant C. A. Karr tendering his resignation as a member of the Towing Advisory
Board, effective September 18, 2001, was before Council.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that the communication be received and filed and that
the resignation be accepted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................ -0.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT-ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION-
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD-OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES: The following
reports of qualification were before Council:
James Schlueter as a member of the Architectural Review
Board for a term ending October 1, 2005;
Robert Humphreys as a member of the Roanoke Arts
Commission for a term ending June 30, 2004; and
Cheri W. Hartman as a member of the Advisory Board of
Human Development for a term ending November 30, 2005.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................. 0.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
REGULAR AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS: None.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: None.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS: None.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
]0
ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER: The City Manager submitted a communication
advising that the City's current agreement for provision of ticketing services at the
Roanoke Civic Center will expire on February 2, 2002; the City wishes to enter into
a contractual agreement with a ticket service provider for computerized ticketing
services for the City's Civic Facilities; although the sealed bid method of
procurement would normally be used, it is not practicable and/or fiscally
advantageous to the public in this case; experience, qualifications, and ability to
provide services required are of equal, if not greater, importance than the cost;
issues of technology, computer hardware and software, ticket outlet network,
telephone sales network, and credit card capability are of significant importance to
a successful ticketing operation; additional issues, other than price, include
equipment installation, maintenance and repair, employee training, customer
responsiveness, and accounting procedures; therefore, the process of competitive
negotiation, using the request for proposal process has been identified as the best
method for procurement of said services.
It was further advised that the Code of the City of Roanoke provides, as an
alternate method of procurement to using the bid process, a process identified as
"competitive negotiation"; prior approval by Council is necessary before the
alternate method may be used; and this method will allow for negotiations with two
or more providers to determine the best qualified at the most competitive price or
rate.
The City Manager recommended that Council authorize the use of competitive
negotiation as the method to secure a ticket service provider at City Civic Facilities.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution:
(#35699-010702) A RESOLUTION designating the procurement method known
as competitive negotiation, rather than the procurement method known as
competitive sealed bidding, to be used for the procurement of a ticket service
provider to provide computerized ticketing and related services for the City's Civic
Facilities; and documenting the basis for this determination.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 65, page 341.)
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35699-010702. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................. 0.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
Following discussion, the Mayor requested a list of potential vendors.
In negotiating a new contract, Ms. Wyatt requested that the City Manager
stress the importance of delivering tickets in a timely manner.
BUDGET-NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS-GRANTS: The City Manager
submitted a communication advising that the Derelict Structures Fund (DSF) is a
program funded by the General Assembly to assist with removal or renovation of
badly deteriorated properties; the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD) solicited proposals for the program in the year 2000; on
August 7, 2000, Council authorized the City Manager to submit a funding proposal
to DHCD for $100,000.00, authorized execution of any and all requisite documents
accepting the grant; and further authorized execution of agreements with Two B
Investments and the Northwest Neighborhood Environmental Organization (NNEO)
for the renovation of:
113 Norfolk Avenue, S. W., on Warehouse Row. The Warehouse is
being renovated by Two B Investments (Bruce Brenner)for use as high-
tech offices.
525, 526 and 532 Loudon Avenue, N. W., are in the Gilmer
neighborhood. These properties are being renovated by NNEO for
residential use.
It was further advised that a grant agreement accepting the funds with DHCD
was executed on May 29, 2001, which agreement committed the funds for use
exclusivelywith the Warehouse Row and 500 block of Loudon Avenue, as proposed;
total amount to be provided from the Derelict Structures Fund for the Warehouse
Row project is $50,000.00 and will be in the form of a 0% loan, to be repaid to the
City at a rate of $10,000.00 per year, beginning one year after completion of shell
renovations; total amount to be provided from the Derelict Structures Fund for the
500 block of Loudon Avenue is a $50,000.00 grant; and once the projects are
completed as proposed, the City will be reimbursed by DHCD in the amount of
$100,000.00.
The City Manager recommended that Council appropriate $100,000.00 to an
account in the Grant Fund to be established by the Director of Finance, and establish
an account receivable and revenue estimate in the same amount.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following emergency budget ordinance:
(#35700-010702) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2001-2002 Grant Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 65, page 342.)
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35700-010702. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................. 0.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
BUDGET-COMMUNITY PLANNING-CONSULTANTS REPORTS: The City
Manager submitted a communication advising that as recommended in Vision 2001-
2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, City staff has encouraged and considered new
development opportunities that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
especially with respect to new housing and village centers; in an effort to move
forward in considering new projects, additional technical planning and architectural
assistance is needed to master plan potential development sites and to help
evaluate proposed projects; and many urban cities have similar contracts with
consultants to assist in the preliminary design and review of development
proposals.
It was further advised that recently, the City requested proposals from
architectural and planning firms to provide urban design and master planning
services for miscellaneous projects to be determined by the City; proposals were
received, firms were interviewed, and consultant selection has been completed;
contracts are to be awarded to RTKL Associates, Inc. (Washington, D. C.) and to The
Lawrence Group (Davidson, North Carolina), for one year, with an option to renew
for a second year; current contract does not exceed $75,000.00 and additional funds
will have to be appropriated for the second year; funding in the amount of $75,000.00
is available in the "Capital Projects Fund" account "Environmental Issues"; and
approval by Council is required to appropriate funds from a capital to a new capital
account for professional services.
The City Manager recommended that Council appropriate $75,000.00 from
Account No. 008-052-9670, Environmental Issues, to a new capital project account
to be established for the purpose of urban design and master planning services.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following emergency budget ordinance:
(#35701-010702) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2001-2002 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 65, page 343.)
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35701-010702. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Carder.
Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., inquired if $75,000.00 is to be
used for a comprehensive plan for the southeast quadrant of the City, or if the
$75,000.00 can be used in any part of the City for any type of improvement or
enhancement project.
The City Manager responded that the contract under discussion for master
planning and design services was specifically approved by Council several months
ago, thus enabling City staff to request proposals for assistance in reviewing
specific areas of the City and specific parcels of land owned by the City for future
development, in order to improve the City's housing stock. She asked that the
matter not be confused with any other activity that has been advertised for
proposals. She stated that City resources, particularly HUD funds, along with
Design Competition, the Roanoke Housing Network, and the Christmas In April
project, are targeted for the southeast Roanoke project.
Ordinance No. 35701-010702 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................ -0.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
For discussion during fiscal year 2002-03 budget study, Council Member Wyatt
requested a report on the number of consultants presently under contract by the
City, the dollar amount of each contract, and the percentage of the City's budget
which is devoted to consulting fees.
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE-AUDITS/FINANCIAL REPORTS: The Director of
Finance submitted the Financial Report for the City of Roanoke for the month of
November, 2001.
Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the financial report
would be received and filed.
CITY EMPLOYEES-PENSIONS: The Director of Finance submitted a written
report advising that the provisions of Article III, Employee Supplemental Retirement
System, City of Roanoke Pension Plan, currently contain outdated language related
to optional forms of benefit payments under terms of the Plan; specifically, existing
optional forms of benefits provide for recalculation of a joint and survivor
distribution option in the event the spouse were to pre-decease the retiree; however,
the Plan does not address the instance of a final divorce decree; therefore, if a
retiree who originally elected a joint and survivor annuity form of payment
subsequently divorces, there is no provision to "credit" the retiree for the reduced
benefit amount originally selected, even though the final divorce decree releases the
retiree (and Pension Plan) from any liability associated with the ex-spouse's
entitlement to any portion of the retiree payments.
It was further advised that many retirement plans have modernized provisions
in recent years to reflect current lifestyles; the more modernized language
recognizes that a retiree may originally elect a joint and survivor form of benefit to
provide for his/her spouse; then, subsequently become divorced from his/her
spouse; currently, Plan provisions require that the retiree continue to receive the
reduced monthly amount even though the divorce decree nullifies a pension benefit
to the ex-spouse; and the retiree is barred by City Code from changing his/her
original distribution election since the Plan provides that such change may only be
made in the event of death of the spouse (not recognizing divorce).
The Director of Finance recommended that a provision be added to the
Employee Supplemental Retirement System that will allow retired members who
have elected to receive an optional benefit to revoke such election; and to receive
from the date of the divorce decree the retirement allowance to which they would
have been entitled had no option been elected initially and the divorce decree
releases the employer from provision of the retirement benefit. He advised that this
election could be made in the event (a) the original survivor had died; and (b) a final
decree of divorce with the retired member from the original survivor has been
entered.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following emergency ordinance:
(#35702-010702) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining §22.1-49 Optional
spousal allowance, of Chapter 22. Pensions and Retirement., of the Code of the City
of Roanoke (1979), as amended, for the purpose of allowing restoration, under
certain terms and conditions, of a retired member's allowance to an amount that
would have been paid to the member had no spousal allowance been elected, and
dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 65, page 344.)
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35702-010702. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................. 0.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
INSURANCE-BUDGET: The Director of Finance submitted a written report
advising that Section 2-188.1 Reserve for self-insured liabilities, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, stipulates that, at the conclusion of each fiscal year,
$250,000.00, to the extent available from any undesignated General Fund balance at
the end of such fiscal year, shall be reserved for self-insured liabilities of the City;
the maximum balance of the reserve is three per cent of total General Fund
appropriations for the concluded fiscal year; and as such, at June 30, 2001,
$250,000.00 was reserved in the General Fund for self-insured liabilities.
The Director of Finance recommended that Council adopt a budget ordinance
appropriating the $250,000.00 reserved in the General Fund for self-insured liabilities
to be transferred to the Risk Management Fund where the remaining self-insurance
reserve exists; establishing a revenue estimate in the Risk Management Fund and
increasing the Reserve for Self-Insured Liabilities.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following emergency budget ordinance:
(#35703-010702) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2001-2002 General and Risk Management Funds Appropriations, and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 65, page 347.)
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35703-010702. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................ -0.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
LEASES-EQUIPMENT: The Director of Finance and the City Manager submitted
a joint written report advising that Council adopted Resolution No. 35193 on
February 5, 2001, authorizing execution of a Lease Purchase Agreement with
SunTrust Leasing Corporation, and any other required documents related to the
Lease Purchase Agreement; a 'related document' was the Escrow Agreement
entered into as of January 15, 2001, among the City of Roanoke, SunTrust Bank, and
SunTrust Leasing Corporation; Article III, Section 3.4 of the Escrow Agreement,
Transfers Upon Completion, essentially required the City to disburse all equipment
acquisition funds by January 14, 2002, or return said funds to SunTrust Leasing
Corporation as a prepayment of principal under the lease; the City needs an
extension of the required disbursement date in order to finalize disbursement of
funds under the lease, which extension is necessitated by several factors: the
largest portion, $1,353,000.00, of the $2,503,000.00 of lease proceeds was dedicated
to fleet replacement; and many of the items selected for funding through the capital
lease are large equipment items that require significant lead-time when ordering and
placing into use; therefore, approximately $442,000.00 of fleet funds are encumbered
at this time awaiting delivery of equipment.
It was further advised that another factor impacting the need for an extension
is reallocation of approximately $217,000.00 of proceeds originally planned for new
equipment for the police building toward other projects identified in the City's
Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP), which was
accomplished by action of Council on September 4, 2001, and was made possible
by the fact that the police building equipment was purchased at an amount less than
the estimated budget; because other priority items have been identified to reallocate
the proceeds, the City needs additional time to acquire the items; extending the
scheduled disbursement date will enable the City to maximize its use of lease
financing as originally planned, as opposed to prepaying lease principal; the Citywill
continue to earn interest earnings on lease proceeds not yet disbursed; and
Suntrust Leasing Corporation agrees to the extension.
The Director of Finance and the City Manager recommended that Council
adopt a resolution authorizing execution of the Lease Purchase Amendment with
SunTrust Leasing Corporation extending the period of disbursement of funds under
the lease to July 14, 2002.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution:
(#35704-010702) A RESOLUTION authorizing execution of an Amendment of
Lease Documents with respect to the Escrow Agreement, dated January 15, 2001,
entered into in connection with an Equipment Lease Purchase Agreement, under the
same date, between Suntrust Leasing Corporation and the City of Roanoke,
providing for the acquisition and installation of certain equipment by the City; such
Amendment providing for the extension of the disbursement date in the Escrow
Agreement from January 14, 2002, to July 14, 2002.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 65, page 348.)
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35704-010702. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carder, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. 5.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................. 0.
(Council Member Harris was absent.) (Council Member White was out of the Council
Chamber when the vote was recorded.)
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
COMMITTEES-ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD: A report of the
Architectural Review Board advising that the Board adopted the current
Architectural Design Guidelines in June, 1995; the Board amended the guidelines
in July, 2000, to incorporate specific guidelines for retaining walls, which were
developed following an extensive public involvement process and work with
neighborhood groups; the purpose of the guidelines is to assist both property
owners and the ARB in making consistent and appropriate decisions on
construction materials and methods in historic districts; the guidelines are
recommendations rather than City Code requirements, therefore, they provide for
flexibility in dealing with special circumstances and materials; and each
architectural review case is decided on its own merits, was before Council.
It was further advised that historic districts are a part of the zoning ordinance
and "overlay" the existing zoning that guides land use; Roanoke has two historic
overlay districts: the H-l, Historic District, and the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation
District; the H-1 District is generally limited to portions of downtown, including the
City Market and Warehouse Row; the H-2 District covers a wider territory that
includes Old Southwest, portions of Gainsboro, N. E., and Patterson Avenue, S. W.;
and the H-1 guidelines stress restoration and are generally more stringent than the
H-2 guidelines, which stress compatibility of design.
It was explained that in October, 2000, planning staff sponsored a community
workshop to review the H-2 guidelines; approximately 50 citizens attended;
participants were requested to review each of the 349 guidelines and indicate
whether they agree or disagree, and results are as follows:
257 guidelines had 90-100% in agreement
70 guidelines had 80-89% in agreement
18 guidelines had 70-79% in agreement
3 guidelines had 62-69% in agreement;
The Architectural Review Board recommended that Council adopt a resolution
endorsing Architectural Review Guidelines, as amended, for the H-1 and H-2
Districts.
Robert B. Manetta, Chair, Architectural Review Board, appeared before
Council in support of the recommendation.
Mr. Carder offered the following resolution:
(#35705-010702) A RESOLUTION endorsing Architectural Design Guidelines
for the H-l, Historic District, and the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 65, page 349.)
Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35705-010702. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................ -0.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None.
INTRODUCTION
RESOLUTIONS:
AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: Mr. Carder offered the following resolution
appointing Jesse A. Hall as Director of Finance, effective at midnight on
January 31, 2002, or as soon thereafter as Mr. Hall can assume such position, for a
term ending on September 30, 2002:
(#35706-010702) A RESOLUTION electing and appointing Jesse A. Hall as
Director of Finance for the City of Roanoke, and ratifying the terms and conditions
of employment as offered to Mr. Hall.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 65, page 350.)
Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35706-010702. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................ -0.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
COMMITTEES-INDUSTRIES: Mr. Carder offered the following resolution
appointing Charles A. Hunter, III, as a Director of the Industrial Development
Authority:
(#35707-010702) A RESOLUTION appointing a Director of the Industrial
Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, to fill the remaining portion of a four
(4) year term on its Board of Directors.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 65, page 352.)
Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35707-010702. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................. 0.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL:
POLICE DEPARTMENT-ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Council Member
Wyatt commended Roanoke City Police Officers on their patriotic conduct during the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag at Roanoke Express Hockey games at the Roanoke
Civic Center.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
REFUSE COLLECTION-CITY EMPLOYEES-PUBLIC WORKS-STREETS AND
ALLEYS: The City Manager commended City staff on the condition of City streets
which were well maintained during and following the snow/ice occasion on Sunday,
January 6, 2002.
The City Manager requested that citizens be mindful of the fact that when a
City holiday occurs on a Monday, refuse collection could be delayed by as much as
one to two days in the same week. She called attention to the Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. Holiday, which will be observed by City employees on Monday, January 21;
therefore, refuse collection will be delayed by at least one day during the week of
January 21.
At this point, the Mayor stated that RVTV, Channel 3, coverage of the Council
meeting will be concluded.
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, without objection by Council, for
response, report and recommendation to Council. He further advised that this is a
time for informal dialogue by Council and citizens.
FIRE DEPARTMENT-CITY COUNCIL-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: Ms.
Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., referred to Council's Rules of Procedure
which require that there be no cheering, jeering, or applauding, except during
ceremonial matters, during the Council proceedings. She inquired if the rule is
applied uniformly to all citizens, regardless of race. She expressed appreciation to
Council Member Bestpitch for meeting with residents of Lincoln Terrace to hear their
concerns, specifically with regard to screen doors on housing units. She expressed
concern with regard to the closing/proposed closing of certain fire stations in the
City. Specifically, she stated that Fire Station No. 12 is closed, while the Clearbrook
Fire Station in Roanoke County is operational, and many citizens believe that the
City of Roanoke should take care of its own citizens before venturing into Roanoke
County. She requested that Council give further study to the closing/proposed
closing of certain City fire stations.
At 3:15 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for two closed
sessions.
At 4:00 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with Mayor
Smith presiding, and all Members of the Council in attendance, with the exception
of Council Member Harris.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Mr. Carder
moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her knowledge
that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2) only such
public business matters as were identified in any motion by which any Closed
Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................. 0.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-LEAGUE OF OLDER AMERICANS:: The
Mayor advised that the term of office of Vickie F. Briggs as a member of the League
of Older Americans Advisory Board will expire on February 28, 2002, and called for
nominations to fill the vacancy.
Ms. Wyatt placed in nomination the name of Vickie F. Briggs.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Briggs was reappointed as a member
of the League of Older Americans Advisory Board, for a term ending
February 28, 2003, by the following vote:
FOR MS. BRIGGS: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT-FIFTH PLANNING
DISTRICT COMMISSION: The Mayor advised that the term of office of
Glenn D. Radcliffe as the City's representative to the Fifth Planning District Disability
Services Board will expire on January 31,2002, and called for nominations to fill the
vacancy.
Ms. Wyatt placed in nomination the name of Carol D. Wright.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Wright was appointed as the City's
representative to the Fifth Planning District Disability Services Board, for a term
ending January 31, 2005, by the following vote:
FOR MS. WRIGHT: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 6.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-HOTEL ROANOKE CONFERENCE CENTER-
VIRGINIA TECH: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the Hotel Roanoke
Conference Center Commission, effective February 1, 2002, created by the
resignation of James D. Grisso, and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Hudson placed in nomination the name of Mayor Ralph K. Smith.
There being no further nominations, Mayor Smith was appointed as a member
of the Hotel Roanoke Conference Center, to fill the unexpired term of
James D. Grisso, resigned, commencing February 1,2002 and ending April 12, 2004,
by the following vote:
FOR MAYOR SMITH: Council Members Carder, White, Hudson, Bestpitch,
Wyatt and Mayor Smith ...................................................................................... 6.
(Council Member Harris was absent.)
COMMITTEES-ROANOKE NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIP: It was the
consensus of Council that the following persons will be appointed to serve on an
ad hoc committee to study the design, role and responsibilities of the Roanoke
Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee:
Vice-Mayor William H. Carder
Council Member William D. Bestpitch
Assistant City Manager for Operations, Rolanda A. Johnson
Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Coordinator, Stephen S. Niamke
Chair, Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee,
Carl D. Cooper
Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee Members,
Robin Murphy-Kelso and Paula L. Prince.
At 4:05 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess to be reconvened on
Thursday, January 10, 2002, at 12:00 noon at the Salem Civic Center, Parlor C, 1001
Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, Virginia, for the Roanoke Valley Leadership Summit
Luncheon, to be hosted by the City of Salem.
The meeting of Roanoke City Council reconvened on Thursday,
January 10, 2002, at 12:00 noon at the Salem Civic Center, Parlor C, 1001 Roanoke
Boulevard, City of Salem.
PRESENT: Council Members William D. Bestpitch, W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., and
Mayor Ralph K. Smith ........................................................................................ 3.
ABSENT: Council Members William H. Carder, C. Nelson Harris,
William White, Sr., and Linda F. Wyatt ................................................................. -4.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; and Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
Manager;
COUNCIL-LEADERSHIP SUMMIT: The purpose of the reconvened meeting was
to participate in the Roanoke Valley Leadership Summit which was hosted by the
City of Salem. In January 2001, the City of Roanoke hosted the First Leadership
Summit which was established to provide an opportunity for members of the
governing bodies and administrative officials of the Roanoke Valley to discuss
matters of mutual interest and concern.
On behalf of the City of Salem, Forest Jones, City Manager, welcomed all
participants.
Mayor Carl E. Tarpley, Jr., welcomed elected and administrative officials and
advised that the City of Salem is pleased to host the Fifth Leadership Summit. He
noted that Franklin County is scheduled to host the next meeting.
A film was presented showcasing accomplishments of the City of Salem
during the past year.
Salem City Council Member, Alex Brown, presented the invocation.
Following lunch, the meeting reconvened at approximately 12:50 p.m., at
which time a film highlighting services provided by the City of Salem was shown.
The meeting was then turned over to Mayor Smith who facilitated an exercise
on the next steps for the Leadership Summit/items for regional cooperation;
whereupon, the following suggestions were offered:
Communication is important to the process.
By working with jurisdictions in the Roanoke Valley that have not
previously joined forces gives the localities strength when they
approach the General Assembly for assistance.
The Leadership Summits have provided a way to build relationships.
There is a need to meet more frequently than on a quarterly basis. The
chief elected official and the chief administrative official of each locality
could meet monthly to develop an agenda/work items that could be
brought back to the full Leadership Summit for its quarterly meetings.
Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, Roanoke Valley-Allegheny Regional
Commission, offered the services of the Roanoke Valley-Allegheny Regional
Commission to coordinate monthly meetings of chief elected officials and chief
administrative officials; whereupon, following discussion, it was the consensus of
those in attendance that the Roanoke Valley-Allegheny Regional Commission will
coordinate monthly meetings of the chief elected officials and the chief
administrative officials.
24
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
C-!
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ..... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
January22,2002
2:00 p.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Tuesday,
January 22, 2002, at 2:00 p.m., the regular meeting hour, in the City Council
Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W.,
City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding, pursuant to
Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, City Council, Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure,
Rule 1, Regular Meetings, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended.
PRESENT: Council Members William D. Bestpitch, C. Nelson Harris, William H.
Carder, Linda F. Wyatt, W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., William White, Sr., and Mayor Ralph K.
Smith ............................................................................................................... 7.
ABSENT: None ........................................................................................ -0.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; James D. Grisso, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk.
The meeting was opened with a prayer by The Reverend Floyd W. Davis,
Pastor, High Street Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor Smith.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
At 4:45 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess until 7:00 p.m., in the
City Council Chamber.
On Tuesday, January 22, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., the Roanoke City Council
reconvened in regular session in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C.
Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with the
following Council Members in attendance, Mayor Smith presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members William D. Bestpitch, C. Nelson Harris, William H.
Carder, Linda F. Wyatt, W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., William White, Sr., and Mayor Ralph K.
Smith ............................................................................................................... 7.
ABSENT: None ........................................................................................ -0.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; James D. Grisso, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk.
The reconvened meeting was opened with a prayer by Council Member
William D. Bestpitch.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Scout Troop #5.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-BONDS/BOND ISSUES-ARMORY/STADIUM:
Pursuant to action by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing
for Tuesday, January 22, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may
be heard, on the proposed adoption of a resolution authorizing the City to contract
a debt and to issue general obligation public improvement bonds of the City, in the
principle amount of $830,000.00, for the purpose of providing funds to pay a portion
of the costs of a public improvement project of and for the City, consisting of
acquisition, construction and equipping of a new Stadium/Amphitheater, the matter
was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Tuesday, January 8, 2002, and Tuesday, January 15, 2002.
The Director of Finance submitted a written report advising that Council
authorized the issuance of $56,245,000.00 of General Obligation Bonds to fund the
five year Capital Improvement Program, including $16,200,000.00 for the
Stadium/Amphitheater and $3,000,000.00 for improvements to the Civic Center;
Council was advised on November 5, 2001, that the City's bond attorney had issued
an opinion that the bonds for the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area and the Civic
Center met the Internal Revenue Service private activity tests and would be issued
as taxable bonds; the City recently received authority from the State of Virginia to
issue $12,000,000.00 of tax exempt Qualified Redevelopment Bonds (QRB's) to
finance the South Jefferson project, which will save the City at least $2,000,000.00
in interest payments over the life of the bonds; in addition to applying for and
receiving the QRB's, a strategy has been developed to finance Civic Center
improvements without having to issue taxable bonds; it is allowable, within Internal
Revenue Service guidelines, to spend a given percentage of the total amount of the
bonds on activities that would potentially benefit private enterprise; the allowable
amount relative to the 2002 bond issue totals $2,170,000.00, which could be applied
to the Civic Center project, thus, the City would have to issue only $830,000.00 of
taxable bonds to complete the $3,000,000.00 of Civic Center improvements.
It was further advised that in order to avoid issuing any taxable bonds, the
following solution is proposed: Approximately $1,800,000.00 has been designated
in cash for the Stadium/Amphitheater project; the remainder of the project will be
funded from $16,200,000.00 of bonds to be included in the 2002 issue; it is
recommended to increase the amount of bonds issued for the Stadium/Amphitheater
project by $830,000.00 and substitute a like amount of cash from the project to
complete funding needed for the Civic Center project; internally, accounting wise,
the Civic Center Fund will still be responsible for $3,000,000.00 of debt, as originally
planned, which approach will allow the City to achieve the total financing needed,
without issuing taxable bonds, thus, saving the City at least another $100,000.00 in
interest costs over the life of the bonds.
The Director of Finance recommended that Council adopt a resolution
authorizing issuance of an additional $830,000.00 in general obligation bonds for the
Stadium/Amphitheater and reducing the $3,000,000.00 of bonds previously
authorized for Civic Center improvements by $830,000.00. He advised that the total
bond issue will remain the same at $56,245,000.00.
Mr. Carder offered the following resolution:
(#35736-012202) A RESOLUTION authorizing the issuance of eight hundred
thirty thousand dollars ($830,000) principal amount of general obligations of the City
of Roanoke, Virginia, in the form of general obligation public improvement bonds
of such City, for the purpose of providing funds to pay a portion of the costs of a
public improvement project of and for such City, consisting of the acquisition,
construction and equipping of a stadium/amphitheater; fixing the form,
denomination and certain other details of such bonds; providing for the sale of such
bonds; authorizing the preparation of a preliminary official statement and an official
statement relating to such bonds and the distribution thereof and the execution of
a certificate relating to such official statement; authorizing the execution and
delivery of a continuing disclosure certificate relating to such bonds; authorizing
and providing for the issuance and sale of a like principal amount of general
obligation public improvement bond anticipation notes in anticipation of the
issuance and sale of such bonds; otherwise providing with respect to the issuance,
sale and delivery of such bonds and notes; and amending Resolution No. 35636-
110501 to provide for the sale of the bonds authorized for issuance hereunder
together with bonds authorized for sale pursuant to such Resolution No. 35636-
110501.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 65, page 395.)
Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35736-012202. The motion
was seconded by Ms. Wyatt.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to address
Council in connection with the matter; whereupon, Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton
Avenue, N. E., inquired if the stadium/amphitheater referred to in the proposed
resolution pertains to the stadium which is to be constructed north of Orange
Avenue, N.W. She also inquired as to whether Council's proposed action would
benefit private enterprise, and, if so, has the private enterprise entity been identified
by the City.
No other persons wishing to address Council, Resolution No. 35736-012202
was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Harris, Carder, Wyatt, Hudson, White,
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
The Mayor declared the public hearing closed.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned
at 9:35 p.m.
Office of the City Manager
February 19, 2002
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member
Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member
Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
This is to request that City Council convene a closed meeting to discuss the acquisition of
real property for a public purpose, where discussion in open meeting would adversely
affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the City, pursuant to Section 2.2-
3711(A)(3), of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Sincerely,
Darlene L.
City Manager
DLB:ca
C:
City Attorney
City Clerk
Director of Finance
Room 364 Municipal South 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 (540) 853-2333 FAX (540) 853-1138
CityWeb:www. ci. roanoke.va.us
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, Ralph K. Smith, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution
of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me
as a member of the Hotel Roanoke Conference Center Commission, to fill the unexpired
term of James D. Grisso, resigned, commencing February 1, 20/j32, and ending
/
April 12, 2004.
L
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ; day o _ _
2002.
ARTHUR B. CRUSH, ~
, DEPUTY CLERK
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, Dolores Y. 'Johns, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the
Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties
incumbent upon me as a member of the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of
Directors for term ending December 31,2004, according to the best of my ability. I swear
or affirm.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this _~ day of ~ 2002.
Al R B. CRUSH,~III, CLERK
, DEPUTY CLERK
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
February 21, 2002
File #60-236-296-304
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of statements of Kaye Hale, Executive Director, West End Center for
Youth; and Dr. Cheri W. Hartman, Director of Teen Outreach, Family Service of Roanoke
Valley, with regard to the change in policy in Community Development Block Grant funding
awards by the City, and its affect on local human service organizations, which statements
were before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on
Tuesday, February 19, 2002.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the matter was referred to the
Council's Financial Planning Session to be held on Friday, March 8, 2002, and to fiscal
year 2002-03 budget study.
Council Members Bestpitch and Wyatt requested that the City Manager respond to the
following requests for information:
The amount of funds provided by the City through Community Development
Block Grant funds for certain programs that have a demonstrated history of
success; i.e.: the West End Center, the Presbyterian Center, Magic Place,
Teen Outreach Program, etc., compared with the amount of funds that will
be needed to increase the human services budget to insure ongoing support
of such programs.
H:kAgenda.02kVebruary 19, 2002 corresp.wpd
Darlene L. Burcham
February 21,2002
Page 2
How much would the admissions tax need to be increased City-wide for all
venues, excluding City operated facilities, in order to generate additional
revenues for social and cultural service organizations?
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:mh
Attachment
pc:
Kaye Hale, Executive Director, West End Center for Youth, P. O. Box 4582,
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Cheri W. Hartman, Ph.D., 2423 Sta.nley Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Barry L. Key, Director, Management and Budget
Frank E. Baratta, Budget Team Leader
H:kAgenda.02~February 19, 2002 corresp.wpd
RALPH K. SMITH
Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
CITY COUNCIL
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-I 536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
February 19, 2002
Council Members:
William D. Bestpitch
William H. Carder
C. Nelson Hams
W. Alvin Hudson, Jr.
William White, Sr.
Linda F. Wyatt
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council:
We jointly sponsor a request of Dr. Cheri W. Hartman, Director of Teen Outreach, Family
Service of Roanoke Valley, to address Council with regard to youth services in the City of
Roanoke, at the regular meeting of City Council on Tuesday, February 19, 2002, at
2:00 p.m.
Sincerely,
William H. Carder
Vice-Mayor
William D. Bestptfch
Council Member
WHC:WDB:sm
pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
N:\CKSMI~AGENDA,02\COUNCIL FORM LETTER FOR AGENDA ITEMS.DOC
FEB-12-2802 15:57 P.02
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Intent to Make A Presentation to City Council on. February 19, 2002
City Clerk, City of Roanoke
Chert W. Hartman, Ph.D.
February 12, 2002
1 have received the permission of Councilmen Bill Bestpitch and Bill Carder to make a
brief presentation to City Council on behalf ofyouth services in the City of Roanoke on
February 19, 2002. The purpose of this memo is to let you know of my intention to make
a presentation and to request being on the agenda on February 19th. Thank you for your
attention to this matter. [ will plan to be there at 2:00 for the meeting at City Council
chambers unless I hear otherwise.
If you need to reach me, my home number is: 985-0151 (evenings), my work number is:
563-5316 at Family Service of Reanoke Valley. My email address is 9h'artman~fsrv.org.
Please let me know if this is not a convenient time to be on the agenda. I can be brief'. It
was indicated to me that ten minutes was the maximum allotted time. I will not be longer
than five minutes 1 can assure you.
Cheri W. Hartrnan, Ph.D.
2423 Stanley Ave SE
Roanoke VA 24014
TOTAL P.02
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS BY CHERI W. HARTMAN ON FEBRUARY 19, 2002
Cheri Hartman
2423 Stanley Avenue, SE
Roanoke, VA 24014
985-0151 (home)
563-5316 (work)
chartman(~_,fsrv.org
Feel free to contact me if you have any response to my comments. Thank You!
I don't envy you, our distinguished City Council members- it seems every year you have to make tougher
decisions and tougher choices. I want to thank you for the conscientiousness that you bring to your
decision-making challenge. I am Cheri Hartman, my husband, David and I, are residents of the City of
Roanoke and I work around the corner from here at Family Service of Roanoke Valley. We have raised
our three children here and they have benefited from Roanoke city's public schools. I am proud of our Star
City of the South and am very grateful to be living here.
I am proud of how many of Roanoke's citizens volunteer their time to make Roanoke a better place for all
of our children. I think of Roanoke as a community that values its children. If you have visited an
afterschool program and have seen the number of your fellow citizens who volunteer their time as mentors
or as tutors, serving snacks or delivering holiday gifts; you like me would feel proud of our Roanoke
volunteers. It is this commitment to our children that provides the rationale - really the mandate for -
making a sufficient financial investment in our children and youth.
Last year I involved a number of teenagers, mostly William Fleming High School students, in the Vision
2001 process. You may have been present to hear those teenagers, who were enrolled our Teen Outreach
Program of Family Service, speak to the importance of preventing teen pregnancy and they spoke of the
importance on preventing alcohol and drag abuse. These are preventable tragedies that the teens consider to
be serious threats to our welfare and to our city's future. My TOP teens came up with what they considered
the best approach to prevention: providing positive alternatives. Expanding and strengthening existing
afterschool programs and replicating those programs in more neighborhoods would be a way to provide
positive alternatives. What was so interesting is that the suggested solutions made by these teenagers in fact
are the same suggestions being made by youth development researchers who have identified what works?
What really does make a difference in preventing teen pregnancy and violence? It is not the short term
attempt at a quick fix. It is the long term (longer than 3 years) character building that takes place in these
afterschool programs, who spend 20 hours a week with our children between 2:00 and 6:00 pm These
youth development programs not only keep our children out of trouble they bring out the best that lives
within our children. I have watched the impact on a child at the St. John's Community Youth Program who
went from failing almost every class to passing every class and even excelling at some. I have watched
silly hyper middle school children become loving and generous volunteers, who reach out to the elderly in
nursing homes and who bring smiles to the faces of youngsters in TAP Head Start programs.* Character is
being built, self-respect and respect for others is being built every afternoon in the context of these existing
youth programs who are working hard to meet children's needs not just for three years til the seed money
runs out -because effective programs are those that support our children's development for the long haul.
This important work takes time and our children need us to take the time to do right by them. That is how
we can prevent costly tragic developmental outcomes like teen pregnancy and dropping out of school and
drug abuse and crime.
*It has been my privilege to work with three afterschool programs very closely.
We all know that prevention is cost effective but it seems that the money doesn't follow this insight. We
know our community values its children but - does our budget reflect this value? Child care has recently
been prioritized by the city in its Human Resources Grant application process. How well can we fund this
priority not just in relation to other Human Resources demands but in the context of the general budget? I
am here to ask you to carefully re-evaluate how much of our city's budget is available for meeting the
needs of our children.
Recently you have taken a stand to strictly enforce the seed money intentions of CDBG money. You are
trying to be faithful to the intent of the CDBG allocations. This approach however can undermine ongoing
effective programs that are working to keep our children out of Coyner Springs and out of trouble. Any
time we allow for reinventing the wheel, any time we allow for something new to get created which can
only survive for a couple of years - we are wasting precious resources and we are sacrificing our precious
children. When you provide funding for proven programs who last long enough to make a real difference.
When you make it possible for us to build on the lessons that have been learned rather than rewarding the
new kid on the block with a new glove and bat and playing field, when all he really needed was just to go
around the corner and join up with the team that is already in place -- then we are not planting seeds that
can take root and grow and last and weather the storms and provide shade and blossoms; too often seed
money is thrown onto a new surface where it is just grabbed up by the birds and flies away into the clouds
to feed a few bellies for a very short period of time. Is that what is intended for this CDBG seed money?
Roanoke cares too much about its children not to invest its seed money more effectively so it can take root
and take hold to help our children -
We need some alternative way to support ongoing effective long lasting children's programs if CDBG is
not going to be a source of support for vitally needed long term efforts that truly benefit children.
Several of the afterschool programs right now do depend on CDBG monies. The Hurt Park Magic Place
sponsored by the YMCA for example gets 46% of its income from CDBG. The children served at Hurt
Park were identified several years ago as having among the most severe needs both educationally and
economically of any children in Roanoke. The Junior League worked with the YMCA to initiate a free
afterschool program to respond to the needs of the Hurt Park children. That program will be severely
jeopardized by this new approach to enforcing the three year limit on CDBG funding. The YMCA has an
excellent history of leveraging city money to get other support. This is evident in their summer day camp
which leverages city funding, obtaining a match that is 8 times the investment made by the city.
The West End Center received $27,000 (or 4.5% of its funding last year from CDBG). Another 6.5% was
allocated to West End Center by the Human Resources committee. With only 11% of its funding coming
from the City the West End Center provided an 89% match to meet the needs of children throughout
Roanoke and to serve special needs children. They are the most inclusive afterschool program of special
needs children that I know with 26% of its population having identified disabilities. In sum, the West End
Center takes city funds and multiplies it 9 times to serve the most challenged children in our community.
What happens when this seed money is withheld from these various afterschool programs? The result will
be that fewer children will be served unless an alternative means of funding is provided. These programs
serve families who cannot afford any fees for child care. 95% of the children enrolled in the West End
Center receive free or reduced lunch. With the level of income these families make,
it is impossible to keep food on the table and a roof over your head and the heat turned on - and pay for
child care. I know that in Roanoke we don't want to make people choose bet~veen heating their homes
versus keeping their children in a safe and healthy place afterschool.
So I call upon your commitment to our beautiful and precious children in our beautiful and precious city to
live up to those values that make you the leaders we need you to be and I ask you to invest adequately -
actually I would like you to invest abundantly in our children's programs.
During a recent visit to Coyner Spring's facility for juvenile offenders I was wowed by the sparkle of that
newly renovated place but it honestly gave me chills there because I am so personally devoted to
prevention - to keeping kids from making the kinds of mistakes that warrant Coyner Springs and it is
clearly warranted for some of our youth. But when I was shown with pride how they have installed a fancy
mechanism that blows a blast of air down through the doorway in order to keep bugs out of Coyner Springs
- I couldn't help but think of the irony of putting our hard earned money into state of the art equipment for
keeping bugs from flying in through the doors at Coyner Springs. I doubt anyone of us sleeps better at
night knowing that the great bug prevention air blasting invention has been installed. How much more
gratifying it would be to know that juvenile crime prevention through effective youth development
interventions are being adequately funded so that afterschool programs can keep their doors open for the
sake of our children.
If we can f'md a way to fund ongoing bug prevention at the doorway of Coyner Springs surely we can find a
way to fund ongoing effective youth programs that make such a world of a difference in the lives of our
children and that make for a better quality of life for us all here in Roanoke. You make those choices. Bug
prevention at Coyner Springs' doorway versus juvenile crime prevention on the other side of the doors at
our afterschool programs? I ask you to please consider carefully those choices that you make in the next
several weeks that will affect what kinds of doors are being opened for our children here in our beloved city
of Roanoke. THANK YOU.
CITY OF ROANOKE
Offi¢o of tho City CIork
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
February 21,2002
File #60-236-296-304
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of statements of Kaye Hale, Executive Director, West End Center for
Youth; and Dr. Cheri W. Hartman, Director of Teen Outreach, Family Service of Roanoke
Valley, with regard to the change in policy in Community Development Block Grant funding
awards by the City, and its affect on local human service organizations, which statements
were before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular rneeting which was held on
Tuesday, February 19, 2002.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the matter was referred to the
Council's Financial Planning Session to be held on Friday, March 8, 2002, and to fiscal
year 2002-03 budget study.
Council Members Bestpitch and Wyatt requested that the City Manager respond to the
following requests for information:
The amount of funds provided by the City through Comrnunity Development
Block Grant funds for certain programs that have a demonstrated history of
success; i.e.: the West End Center, the Presbyterian Center, Magic Place,
Teen Outreach Program, etc., compared with the amount of funds that will
be needed to increase the human services budget to insure ongoing support
of such programs.
H: ~&genda.02',,February 19, 2002 con-esp.x~pd
Darlene L. Burcham
February 21,2002
Page 2
How much would the admissions tax need to be increased City-wide for all
venues, excluding City operated facilities, in order to generate additional
revenues for social and cultural service organizations?
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:mh
Attachment
pc:
Kaye Hale, Executive Director, West End Center for Youth, P. O. Box 4582,
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Cheri W. Hartman, Ph.D., 2423 Stanley Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Barry L. Key, Director, Management and Budget
Frank E. Baratta, Budget Team Leader
H: Agcnda.02~,February 19, 2002 con-esp.wpd
RALPH K. SMITH
Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
CITY COUNCIL
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
February 19, 2002
Council Members:
William D. Bestpitch
William H. Carder
C. Nelson Harris
W. Alvin Hudson, Jr.
William White, Sr.
Linda F. Wyatt
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council:
We jointly sponsor a request of Kaye Hale, Executive Director, West End Center for Youth,
to address Council with regard to the new policy for CDBG awards and potential funding for
local organizations at the regular meeting of City Council on Tuesday, February 19, 2002,
at 2:00 p.m.
Sincerely,
~illiam D Bestpit!Cc~h '
Council Member
WDB:LFW:sm
pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
N:\CKSMI~AGENDA.O2\COUNCIL FORM LETTER FOR AGENDA ITEMS.DOC
.02/20/2002 16:33 5483455848 NEST END CENTER FOR PAGE 02
Mr. Mayor, City Manager and esteemed members of
City Council, thank you for allowing me to speak
today. I will be brief because I know you have a very
long day. We are very gr~iteful for the support the city
has given us through the years. I have come today to
speak to you about the change in policy regarding
CDBG awards and how that change will affect local
human service organizations.
The competition for and acquisition of funds for local
non-profits are areas of great concern. Most of the
private community based organizations such as the
West End Center receive only small amounts (5%-
10%) of public funds with little or no state or federal
support. Community based organizations have n....qo
national affii'ation so it is hard for them to compete
for dollars on the national level. This makes it even
more crucial that we at least maintain the level of
municipal support we currently receive.
There are currently only two pools of municipal
funding that Human Service agencies can apply for.
They are CDBG and Consolidated Human Services
Grants. From now on CDBG will only fund seed or
new programs. So much of the funding we currently
apply for is seed funding also. Where do we acquire
funds to continue to operate programs that have a
,02/28/2982 16:33 5403455848 WEST END CENTER FOR PAGE 03
proven track record without having to create
programs, to chase the funding stream?
At West End Center 90% of our funding comes l~om
private local sources. Replacing the $27,000.00 we
receive fi'om CDBG will be a huge undertaking.
Many of us have taken steps backward already with
the national crisis and the downturn in the economy.
I would like to see City Council study the possibility
of increasing the amount of dollars substantially
through the Consolidated Human Service
Grant or creating another stream of funding to keep
municipal funding at or greater than current levels for
local organiza, tion.~ with a proven track record.
I believe you as leaders of our community va!ue the
services West End Center and other worthwhile
organizations provide for Roanoke City residents
You must also understand how important the City's
support, is, in helping us leverage funds from other
...sources. Pleas_e help us solve this dilemma. "
82/11/2882 17:82 5483455848 WEST END CENTER FOR PAGE 82
West
End
I IIII
P~e~'A[In60ua Youth As Ite~'onmue. Pro,)ucc'lye Crnzens
-MalJII~D
P.O.
Roenoke, V= 24015
-Loeli~ion-
Ream~e. Va.
Room 356
Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue SW
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 l
February 11, 2002
To The Honorable Mayor and City Council:
I would like to request that Cheri Hartman and I be placed on the agenda for the February
18, 2002 City Council meeting at 2pm We intend to speak about the new policy for
CDBG awards and the potential for City Council to address funding local organizations
with a proven track record through another source of funding.
Council members Bill Bestpitch and Linda Wyatt have agreed to support our being
placed on the agenda to speak.
IfI can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to call me at 342.0902.
Sincerely yours,
Kaye Hale
Executive Director
West End Center for Youth
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-maih clerk~ci.roanoke.va, us
February 21,2002
File #122-192-405
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Frederick C. Krenson, AIA,
Vice-President - Director, Sports and Exhibition Group
Rosser International, Inc.
524 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Krenson:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 35750-021902 authorizing a contract with Rosser
International, Inc., for architectural/engineering design and construction phase services,
which will include a traffic planning study of major roads and intersections in the vicinity of
the stadium-amphitheater and Civic Center, provision of an operations consultant,
acoustical design, food service and graphics design services and related work for the
Stadium-Amphitheater Complex Project, in the amount of $1,250,000.00.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 19, 20612.
Sincerely,
Mary F.
City Clerk
MFP:mh
Enclosure
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
George C. Snead, Jr., Assistant City Manager for Operations
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
James M. Evans, Director, Civic Facilities
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
H:~Agenda 02XaCebruary 19, 2002 corresp.~pd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 19th day of February, 2002.
No. 35750-021902.
A RESOLUTION authorizing a contract with Rosser International, Inc. for
architectural/engineering design and construction phase services, which will include a
traffic planning study of major roads and intersections in the vicinity of the stadium-
amphitheater and Civic Center, provision of an operations consultant, acoustical design,
food service and graphics design services and related work for the Stadium-Amphitheater
Complex Project.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute
and attest, respectively, a contract with Rosser International, Inc. in the amount of
$1,250,000 for architectural/engineering design and construction phase services, which
will include a traffic planning study of major roads and intersections in the vicinity of the
stadium-amphitheater and Civic Center, provision of an operations consultant, acoustical
design, food service and graphics design services and related work for the Stadium-
Amphitheater Complex Project, as described in the City Manager's letter to this Council
dated February 19, 2002.
2. The form of the contract shall be approved by the City Attorney, all as more
particularly set forth in the City Manager's letter to this Council dated February 19, 200Z
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
H:LMeasures~rosser a&e civic center.doc
Office of the City Manager
February 19, 2002
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member
Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member
Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Proposed Stadium-Amphitheater
Complex
Proposal No. 01-09-39
At its meeting on August 6, 2001, City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the design
and construction of a new stadium/amphitheater to be constructed at a site across from the
Civic Center. The total project cost is $18 million, which will primarily be funded through the
sale of $16.2 million of Series 2002 General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds.
In October 2001, the Request for (Qualification) Proposals to solicit professional architectural
and engineering design services was publicly advertised, including advertising in the monthly
publication of International Association of Assembly Managers, Inc. In November 2001, the
City received qualification proposals from seven design teams, which consisted of the
primary consultant and a subconsultant it would use. Those teams consisted of the following:
· Arquitectonica with Hanbury Evans Newill Vlattas & Co.
· HKS Inc. (HKS Sport) and SFCS Inc.
· Moseley Harris & McClintock and HOK Sport
· Rosser, International, Inc./Hayes Seay Mattern & Mattern, Inc.
· Spectrum Design and Heery International, Inc.
· Sustaita Associates with Hanbury Evans Newill Vlattas & Co.
· VMDO Architects, P.C. with Rife + Wood Architects
A seven-person selection committee composed of four Roanoke citizens (Mr. Jim Burks, Mr.
Calvin Johnson, Ms. Maryellen Goodlatte and Mr. Brian Shepard), a member of the City
school administration office (Richard Kelley, Assistant Superintendent for Operations) and
two City-staff (Jim Evans, Director of Civic Facilities and Phil Schirmer, City Engineer) short-
listed the four following consultants and their subconsultant for interviews:
· HKS Inc. (HKS Sport) and SFCS Inc.
· Moseley Harris& McClintock and HOK Sport
· Rosser, International, Inc./Hayes Seay Mattern & Mattern, Inc.
· Spectrum Design and Heery International, Inc.
Room 364 MunicipaLSouth 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 ('.540) 853-2333 FAX (540) 853-1138
CityWeb:www. ci .roanoke.va .us
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
February 19, 2002
Page 2
Following interviews with these teams in early January, the firm of Rosser International, Inc.,
524 West Peachtree Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30308, was selected as best qualified to
provide the required services for the proposed project. In addition to all normal
architectural/engineering design and construction phase services, these services will include
a traffic planning study of major roads and intersections in the vicinity of the stadium-
amphitheater and Civic Center, provision of an operations consultant, acoustical design, food
service and graphics design services.
City staff has negotiated an acceptable agreement for the above work with Rosser
International, Inc. for a lump sum fee of $1,250,000. Funding is available in Capital Projects
Fund account number 008-530-9758, Stadium/Amphitheater Project.
Recommended Action:
Authorize the City Manager to execute a Contract for Consultant Services for the above work
with Rosser International, Inc. in the amount of $1,250,000; such contract to be approved as
to form by the City Attorney.
DLB/CMA/bls
Re~spectfully submitted,
City Manager
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
#CM02-00025
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us
February 21,2002
File #20-46-60-264-472-514
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHE1LA N. HARTMAN
Assistant Deputy CiD. Clerk
John D. Teeter, Vice President
The Richardson-Wayland Electrical Corporation
P. O. Box 12648
Roanoke, Virginia 24027
Dear Mr. Teeter:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 35752-021902 accepting the bid of The Richardson-
Wayland Electrical Corporation, for the signalization of Williamson Road and Hildebrand
Road, in the amount of $47,844.00; and rejecting all other bids received by the City.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 19, 2002, and will be in full force
and effect ten days following the date of adoption.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:mh
Enclosure
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Kenneth H. King, Manager, Streets and Traffic
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
H:'~Agenda 02X~rebruary 19, 2002 corresp.~pd
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue. S.W.. Room 456
Roanoke. Virginia 2401 I- 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerkr~ci.roanoke.va.us
February 21,2002
File #20-46-60-264.-472-514
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy Ci~' Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Gene H. Moore, President
J. B. Moore Electrical Contractor, Inc.
P. O. Box 4306
Lynchburg, Virginia 24502
Dear Mr. Moore:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 35752-021902 accepting the bid of The Richardson-
Wayland Electrical Corporation, for the signalization of Williamson Road and Hildebrand
Road, in the amount of $47,844.00; and rejecting all other bids received by the City.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 19, 2002, and will be in full force
and effect ten days following the date of adoption.
On behalf of the City of Roanoke, thank you for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed
project.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:mh
Enclosure
H :\Agenda.02',,February l 9, 2002 corresp.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 19th day of February, 2002.
bio. 35752-021902.
AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of The Richardson-Wayland Electrical Corporation
for the signalization of Williamson Road and Hildebrand Road upon certain terms and conditions
and awarding a contract therefor; authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite
contract for such work; rejecting all other bids made to the City for the work; and dispensing
with the second reading of this ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The bid Of The Richardson-Wayland Electrical Corporation in the amount of
$47,844.00 for the signalization of Williamson Road and Hildebrand Road, as is more
particularly set forth in the City Manager's letter dated February 19, 2002, to this Council, such
bid being in full compliance with the City's plans and specifications made therefor and as
provided in the contract documents offered the bidder, which bid is on file in the Purchasing
Department, be and is hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized, on behalf of the City, to
execute and attest, respectively, the requisite contract with the successful bidder, based on its
proposal made therefor and the City's specifications made therefor, the contract to be in such
form as is approved by the City Attorney, and the cost of the work to be paid for out of funds
heretofore or simultaneously appropriated by Council.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the above work are hereby REJECTED,
and the City Clerk is directed to notify each such bidder and to express to each the City's
appreciation for such bid.
Documentl
4. 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.
Documentl
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
February 21,2002
File #20-46-60-264-472-514
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35751-021902 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 2001-02 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, in connection with
acceptance of a bid submitted by The Richardson-Wayland Electrical Corporation, for
improvements and signalization at Williamson Road and Hildebrand Road, N. W.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 19, 20(:12.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:mh
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Kenneth H. King, Manager, Streets and Traffic
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
Barry L. Key, Director, Office of Management and Budget
H:~Agenda.02\February 19, 2002 corresp.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 19th day of February, 2002.
No. 35751-021902.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002
Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
certain sections of the 2001-2002 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, be, and the same
are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
AD_~roDriations
Traffic Engineering
Signalization of Williamson Road/Hildebrand Road (1) ...........
Capital Improvement Reserve
Public Improvement Bonds - Series 1999 (2) ..................
1 ) Appropriated from
Bond Funds
Series 1999 (008-530-9579-9001) $ 52,600
2) Streets and Sidewalks(008-052-9709-9191) (52,600)
$ 5,445,380
52,600
$ (3,118,821)
3,254,679
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall
be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Office of the City Manager
February 19, 2002
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member
Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member
Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Contract Award
Signalization of Williamson Road
and Hildebrand Road
Bid No. 01-12-21
The intersection of Williamson Road and Hildebrand Road was identified in the 1997 bond
referendum as a location for which traffic signalization would be implemented. The design
has been completed and the project has been bid.
After proper advertisement, two bids were received on Tuesday, January 29, 2002, with The
Richardson-Wayland Electrical Corporation, 13th Street and Memorial Bridge, S.W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24015, submitting the Iow bid in the amount of $47,844. (See attached bid
tabulation.) The construction time was specified as 60 consecutive calendar days.
Funding in the amount of $52,600 is needed for the project. The additional funds that exceed
the contract amount will be used for miscellaneous project expenses including advertising,
prints~ test services, minor variations in bid quantities and unforeseen project expenses.
Funding is available from Public Improvement Bonds- Series 1999, account number
008-052-9709-9191. Signal equipment for this intersection, such as poles, controller and
cabinet, will be procured using $25,000 which is already available in an existing account.
Recommended Action:
Accept the above bid and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for the above
work with The Richardson-Wayland Electrical Corporation in the amount of $47,844 with 60
consecutive calendar days of contract time, and reject all other bids.
Room 364 Municipal South 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 ,~540) 853-2333 FAX (540) 853-1138
CityWeb:www. ci.roanoke.va.us
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
February 19, 2002
Page 2
Authorize the Director of Finance to transfer $52,600 from Public Improvement Bonds -
Series 1999, account number 008-052-9709-9191, to a new account to be entitled
Signalization of Williamson Road/Hildebrand Road.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
DLB/JGB/bls
Attachment
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
#CM02-00029
TABULATION OF BIDS
SIGNALIZATION OF
WILLIAMSON ROAD AND HILDEBRAND ROAD
BID NO. 01-12-21
Bids were opened by Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing Department, on Tuesday,
January 29, 2002, at 2:00 p.m.
BIDDER AMOUNT
The Richardson-Wayland Electrical Corporation $47,844.00
J.B. Moore Electrical Contractor, Inc. $55,073.50
Engineer's Estimate: $45,000.00
Office of the City Engineer
Roanoke, Virginia
February 19, 2002
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us
February 21,2002
File #60-70-354-472
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
Barry Slagle, President
Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corporation
One Industrial Complex
Nesquehoning, Pennsylvania 18240
Dear Mr. Slagle:
lam enclosing copy of Resolution No. 35754-021902 accepting the bid of Kovatch Mobile
Equipment Corporation, for the purchase of one new fire 1500 GPM fire engine with water
tower, in the amount of $429,767.00; and rejecting all other bids received by the City.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 19, 2002.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:mh
Enclosure
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
James Grigsby, Chief, Fire/EMS Department
Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing
H:",Agenda.02\February 19, 2002 corresp.wpd
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerkc¢ci.roanoke.va, us
February 21,2002
File #60-70-354-472
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HART,MAN
Assistant Depu~ City. Clerk
Bobby St. Clair, Regional Account Manager
Pierce Manufacturing, Inc.
c/o Singer Associates Fire Equipment
5293 Crumpacker Drive, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Dear Mr. St. Clair:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 35754-021902 accepting the bid of Kovatch Mobile
Equipment Corporation, for the purchase of one new fire 1500 GPM fire engine with water
tower, in the amount of $429,767.00; and rejecting all other bids received by the City.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 19, 2002.
On behalf of the City of Roanoke, thank you for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed
equipment.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:mh
Enclosure
H:~Agenda. O2',.February 19, 2002 corresp.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 19th day of February, 2002.
bio. 35754-021902.
A RESOLUTION accepting the bid of Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corporation
for the purchase of one new fire 1500 GPM fire engine with water tower, upon certain
terms and conditions; and rejecting all other bids made for such item.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The bid submitted by Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corporation, for the
purchase of one new ! 500 GPM fire engine with water tower, at a cost of $429,767.00, as
is set forth in the lettei' to this Council dated February 19, 2002, which bid is on file in the
Purchasing Department and is in full compliance with the City's specifications made
therefor, is hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City's Manager of the Purchasing Department is hereby authorized
and directed to issue the requisite purchase order therefor, incorporating into the purchase
order the City's specifications, the terms of the bidder's proposal and the terms and
provisions of this resolution.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid item are hereby
REJECTED, and the City Clerk is directed to notify each such bidder and to express to
each the City's appreciation for such bid.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
N:\CALCXaMeasures\Fire Engine 2002.doc
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of tho City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
February 21,2002
File #60-70-354-472
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35753-021902 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 2001-02 Fleet Management Fund Appropriations, in connection with
acceptance of a bid submitted by Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corporation, in the amount
of $429,767.00, for the purchase of one new fire 1500 GPM fire engine with water tower.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 19, 2002.
Sincerely,
City Clerk
MFP:mh
Attachment
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
George C. Snead, Jr., Acting Director, General Services
Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing
Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
James Grigsby, Chief, Fire/EMS Department
H:'~Agenda.02XFebruary 19, 2002 corresp.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 19th day of February, 2002.
No. 35753-021902.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 Fleet
Management Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
certain sections of the 2001-2002 Fleet Management Fund Appropriations, be, and the
same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Capital Outlay (1) ........................................... $ 4,534.,277
Retained Earnings
Retained Earnings - Available for Appropriation (2) ................. $ 42,233
1 ) Vehicular Equipment
2) Retained Earnings -
Available for
Appropriation
(017-440-2642-9010) $ 429,767
(017-3348) (429,767)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall
be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Office of the City Manager
February 19, 2002
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member
Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member
Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Purchase of Fire Engine
Bid No. 01-11-26
Background:
Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP) has
identified the need to replace one (1) 1500 GPM fire engine with water tower for
the Fire-EMS Department.
Specifications were developed and, along with an Invitation for Bid, were sent to
twenty (20) providers. The bid was publicly advertised in accordance with
Chapter 23.1 of the Code of the City of Roanoke.
Considerations:
Two (2) bids were received and evaluated in a consistent manner. The lowest
bid, submitted by Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corporation, Nesquehoning,
Pennsylvania, met all specifications at a cost of $429,767.00. Funding for this
equipment is available in Fleet Management Retained Earnings Account.
Room 364 Municipd South 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 (540) 853-2333 FAX (540) 853-1138
CityWeb:www. ci.roanoke,va.us
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
February 19, 2002
Page 2
Recommended Action:
City Council appropriate retained earnings in the amount of $429,767.00 to
account 017-440-2642-9010.
Award the bid for the fire truck to Kovatch Mobile Equipment Corporation at a
total cost of $429,767.00, authorize the City's Manager of the Purchasing
Division to issue a purchase order, and reject all other bids.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
DLB: bdf
Attachment
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
James Grigsby, Fire-EMS Chief
Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing
CM02-00028
Bid Tabulation
Bids were received, publicly opened and read at 2:00 p.m., December 27, 2001
For
1500 GPM Fire Engine with Water Tower
Bid Number 01-11-26
Description Kovatch Mobile Pierce Manufacturing,
Equipment Corporation Inc.
(1) new 1500 GPM $429,767.00* $440,878.00
Fire Engine with
Water Tower
Delivery 340 days 240 days
* Indicated Recommendation
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
February 21,2002
File #5-262
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 35755-021902 designating the procurement method
known as competitive negotiation, rather than the procurement method known as
competitive sealed bidding, to be used for the procurement of Virginia State Certified
Incident Based Reporting software and software services; and documenting the basis for
this determination.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 19, 2002.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:mh
Attachment
pc:
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
George C. Snead, Jr., Acting Director, General Services
Joe D. Slone, Director, Department of Technology
Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing
Barry L. Key, Director, Office of Management and Budget
HSAgenda.02~February 19, 2002 corresp.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA '
The 19th day of February, 2002.
No. 35755-021902.
A RESOLUTION designating the procurement method known as competitive
negotiation, rather than the procurement method known as competitive sealed bidding, to
be used for the procurement of Virginia State Certified _Incident Based Reporting
software and sofl~are services; and documenting the basis for this determination.
WHEREAS, the City seeks to procure proposals from vendors to provide the
following:
· A client based Incident Based Reporting systems to be run on Panasonic CF-28
computers in the City's Police Patrol vehicles;
· Develop or assist in the development of both front and backend interfaces to the
IBR client application;
· Assist in the implementation of this system and create utilities that further the
functionality of this system; and,
WHEREAS, this Council finds that the use of the procurement method of
competitive negotiation for the above mentioned services will allow for consideration of
the factors of experience, qualifications, references, customer responsiveness, manpower
allocation, financial management and quality of reports as related to the vendor and
software design, platform, functionality, reliability and adaptability to interface which are
of equal, if not greater, importance than the cost.
WHEREAS, City Council is of the opinion that such services should be procured
by competitive negotiation rather than competitive sealed bidding.
H:\Measures\competetitive negot.doc
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by this Council of the City of Roanoke as
follows:
1. Pursuant to Section 23.1-4 (e), Code of the City of Roanoke, (1979), as
amended, this Council finds that the procurement method known as competitive sealed
bidding is not practicable and/or is not fiscally advantageous to the public for the reasons
set forth above for the procurement of Virginia State Certified Incident Based Reporting
software and software services.
2. City Council directs that the procurement method known as competitive
negotiation shall be used for the procurement of Virginia State Certified Incident Based
Reporting software and software services, as more fully set forth in the City Manager's
Letter to this Council dated February 19, 2002.
3. This Resolution documents the basis for City Council's determination.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
H :\Measures\competetitive negot.doc
Office of the City Manager
February 19, 2002
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
William H. Carder, Vice Mayor
William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
C. Nelson Harris, Council Member
W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member
William White, Sr., Council Member
Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Competitive Negotiation
For Services
Background:
The City desires the opportunity to consider entering into a contractual
agreement with a provider of Virginia State Certified Incident Based Reporting
software and software services for the following:
· A client based Incident Based Reporting system to be run on Panasonic
CF-28 computers in the City's Police Patrol vehicles.
· Develop or assist in the development of both front and backend interfaces
to the IBR client application.
· Assist in the implementation of this system and create utilities that further
the functionality of this system.
Although the sealed bid method of procurement would normally be used, it is not
practicable or fiscally advantageous to the public in procuring the above services.
The experience, qualifications, and references of firms that can provide the
above listed services are of equal, if not greater, importance than the cost. Issues
of experience in the development of Virginia certified IBR, quality of reports,
reputation of the software developer, and pricing advantages are of vast
importance in the areas of services for the Police Department and the
Department of Technology. Additional issues, other than price, for the software
design, platform, functionality, reliability, and adaptability to interfaces must be
taken into account. The procurement of this software and software services must
include a means to evaluate the quality of services to be provided in areas such
Room 364 Municipal South 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 (540) 853-2333 FAX (540) 853-1138
CityWeb:www. ci.roanoke.va.us
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
February 19, 2002
Page 2
as customer responsiveness, manpower allocation and financial management.
Therefore, the process of competitive negotiation using the request for proposal
has been identified as the best method for procurement of these services.
Considerations:
The Code of the City of Roanoke provides, as an alternate method of
procurement to using the bid process, a process identified as "competitive
negotiation." Prior approval by Council is necessary before the alternate method
may be used. See City Code Section 23.1-4 (e). This method will allow for
negotiations with two (2) or more providers to determine the best qualified at the
most competitive price or rate.
Recommended Action:
City Council authorize the use of competitive negotiation as the method to secure
vendors to provide appropriate services as identified in this letter.
~<~~~2ubmitted'
City Manager
DLB: bdf
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Barry L. Key, Director of OMB
Joe D. Slone, Director of Technology
Robert L. White, Purchasing Manager
CM02-00033
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
February 21,2002
File 5-60-236
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 35757-021902 accepting the Virginia Services,
Training, Officers, Prosecution (VSTOP) Violence Against Women Grant offer made to the
City by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services and authorizing execution of
any required documentation on behalf of the City, in the amount of $27,003.00, with a
$21,915.00 in-kind match and a cash match of $7,116.00 by the City.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 19, 20(:)2.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:mh
Attachment
pc:
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police
H:',Agenda.02\February 19, 2002 corresp.xvpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 19th day of February, 2002.
No. 35757-021902.
A RESOLUTION accepting the Virginia Services, Training, Officers, Prosecution
(VSTOP) Violence Against Women Grant offer made to the City by the Virginia Department of
Criminal Justice Services and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of
the City.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The City of Roanoke does hereby accept the Virginia Services, Training, Officers,
Prosecution (VSTOP) Violence Against Women grant offered by the Virginia Department of
Criminal Justice Services in the amount of $27,003. The grant which requires a $21,915 in-kind
match by the City and a cash match of $7,116 is more particularly described in the letter of the
City Manager, dated February 19, 2000, upon all the terms, provisions and conditions relating to
the receipt of such funds.
2. The City Manager and the City Clerk, are hereby authorized to execute, seal and
attest, respectively, the grant agreement and all necessary documents required to accept the grant,
including any documents providing for indemnification from the City that may be required for
the City's acceptance of this grant, all such documents to be approved as to form by the City
Attomey.
3. The City Manager is further directed to fumish such additional information as
may be required in connection with the City's acceptance of this grant.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
N:\CALCLMeasures\vstop grant 2002.doc
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
February 21,2002
File #5-60-236
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35756-021902 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 2001-02 General and Grants Funds Appropriations, in connection with a
V-STOP Domestic Violence Grant from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice
Services for programs and activities which increase the apprehension, prosecution, and
adjudication of persons committing violent crimes against women.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 19, 2002.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:mh
Attachment
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police
H:~Agenda.02hCebruary 19, 2002 corresp.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 19th day of February, 2002.
No. 35756-021902.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 General
and Grant Funds Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain
sections of the 2001-2002 General and Grant Funds Appropriations, be, and the same are
hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
General Fund
Public Safety $
Police Investigation (1-2) .................................
46,649,748
2,303,434
Nondepartmental $
Transfers to Other Funds (3) ..............................
71,603,546
71,080,841
Grant Fund
Appropriations
Public Safety
Federal Asset Forfeiture Program (4) .......................
VSTOP Grant CY02 (5-11) ...............................
2,029,570
295,762
34,119
Revenue~
Public Safety $
VSTOP Grant CY02 (12-13) ..............................
2,029,570
34,119
1) Administrative Supplies
2) Training and
Development
3) Transfer to Grant Fund
4) Local Match - LLEBG
(001-640-3112-2030) $ (1,012)
(001-640-3112-2044)
(001-250-9310-9535)
(035-640-3304-2149)
(663)
1,675
(5,441)
5) Salaries
6) ICMA Retirement
7) FICA
8) Health Insurance
9) Dental Insurance
10) Administrative
Supplies
11 ) Training and
Development
12) Local Match
13) State Grant Receipts
(035-640-3321-1002)
(035-640-3321-1115)
(035-640-3321-1120)
(035-640-3321-1125)
(035-640-3321-1126)
(035-640-3321-2030)
(035-640-3321-2044)
(035-640-3321-3323)
(035-640-3321-3324)
27,003
2,200
2,066
1,000
175
1,012
663
7,116
27,003
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be
in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Office of the City Manager
February 19, 2002
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member
Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member
Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Police Department
Domestic Violence
Program Grant
Background:
The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) provides grant
funding for programs and activities which increase the apprehension,
prosecution, and adjudication of persons committing violent crimes against
women. The program, "Virginia Services, Training, Officers, Prosecution"
(VSTOP), Violence Against Women has funded the establishment of a Domestic
Violence Unit within the Roanoke Police Department since 1999.
On December 17, 2001, DCJS awarded the Police Department $27,003 to
employ its full time, non-sworn, Domestic Violence Specialist, thereby allowing
continuance of the Domestic Violence Unit in calendar year 2002. The required
City in-kind match ($21,915) will be met through salary paid to current Police
Department personnel. The required cash match of $7,116 will be met through
Federal Asset Forfeiture Funds, account # 035-640-3304 ($5,441) and the
Police Department Budget, account # 001-640-3112-2030 ($1,012) and 001-640-
3112-2044 ($663).
The Domestic Violence Unit collects and interprets relevant domestic violence
offense data which allows proactive case intervention and cultivation of the
cooperative working relationships with clients and service/adjudication agencies.
The program produces more equitable victim-offender criminal justice
dispositions related to domestic violence offenses.
Room 364 Municipal South 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 (540) 853-2333 FAX (540) 853-1138
CityWeb:www. ci.roanoke.va,us
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, and Members of City Council
February 19, 2002
Page 2
Recommended Action:
Accept the V-STOP grant of $27,003 and authorize the City Manager to execute
any grant agreements related to such grant. Appropriate funding totaling
$34,119 (State Funds plus local cash match) to V-STOP grant program accounts
to be established by the Director of Finance
Transfer local match funding of $1,675 from Police Department operating
accounts to the Grant Account. Establish revenue estimate of $27,003 and local
match estimate of $7,116 in Grant Fund revenue accounts. The in-kind portion
will be tracked but need not be appropriated in the Grant Fund.
DLB:rla
C;
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Rolanda Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
A. L. Gaskins, Police Chief
#CM02-00026
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
February 21,2002
File #5-60-236
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Tuesday,
February 19, 2002, you were requested to provide a more indepth report on the V-STOP
Grant.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:mh
H:~Agenda.02\February 19, 2002 corresp.wpd
Cer~ifie~ ~ail
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-t536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us
February 20, 2002
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
File #46-433-514
Howard W. Dobbins, Esquire
Counsel for APCo Steering Committee
P. O. Box 1320
Richmond, Virginia 23218-1320
Dear Mr. Dobbins:
I am enclosing a certified copy of Resolution No. 35758-021902 determining that
Appalachian Power Company (sometimes d/b/a American Electric Power) is the only
source practicably available to provide electric service at established rates to the City and
for providing street lighting service to the City for the period from July 1, 2002, through
June 30, 2007, and authorizing extension of the City's current contracts for such services,
upon certain terms and conditions.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 19, 2002.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:mh
Enclosure
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Jacqueline L. Shuck, Executive Director, Roanoke Regional Airport Commission,
Roanoke Regional Airport, 5202 Aviation Drive, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools
Robert K. Bengtson, Director, Public Works
H:LAgenda.02L~ebruary 19, 2002 corresp.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 19th day of February, 2002.
No. 35758-021902.
A RESOLUTION determining that Appalachian Power Company (sometimes dgo/a
American Electric Power) is the only source practicably available to provide electric service at
established rates to the City and for providing street lighting service to the City for the period
from July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2007, and authorizing an extension of the City's current
contracts for such services upon certain terms and conditions.
WHEREAS, the VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee (Committee) comprised of
representatives of local governments and political subdivisions has for many years negotiated on
behalf of such governmental units within the service area of Appalachian Power Company
(sometimes d/b/a American Electric Power) (APCo) the terms of standard contract forms which
have included rates for the purchase of electricity supply and delivery service and for the
installation, maintenance and delivery service for street lights by and for such governmental units
from APCo as a single or sole source provider; and
WHEREAS, the City's most recent contract for the purchase of electricity supply is for
the period beginning July 1, 2000, and will terminate on June 30, 2002, and for street lighting
service is for the period beginning January 1, 1993, and will terminate on December 31, 2002;
and
WHEREAS, on or about February 12, 2001, APCo agreed with the Committee to extend
the term of all such contracts to December 31, 2003, at rates set forth in the Company's Schedule
17 on file with the Virginia State Corporation Commission (the "Commission"); and
WHEREAS, on or about July 24, 2001, American Electric Power Co. ("AEP"), parent
corporation of APCo, filed a proceeding in the Federal Energy Regulation Commission
H:LMeasuresLa. PCO2002.doc 1
CFERC") seeking approval of amendment of its intercompany agreement which inter alia affects
the supply and computation of the price for electricity furnished to APCo in excess of that
produced by APCo, in which proceeding the Committee and the Town of Wytheville appeared
and objected; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the Committee and the Town of Wytheville agreeing to a
negotiated settlement of the FERC proceeding which provides substantial protection against
potential escalation of the fuel factor which is a component of APCo's total pricing for electricity
supplied to its retail customers, including the governmental units, APCo has granted to the
governmental units the election or option to: (1) terminate the current contracts on June 30, 2002;
or (2) extend the contracts at Schedule 17 rates to December 31, 2003 pursuant to the offer dated
February 12, 2001; or (3Xa) to extend the current contracts through June 30, 2007, at rates
contained in APCo's unbundled Standard Rate Schedules, or any successor or replacement
schedules then on file and approved by the Commission; and (b) to extend street light service at
rates as in effect July 1, 2000, but subject to changes in the fuel factor; provided that election (3)
is conditioned upon the governmental unit so electing and notifying APCo of its election within
90 days of December 18, 2001, that: (i) it has chosen APCo to provide generation service
through June 30, 2007; (ii) that it will not chose a different supplier prior to such date; and (iii) it
will not request the Commission to determine rates and provisions for default service different
fiom that provided under its contract, as amended by election (3); and
WHEREAS, the Committee has recommended that all jurisdictions in the APCo service
area elect option (3) to extend contracts fi'om June 30, 2002, through June 30, 2007, at the rates
and subject to the conditions all as set forth in the settlement agreement; and
WHEREAS, in consideration whereof, APCo is the only source practically available
which can and will supply electricity service and delivery thereof and to supply street lighting
H:~VleasuresLa, PCO 2002.doc 2
service for the entire needs of the City at established rates for such bundled service or unbundled
generation service for the period from July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2007, as negotiated and
recommended by the Committee; and furthermore, based upon the information and
recommendation provided by the Committee, it appears that even if in the future there should
develop a truly competitive market in the APCo area for generation service, it is questionable
whether the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act (the "Act") provides for capped rates or
default rates for public authorities in the APCo area which could place the City at a disadvantage
in the event it elects to contract with an alternative supplier or if such alternative generation
supplier should default and be unable to provide the electricity; and it further appearing that the
contract extensions recommended and agreed to by the Committee will provide this City with a
safeguard against excessive electricity generation costs both at this date and in the foreseeable
future due to a lack of real competition in this area of Virginia.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. Since Al>Co is the only electricity generation provider which can and will
contract to supply electricity service and delivery and to supply street lighting service thereof to
the City for the entire needs of the City at established rates for such services for the period from
July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2007, as set forth above, it is hereby determined by this Council
that APCo is the only source practicably available to provide such services, as more particularly
set forth in the City Manager's letter to this Council dated February 19, 2002.
2. This Council accepts the offer of APCo to extend its current contracts for electric
service on a bundled basis and for street lighting service from July 1, 2002 through June 30,
2007, and in accordance with the conditions in APCo's offer, this Council agrees that: (i) it has
chosen APCo to provide generation service through June 30, 2007; (ii) it will not choose a
different supplier prior to such date; and, (iii) it will not request the State Corporation
HiXlVleasuresXAPCO 2002.doc 3
Commission to determine rates and provisions for default service different from that provided in
the contracts, as amended and extended, all as more particularly set forth in the City Manager's
letter to this Council dated February 19, 2002.
3. The City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized to execute and attest,
respectively, and deliver on behalf of this Council, in form approved by the City Attorney, all
documents and take such actions as shall be deemed necessary and appropriate to carry out and
administer the foregoing election.
4. The City Clerk is directed to notify APCo of the aforesaid election and agreement
by transmitting a certified copy of this resolution to counsel for the Committee, Howard W.
Dobbins, 1021 East Cary Street, P.O. Box 1320, Richmond, VA 23218-1320, who is authorized
to deliver the same to APCo.
5. In compliance with the procurement regulations governing sole source
procurement, the City's Purchasing Manager is hereby directed this day to post a certified copy
of this resolution in the City's public area for posting such notices.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
H:LMeasuresL~kPCO 2002.doc 4
Office of the City Manager
February 19, 2002
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
William H. Carder, Vice Mayor
W. Alvin Hudson, Council Member
William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
William White, Sr., Council Member
C. Nelson Harris, Council Member
Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Extension of APCo Electric Rate
and Street Lighting Contracts
Background:
The rates that Appalachian Power Company (sometimes d/b/a American Electric Power)
("APCo") charges to Roanoke for electric service are favorable governmental rates
established by contract. Historically, Roanoke has participated with other local governments
through the Virginia Municipal League (VML) and the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo)
in sponsoring a Steering Committee to negotiate governmental electric power rate contracts
every three years. In the past, these contracts have included all three components of retail
electric service: (i) generation; (ii) transmission; and, (iii) distribution. Roanoke's current
electric rate contract with APCo expires on June 30, 2002, and the street lighting contract
expires on December 31, 2002.
Ordinarily, a new local government contract for the time period after June 30, 2002, would be
negotiated and presented to City Council for approval. However, in 1999, the General
Assembly adopted the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act ("Act") which theoretically
granted customers a choice as to the provider of the generation element of their electric
service. Under the Act, the other two components of service, transmission and distribution,
will continue to be provided by APCo under the existing rate procedure.
Due in part to a proceeding in the Federal Energy Regulation Commission resulting from
APCo's attempt to restructure its generating capacity and price computations under the Act,
the Steering Committee has been able to negotiate a settlement agreement dated December
18, 2001 whereby APCo has agreed to provide public authorities the following three (3)
options: (1) terminate the current contracts on June 30, 2002; or (2) extend the contracts at
scheduled rates to December 31, 2003, pursuant to an offer dated February 12, 2001; or (3)
(a) to extend the current contracts through June 30, 2007, at rates contained in APCo's
unbundled Standard Rate Schedules, or any successor or replacement schedules then on file
and approved by the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) and to (b) extend street
Room 364 Municipal South 215 Church Avenue, S.W, Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 (540) 853-2333 FAX (540) 853-1138
CityWeb :www. cl. roanoke.va .us
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
February 19, 2002
Page 2
light service at rates in effect July 1, 2000, but subject to changes in the fuel factor; provided
that option (3) is conditioned upon the governmental unit so electing and notifying APCo of its
election within 90 days of December 18, 2001, that: (i) it has chosen APCo to provide
generation service through June 30, 2007; (ii) that it will not chose a different supplier prior to
such date; and (iii) it will not request the SCC to determine rates and provisions for default
service different from that provided under its contract, as amended by option (3).
It should be noted that the settlement agreement, dated December 18, 2001, is subject to
certain conditions, including approval by the SCC. A copy of such Agreement is attached as
Exhibit A. In the event these conditions are not met, the agreement would terminate and
expire as of December 31, 2003.
Currently available information suggests that during the period of July 1, 2002, through
June 30, 2007, there will be no real open market competition for APCo in the City's service
area and there will be no other source practicably available to supply electricity service and
delivery thereof and to supply street lighting service for the entire needs of the City of
Roanoke at established rates for such service as negotiated by the Steering Committee.
According to the Steering Committee, APCo's generation rate structure is one of the lowest in
the country. In a January 10, 2002, memorandum to members of the Steering Committee
from counsel, it is noted that APCo has conducted a pilot program whereby APCo's retail
customers could select an alternative service provider for generation service and yet not a
single customer switched to an alternative provider during the entire time of the program. A
copy of such memo is attached as Exhibit B.
In addition, a January 18, 2002, report by GDS Associates, Inc., a consultant retained by the
Steering Committee to evaluate the reasonableness of APCo's settlement proposal,
concluded that competitive retail market prices available to public authorities for the
generation component of electric service are likely to be at least 50% higher than the charges
for comparable service under the proposed settlement agreement. A copy of the GDS report
is attached as Exhibit C. In addition, the Steering Committee has informed public authorities
that market prices for electricity in the next 5 to 7 years are likely to be extremely volatile
which will make budgeting extremely difficult.
The Steering Committee has recommended in a memo dated January 14, 2002, that all
jurisdictions in the APCo service area elect option (3) to extend contracts from June 30, 2002,
through June 30, 2007, including street light contracts, at the rates and subject to the
conditions all as set forth in the settlement agreement. A copy of such memo is attached as
Exhibit D. In accordance with the terms of the proposed settlement, a governing body
electing option (3) must do so by resolution or ordinance and notify APCo through the
Steering Committee's counsel no later than March 18, 2002. At this time, Counsel for the
Steering Committee has indicated that most, if not all, of the eligible jurisdictions and public
authorities in the APCo service area, including Roanoke County, intend to elect option (3).
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
February 19, 2002
Page 3
Recommendation:
1. Council determine that APCo is the only source practicably available to provide the
electric rate and street lighting services set forth above.
Accept the offer of APCo to extend its current contract for electric service on a bundled
basis from July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2007, as set forth in the settlement
agreement, and as agreed to and recommended by the Steering Committee, and also
to extend the City's street lighting contract through June 30, 2007.
Agree that in accordance with the conditions in APCo's offer that (i) Council has
chosen APCo to provide generation service through June 30, 2007, (ii) that Council
will not choose a different supplier prior to such date, and (iii) that Council will not
request the State Corporation Commission to determine rates and provisions for
default service different from that provided in the contracts, as amended and extended
as set forth above.
Authorize the City Manager to execute and deliver on behalf of the City all documents,
in a form approved by the City Attorney, and take such further action as shall be
deemed appropriate or necessary to carry out the foregoing actions.
Direct the City Clerk to notify APCo of the aforesaid election and agreement by
transmitting a copy hereof to counsel for the Committee, Howard W. Dobbins, 1021
East Cary Street, P.O. Box 1320, Richmond, VA 23218-1320, who is authorized to
deliver the same to APCo.
Sir~erely, ~
City Manager
DLB/RKB/gpe
Attachments
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent of Roanoke City Schools
Jacqueline Schuck, Executive Director, Roanoke Regional Airport
Robert K. Bengtson, P.E., Director of Public Works
CM02-00032
WOODS.
& HAZI F. GRO'vE"
Exhibit "A'
Deeeanher 18, 2001
BY HAND
Thomas B. Nichol~om. E~quJ. re
Williams, Mullen. Clark & Dobbins
Two James Center
1021 E~t Cary Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Re: Virgini~L Public AuthpriW Customezs of At)tmlachitm Power Coml~ny
D~ar Mr. Nichol~n:
As legal counsel for Aplmlachian Power CoroT)any, American E]~tri¢ Po,~r Sen, ice
Corporation and Ame~riean Eleeu'ie Power Company, Inc., I am ~ed to mukc the offer set
fordx below. As we discxmsed on The ~lcphone with Mr. Bacha. the following offer will remain
open until 5:00 p. m.. EST. Thursday. Decam~b~ 20, 2001. It ~s our understanding that you are
authorized to accept this offer on hetmLf of thc Town of Wytheville, Virginia and the
VMIdVACO APCo Smedng Committee a~d to execute the Virginia / Wes~ Virginia Settieaxtent
Agreement ~t FF, RC, in Docket Nos. EC01-130-000 and EIT01-266S-000, on their behalf.
Accordingly, the Companies set forth the foI[ow4ng terms:
In exchange for Tim Town of W.vthevilte. Virginia, and the VML/VACo APCo Sleeting
Committ~ becoming signatories to the Settlement Agreement Arvtmg American Electric Power
Service Corporation, American Electric Power Company, Inc. And Virginia And West Virginia
Pa~tie~ ("¥ir~niad"~/es~ Virginia $c, rtlemem Ai~vee~nent") in AEP~s pending ¢orporam sopmx~tio~
filing at FERC, in Dooket Nos. EC01-13~000 and ER01-266S-000, and subject to the conditions
set forth in imms A., B. and D.: he, rain, APCo would agree to offer an amendment to the current
contract of each local government ~ othc~ political ~ubdivision of the Commonwealth of
Thom~.,~ B. Nichol.~on, P~quire
December 18, 2001
Page 2
Virginia ("Virginia Public Authority Customer" or "PA Customer") served by Appalachian
Po~,er Company ("APCo") that incorporates the elements set fo~h in Item C., herein
A. The VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee wiU recommend to each PA
Customer served by APCo that it enter into an amendmenl to its curr~nt contract that
incorporat~ the elementz sct forth in [tern C., he,rein.
B. Within 90 days of the date that the Town of Wyth~ille, Virginia, and the
VMD%rACo APCo Steering Committee become signatories to the ¥ir~o'nia,'q~Vest Virgi~'nia
Settlement Agreement, each PA Customer served by APGo gh_n_ll_ notify APCo, in writing, that it
has elected one of the tbllowing options: 1.) to terminate its current contract on June 30, 2002;
2.) to extend its contract through December 31, 2003, per the roms set out in fl~e letters dasd
Febru$O, 12 and February 15, 200t, which were exchanged between APCo and counsel for
VML,tVACo APCo Steering Committee; or, 3.) to extend its current contract through June 30.
2007, per the terms set forth in Item C., herein. If a PA Customer fails to provide such notice,
then that PA Customer will be deemed to have elected option 1.), above; provided,, however, that
the {)0 day response per/od ~-L]I be extended an additional 30 days if a PA Cuatomer provides
wri.n,e,n notice to APCo within said 90 days that, despite good faith effort, the PA Custom,x
needs additional time/hr its governing body to act upon ~ch options. Once. a PA Customer
malcca an ¢lc~tlon hcrcumicr, ~ PA Cuamm~:r shall not b~ ~ntiticd to an? other option from
APCo; provided, however, that if a PA Customer has elected to exzend iQ contract through June
30, 2007, but APC_~ does not become obligated to enter into the amendment provided/hr under
Item C. herein, then APCo will execute an amendment with such PA Customers that extends
their gurrent contracts througtz December 31, 2003, per the aforementioned [ettera dated February
Thomas B. Nicl~olson, Esquire
December 1 It, 2001
Pagc 3
12 md 15. 2001, ~ containing the f~l pm~tions set forth in the Virginia/Wes~ Virginia
Settlement A~eem~nt.
C. Subject to the con4ition8 contained herein, APCo a~reu to execute with each PA
Customer that ires elected to extend its current contract fltrough June 30. 2007, an amendment
thai revis~ t[mt PA Cu~tom~? ~ curreri~ contract ~
The amendment will incorporate the modifi¢8.tion~ and contract exiemion~ agreed
upon inthe a~orememioned letlers dstecl February 12 and February. 15, 2001.
The contract term would be further extended to cover the period January 1, 2004
tlaxmgl~ Jtme 30, 2007 ("Contract Extension Period"). No PA Contract shall be
sold, assigned, or trlmsfeaxed to any other entity, including aa affiliate of APCo,
~ppi~hout the exp~'e~ wrixteu permi~iou of ~ aff'~.~ed ?A Cu~nec pm~ided,
however, that such l:~mis$ioa sh~ll no~ be uraeasonably withheld.
Ra~es.
a. Thc rotes ibr service from Suly 1, 2002 tl~rough June 30.. 2007 shall be
those contained in APCo's uabuadled Stmxtard Ram Schedules SGS,
MGg, l.tqS. I .PS.TOFI and/or OL, or mx2y success~ ot r~ptisceme~
Standard Rate Schedules, riga on file with and atlamved by the Virginia
State Corlx~ion Commission ("VA SCC"), as applicable to the
individual PA ~mer ueeotmta. If'no stroh ra~a are on file with the VA
SCC because R has terminat~l such rates,, ltxen the rates contained in the
last applicable $~ndimt Rate Schedules st~[l be charged by APCo to
Thomas R. Nichot~on, Esquire
December 18, 2001
Page 4
PA Customer accounts through June 30, 2007; providext, however, to
accommodate the fuel protections contained i.u the Virginia/West Virgini~
SeCdcment Agreement, the Parties will ngree to ~nter into good faith
negotialion~ to develop a reasonable fucl adjustment mechanism. The fu~l
protections contained i~ the ¥itginia/West ¥i~ini~t SettlemcsR Agn.'ea-mnt
will be applicable to the PA Customees when th~ become effective for
,M~Co's other Virginia retail customer~ through June 30, 2007.
Th~ ratc-s for Street Lighting ("SU') shall be thos~ in effect July 1, 2000,
but shall be subject to changes in the fuel factor, including the fuet
proteclions contained in the Virginia/West Virginia gettlement
Agxcement, thro~ June 30, 2007.
gl'.
Revenues fi'om PA Customer billings will he based on the aribundled comt~nents
of the ap~icable retail taxiffs. SL revenues mir be unbun~ed ~xto tixe applicable
Each PA Customer that elects to extemi its current contract through June 30,
2007, will agree that 1) it has chosen APCo to provide generation service through.
June 30, 2007; 2) it will not choose a different ~_¢neration supplier prior to June
30, 2007; an6, 3) R will not request 0mt the VA SCC determine rates ami
provisions for default service from APCo different than that provided for tmd~r its
currcnt conU~c~, a~ emcndcd lxerein. Nothing ~n ~ac prcceding ecnt~cc shal~
apply to preclx~de any PA Customer from qualifying for or receiving dcfault
Thomas B. Nicholson, Esquire
Det~nn~ 18, 2001
Page 5
service from a differem default ser~'ice provider in the cvcm that such a provider
ho..~ been named and APCo fails to deriver under the contract. APCo mui the PA
Customer will further agree that the types of interruptions of scrvicc provided for
under thc existing PA Customer contracts and any applicable Standard Rate
Schedules shall not conztitut~ a failuze to deliver for purposes of § 56-58~ or th~
Code of Virginia.
6. The Extenaion of Service provision shall be as coatained ill the curre~ contract.
However, i.t' ~e VA $CC api~ve~ a change in the extension or' service l~rovisions
applie, able lo the Stand~d Rate Schedules identified in 3.a., abo,~, to utilize
reven~e$ which excl~le generation ar, d/or othe~ revenue components, then such a
chan~ shall be rc~flec~d in the Extension of Service provision of the contract
alaplicable to the PA Customers.
?. The information to be provided under the TENTH paragraph of tiao current
contract will be provide{i in electronic tbrm to a single designatod r~presentafive
of the PA customer l!Xoup ("Degign~ted Repre~mntatlve"), aa desikmat~d by the
Executive Directors of the Virginia Municipal League and the '~:irginia
Association of Counties, at no expense t~ the Customer for th~ fLrst request,
wlthha 90 days of rr.c¢iving thc rcqucat~ but in any event not latin th~ul J~muary 1,
2007. .~)Co shall comply with any reaaona~le additional requeats from the
DeaiLmat~ Rep~ive for ltae data described in thc TENTH paragraph, but no
more frequently than once in any calendar ~tr, and the Customer agrees ~o pay
for suck dat~ In tiao event that a PA Customer elect% pursuam to Item B. lac*rein,
Thomas I:1. Nicho[son, Esquire
December 18, 200 I
Page 6
only to extend its curtain contram through De.tuber 3 l, 2003, ~ APCo agxees
to provide to the Custoraer only available information specific to that PA
Customer, a~ no expense for the first request, within 90 days of receiving the
request, but in any event not later than June 30, 2003, and APCo shall comply
wRh any reasonable additional reque:tts from ~ PA Customer tbr the data
specific m tim PA Customer, but no more than once in a single calendar year, and
the Customer agrees to pay for such dam.
8. The date by which a coZ-of-service ha~d dizlribufion rate shall be negotiated by
the parties wiR be ¢ _~__-ged Io January 1, 2007, to establish rates for distribution
service to be effective after June 30, 2007. By May 1, 2006, AEP will provide to
the Designated Represemative a proposed dis~i~on zevenue requiremem and
distribution rate(s) based on fl~e cost of providing distribution sexvice to the PA
Customem to§e~er with the underlying distribution cast-of-.~ervice study and
supporti~ workpapers. APCo agrees m comply with all reasonable additional
requests for information in accordance with the terms of the current contm~
D. AEP and I~e Town of W.vtheville, VirEifnia, and the VML/VACo APCo Stecrin8
Committeo agree thai APCo% obligation to execlll~ tl~ am~ents described in Item C. above;
in addition to being conditioned upon the acfiom required in Items A. and B. above,,. :droll not
become b~t~g u~on APCo un~ ~e foRowi~ conditions axe met: i) all of the events specified
in Section VII, paragraph number 6, subsections a. through c. of the Virginia/West Virginia
~tflornent Agreemem have occun~, and 2) the VA $CC has issued an order approving Exempt
Wholesale Cvzaerator ("EWG") slatus for the generating units identified in Section IV. I of the
Thomas B. Ni~holson, Esquire
Dc, c, eml~n' I g, 200 I
Page 7
VirginiafWcst Virginia Settlement Agr~'m~mt. ff ~n~fion 2) of ~is ~aph is no~ ~
APCo ~ll ~ ~ if it ~ ~ ~e dcfautt s~cc ~ovidcr ~ i~ ~ ~tow ~ a PA
Cu~o~r ~t c[~ to e~d i~ c~ ~n~ ~u~ J~ 30, 2~7, becomes a defa~t
~vice c~m~ of ~Co's on J~u~ 1, 20~, t~ ~ ~1 p~om ~ntain~ ~ ~
Vir~West Vk~a ~~ A~nt ~ ~ ~pH~lo to ~l PA C~omer ~
J~ 30, 2007.
If you agr~ with flz. s~ tams, plea~ ~r~ul~ I1~ ~wo oopics of tiffs lgtlgr on In:half of ~
Town of WythcvLlle and the VMDrVACO APCo St~ring Commila~ and return one copy to me.
V~/truly yours,
WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE, P.L.C.
ON BEHALF OF
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, AMERICAN
ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE COKPORATION, ~
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, INC.
BY:
Accepted and Agre~xt:
oF
VIRGINIA
VMIffVAL~ gPCo STEERING COMMITTEE
WI LLIAM.~ fyi U LLEN
'Exhibit "B"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee
Key Officials of Local Governments and Political Subdivisions
Served by Appalachian Power Company
Howard W. Dobbins, Counsel to the Steering Committee
Thomas B. Nicholson, Counsel to the Steering Committee
January 1 O, 2002
Update on State and Federal Regulatory Activities
Electric Service Contract Extension Opportunity
The purpose of this memorandum is threefold:
(1)
to provide an update conceming the participation of the VML/VACo APCo Steering
Committee ("Steering Committee" or "Committee") and the Town of Wytheville in
Case No. PUE010011, Appalachian Power Company's ("APCo" or the "Company")
Ftmctional Separation Plan, which was filed with the State Corporation Commission
("Commission" or "SCC");
(2)
to provide an update concerning the settlemem of the Virginia-specific issues raised
by American Electric Power's ("AEP") proposals that were filed with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") to change, among other things, the pricing
of wholesale power purchased through the AEP Interconnection Agreement from a
cost-of-service basis to market-based pricing; and
(3)
to provide an overview of the separate Settlement Agreemem reached by the Steering
Committee and the Town of Wytheville, and the resulting contract extension offer to
Local Governmems and Political Subdivisions served by APCo.
I. APCo CORPORATE SEPARATION PLAN, SEC CASE NO. PUE010011.
On January 3, 2001, APCo filed an application to effect, among other things, a corporate
separation of its generation, transmission and distribution assets and operations (as amended, the
Memorandum to the VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee and
Represematives of Local Governments and Political Subdivisions
Served by Appalachian Power Company
January 10, 2002
"Corporate Separation Plan"). The Corporate Separation Plan called for the Company to
separate its generation assets and operations t~om its transmission and distribution assets and
operations by forming a "non-regulated affiliate generation company (Genco) and transferring
thereto its generation assets." The Application was filed to satisfy the Company's obligations set
forth in Virginia Code § 56-590 B of the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act
("Restructuring Act"), the Regulations Governing the Functional Separation of Incumbent
Electric Utilities Under the Virginia Electric Utility Restructuring Act, 20 VAC 5-202-10 et seq.,
and the Utility Transfers Act, Virginia Code § 56-88 et seq. ("Transfers Act"). The Company
also requested that the Commission make certain determinations called for under the Public
Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, as amended ("PUHCA") with respect to the Corporate
Separation Plan. The Steering Committee and the Town of Wytheville participated in this
proceeding to assure that the interests of the local governments and political subdivisions
(collectively, the "Public Authorities") served by APCo were represented.
This matter was brought on for hearing before the Commission on October 29, 2001.
During the course of the public hearing, several stipulations were filed for the Commission's
review and approval. These stipulations collectively were intended to resolve nearly all of the
outstanding issues raised by the parties in conjunction with APCo's proposal. Of these
stipulations, one effected a resolution of the manner offimctional separation, while another
effected a resolution of the rate unbundling issues, with limited exceptions. The salient features
of these two stipulations are as follows:
Functional Separation Stipulation. APCo and the other signatories to the Functional
Separation Stipulation agreed that
(1)
On and after January 1, 2002, APCo will continue the current functional separation of
its distribution, transmission and generation functions by division and operate under
the terms of its Supplemental Filing (Functional Separation Plan) filed May 15,2001;
(2)
APCo will not impose any wires charge during calendar year 2002 on retail
customers that select an alternative supplier ("Competitive Service Provider" or
"CSP");
(3)
There will be a further inquiry into the terms and conditions for the proposed transfer
of generation assets to an affiliate, to be conducted during calendar year 2002. This
inquiry will examine, among other things, conditions necessary for the maintenance
of reliable electric service and the development of an effectively competitive market
for generation services; and
(4) APCo will cominue to use its best efforts to provide reliable service and to minimize
generation costs to its retail customers.
Page 2
Memorandum to the VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee and
Representatives of Local Governments and Political Subdivisions
Served by Appalachian Power Company
January 10, 2002
Rate Unbundling Stipulation. APCo and the other signatories to this Stipulation agreed
that, among other things:
(1)
APCo's separate, "unbundled" generation, transmission and distribution revenues
would be those agreed to by the parties and as described further in the Stipulation and
other documents;
(2) The Company's proposed rate designs, except as modified in the Stipulation, should
be adopted; and
(3) The Standard and Open Access Distribution tariffq filed by APCo should be
approved, as specifically revised by the Stipulation.
The Commission issued its Order on Functional Separation on December 18, 2001. This
Order found, among other things, that the Stipulations were reasonable and in the public interest,
and should be adopted in full. Notably, the Order acknowledged that the parties reserved all
rights in all other pending matters both federal and state. As set forth above, the Stipulations and
the Order also preserve the parties' arguments concerning the merits of APCo's Corporate
Separation Plan, and the Commission will conduct a further inquiry into the terms and conditions
for the proposed transfer of generation assets to an affiliate later this year. As set forth in the
Functional Separation Stipulation, this inquiry will examine, among other things, conditions
necessary for the maintenance of reliable electric service and the development of an effectively
competitive market for generation services.
II.
AEP's OTHER RESTRUCTURING ACTIVITIES AND PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE AEP
INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT, FERC DOCKET NOS. EC01-130-000, ER01-2668-
000
On July 24, 2001, AEP, on behalf of itself, the AEP Operating Companies (including
APCo), and other AEP entities, made filings at FERC for authority to transfer certain FERC-
jurisdictional facilities. FERC authorivation for these transfers is needed in order to implement
the respective corporate separation plans of AEP's Ohio and Texas Operating Companies. AEP
also filed initial and amended rate schedules in connection with the corporate restructuring plans
involving AEP's Ohio and Texas Operating Companies (collectively, the "FERC Filings"). The
Ohio and Texas Operating Companies' corporate restructuring plans are similar in concept to the
Corporate Restructuring Plan proposed by APCo in Virginia and described above.
Page 3
Memorandum to the VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee and
Representatives of Local Governments and Political Subdivisions
Served by Appalachian Power Company
January 10, 2002
As filed, the FERC Filings would have changed substantially the wholesale power supply
agreement, known as the AEP Interconnection Agreement, l among AEP's five AEP-East
Operating Companies. Since the AEP Interconnection Agreement is a wholesale power
arrangement, and does not involve direct sales to end users, it is subject to the jurisdiction of the
FERC.
Historically, the generation resources among APCo and the other AEP-East Operating
Companies have been shared as part of a common generation "Pool," allowing the five AEP-East
Operating Companies to operate in an integrated fashion. In the FERC Filings, AEP proposed to
remove from the five-member Pool two of APCo's sister Operating Companies that operate in
Ohio,2 which own generation in excess of the needs of their customers ("generation-long"), and
sell power at market-based rates to the three remaining AEP-East Operating Companies,
including APCo, that do not own or control sufficient generation to serve their local needs (i.e.,
"generation-short" companies). Currently, these sales are made among the five AEP-East
Operating Companies on a FERC-regulated cost-of-service basis, not a market price basis.
Ae
Impact of AEP's Proposed Chanl~es to the AEP lnterconnection Atreement
on the Cost Of Electricity Provided to the Public Authority Customers of
APCo.
Under the terms of the Public Authority TariffNo. 8, Schedule P.A. ("P.A. Tariff'),
which is incorporated in the Public Authorities' current contracts with APCo, APCo recovers its
costs of fuel through the Fuel Adjustment Factor. The Fuel Adjustment Factor is determined by
comparing the fuel costs and kilowatt-hour ("kWh") sales for the base period to the current
period's fuel costs and kWh sales. Fuel costs are the sum of(a) fossil and nuclear fuel consumed
in APCo's plants and APCo's share of fuel consumed in jointly owned/leased plants; (b)
emission allowance costs; (c) actual identifiable fuel costs associated with energy purchased
(other than economic dispatch energy); and (d) the net energy cost of energy purchases,
exclusive of capacity and demand charges, for energy purchased on an economic dispatch basis;
minus (e) the cost of fossil fuel, emission allowances and nuclear fuel recovered through inter-
system sales by APCo.
Under the present AEP Interconnection Agreement (the P.A. Tariff refers to "inter-
system sales"), the FERC-approved formula used to calculate payments for inter-system sales
has produced fairly predictable changes in the Fuel Adjustment Factor. These inter-system sales
had been based on the cost of service of the AEP-East Operating Companies' generation. AEP's
1 APCo and the Ohio Operating Companies are part of the AEP system referred to as "AEP-East". The
AEP Interconnection Agreement between APCo and the other AEP-East Operating Companies has been in existence
since 1951.
2 The Ohio Operating Companies are Ohio Power Company and Columbus Southern Power Company.
Page 4
Memorandum to the VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee and
Representatives of Local Governments and Political Subdivisions
Served by Appalachian Power Company
January 10, 2002
proposal to introduce market-based pricing to inter-system sales has disrupted a practice that has
been in place for decades.
AEP's original proposal could have had a negative impact on the cost of electricity
purchased by the Public Authority customers. In particular, the costs associated with energy
purchases and the net energy costs of economic dispatch purchases could be impacted
significantly by the FERC filing, depending on the revisions to the AEP Interconnection
Agreement. This is particularly relevant to Public Authority customers, since the Fuel
Adjustment Factor per kWh presently is calculated monthly with no explicit "cap" or restriction
on how high the prices for these inter-system sales could climb. The current AEP
Interconnection Agreement, though, has capped these inter-system sales at cost, rather than
volatile market-based prices. In addition, the Public Authorities' Fuel Adjustment Clause is not
subject to the Virginia Commission's jurisdiction or approval, but instead is part of a private
contractual arrangement between APCo and the Public Authority customers.
The Town of Wytheville and the Steering Committee participated in these FERC cases as
well, given the potential of AEP's proposal to negatively and significantly impact the Public
Authority customers by passing increased costs of purchased power through the Fuel Adjustment
Factor. This in turn would cause the Public Authority customers to pay higher total rates,
because APCo's power purchases on behalf of the Public Authority customers would include
market-based prices for at least a portion of their energy needs.
Through the Active Participation SteerinK Committee and the Town of
Wytheville, the Public Authority customers of APCo are Entitled to Receive
the Benefits and Protections of the Comprehensive Offer of Settlement.
The FERC directed its Chief Administrative Law Judge to appoint a Settlement Judge to
oversee settlement procedures between the parties. Through their representatives, the Town of
Wytheville and the Steering Committee participated extensively in the negotiations that resulted
in APCo's comprehensive offer of settlement. This comprehensive offer of settlement consists
of the Settlement Agreement Among American Electric Power Service Corporation, American
Electric Power Company, Inc. And Virginia And West Virginia Parties (the "Virginia/West
Virginia Settlement Agreement") and a separate side agreement ("APCo/PA Settlement
Agreement") whereby APCo has agreed to offer an amendment to the current contract of each
Public Authority Customer ("APCo Contract Extension Offer"). Copies of the Virginia/West
Virginia Settlement Agreement and the APCo/PA Settlement Agreement accompany this
memorandum. Each of these documents is discussed in greater detail below in Section III.
Page 5
Memorandum to the VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee and
Representatives of Local Governments and Political Subdivisions
Served by Appalachian Power Company
January 10, 2002
IlL COMPREHENSIVE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT.
A. Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Aereement.
1. Scope and Effect of the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement
On December 21,2001, AEP submitted the settlement agreements, including the
VirginigWest Virginia Settlement Agreement (collectively, the "Combined Offer of
Settlement"), to the FERC for approval. AEP has requested that the FERC approve the proposed
transfers and accept the proposed rate schedules by February 20, 2002.
The parties to each settlement agreement, including the Virginia/West Virginia
Settlement Agreement, generally acknowledge that their agreement resolves all issues between
them in the FERC dockets including, for the parties in the AEP-East region: (a) the removal of
Ohio Power Company ("OPCO") and Columbus Southern Power Company ("CSP"), and their
generating resources associated with each of them, from the AEP-East Interconnection
Agreement; (b) the terms and conditions of the proposed Restated and Amended AEP-East
Interconnection Agreement; (c) the power supply resources for Wheeling Power Company in
West Virginia with respect to AEP's restructuring; (d) the terms and conditions of the Restated
and Amended System Integration Agreement; and (e) the transfers and rate schedules proposed
by AEP in the FERC dockets.
Settlements with the Virginia Parties3 and the West Virginia Parties4 are combined in the
Virginia/West Virginia Agreement, reflecting the fact that APCo serves customers in both
jurisdictions. The principal substantive provisions of the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement
Agreement are the following:
3 The "Virginia Parties" are the Virginia Commission and the Old Dominion Committee for Fair Utility
Rates, for itself and as representative of Virginia industrial customers of APCo, and the Town of Wytheville and the
VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee.
4 The "West Virginia Parties" are the West Virginia Public Service Commission, the Public Service
Commission of West Virginia Consumer Advocate Division; and the West Virginia Energy Users Group. For
purposes of intervention in these dockets and participation in the Virginia-West Virginia Agreement, the West
Virginia Energy Users Group consists of the following member companies: Bayer Corporation; E.I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company; Huntington Alloys, a Special Metals Company; PPG Industries, Inc.; and Union Carbide
Corporation.
Page 6
Memorandum to the VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee and
Representatives of Local Governments and Political Subdivisions
Served by Appalachian Power Company
January 10, 2002
a. APCo Virginia Fuel Factor Costs
The Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement specifies the fuel costs that APCo may
recover from Virginia retail customers during the period January 1, 2002 through June 30, 2007,5
and provides what is referred to as "Net Energy Cost Protection." During this period, AEP's
power marketing affiliate ("PMA") will make available to APCo for the period January 1, 2002-
June 30, 2007 the peaking supply purchase options ("Peaking Supply Options") that are
described in Attachment A to the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement.6 The pricing
for the Peaking Supply Options will only apply to power purchased pursuant to the options, and
will not apply to power generated by APCo, APCo's purchases from the Pool, or purchases from
other market sources.
Combined with the power supply arrangements described below, the Net Energy Cost
Protection responds to concerns raised by the Virginia Parties concerning possible impacts on the
fuel costs of APCo's retail customers.
be
Power Supply Arranl~ements for Wheeling Power Company
(West Virginia)
Another concern expressed by the Virginia Parties and the West Virginia Parties was the
transfer to APCo of Ohio Power Company's ("OPCO") supply obligations with respect to the
Wheeling Power customer load in West Virginia without a corresponding transfer of additional
electric generation supply. To resolve this concern, the Virginia/West Virginia Agreement
provides that PMA will deliver the full requirements of power needed to serve Wheeling Power's
native load from the effective date of the agreement though December 31, 2006. The Wheeling
Power load will be removed from APCo's supply requirements, and neither the Wheeling Power
load nor PMA's Wheeling Power supply contract with APCo will affect Virginia supply costs.
AEP has agreed to fixed rate energy and demand charges and a fixed customer charge, subject to
West Virginia Expanded Net Energy Costs ("ENEC") proceedings.
5 Pursuant to the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement, APCo will file for revision of its
definitional fi~amework for the recovery of fuel costs with the Virginia Commission. The Virginia Commission has
agreed to expedite its decision, and the Virginia Commission Staffhas agreed to provide written assurance that it
will support the revisions described in the Virginia/West Virginia Agreement. The Virginia/West Virginia
Settlement Agreement does not constitute pre-approval of the prudence or reasonableness of APCo's fuel costs, and
nothing in the agreement shall be interpreted to require the Virginia Commission to approve unreasonable or
imprudent costs.
6 AEP has requested confidential treatment for Attachment A of the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement
Agreement, which contains the terms, conditions, and pricing of the Peaking Supply Options. Accordingly,
Attachment A will not be included in the materials distributed with this memorandum.
Page 7
Memorandum to the VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee and
Representatives of Local Governments and Political Subdivisions
Served by Appalachian Power Company
January 10, 2002
c. General APCo Power Supply Arrangements
The Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement provides that PMA will make
available to APCo the peaking supply purchase options for the period January 1, 2002 through
June 30, 2007. In addition PMA commits to provide 150 megawatts ("MW") of firm power to
APCo in the years 2007 and 2008.
d. Exempt Wholesale Generator Status
The parties to the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement and the other State
settlement agreements (other than the State Commissions themselves), as well as the parties to
several of the customer settlement agreements, have agreed not to oppose the issuance of orders
by State Commissions making the findings necessary to confer Exempt Wholesale Generator
("EWG") status on the generating units operated by AEP electric utility company subsidiaries
that currently serve customers in the states of Ohio and Texas, as well as on Units 3 and 4 of the
Northeastern Station of Public Service Company of Oklahoma.7 The State Commissions have
not agreed to make such findings, but several commissions including the Virginia Commission
have agreed to expedite their decisions, consistent with the requirements of state law and due
process. Further, assuming that AEP's EWG application is successful most of the parties (other
than the State Commissions) have agreed not to oppose subsequent Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") approval of adding the net book value of those generating units to the
amount AEP is permitted to invest in EWGs pursuant to SEC Rule 53 trader PUHCA.
e. Authority Necessary to Effect Restructuring
The parties to the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement (except the State
Commissions themselves) have agreed not to oppose authorization by any regulatory agency
having jurisdiction permitting borrowing between an affiliate and any company holding common
stock in the affiliate, and have further agreed not to oppose the transfer of the common stock of
APCo or Wheeling Power to a regulated "Holdco". This aspect of the Virginia/West Virginia
Settlement Agreement is not intended to be, and shall not be interpreted as, pre-approval by any
State Commission of any requisite state approval.
7 In general, such applications request that the state commission find that EWG status is in the public
interest and that it make the findings required under Section 32(c) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of
1935 ("PUHCA"), 15 U.S.C. § 79z-5a (c) (1994).
Page 8
Memorandum to the VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee and
Representatives of Local Governments and Political Subdivisions
Served by Appalachian Power Company
January 10, 2002
f. CapaciW Sharin~ Aureement
The Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement is predicated upon the proposed AEP-
East Interconnection Agreement being revised to provide explicitly for a pooling of resources
among the three remaining AEP Operating Companies for the purpose of satisfying any
applicable operating reserve requirements, so that diversity benefits may be retained by the three-
company Pool. The three remaining AEP Operating Companies intend to continue to redispatch
their generation resources jointly as required to relieve any transmission constraints.
2. Effective Date
The Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement provides that the effective date of the
settlement shall be on the earliest date on which all of the following have occurred:
(a) the FERC has issued a final Order or Orders approving
AEP's corporate restructuring plan as modified by the
Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement and the
combined offer of settlement;
(b)
AEP has transferred the transmission and distribution assets
of OPCO and CSP, including interconnection agreements
with neighboring utility systems, to newly-formed
subsidiaries and makes effective power supply agreements
whereby the OPCO and CSP Power Generating Companies
("PGCs") sell capacity and energy to AEP's newly formed
Power Marketing Affiliate ("PMA"); and
(c)
AEP has provided the FERC with not less than 30 days'
written notice that the Restated and Amended AEP-East
Interconnection Operating Agreement and the Restated and
Amended System Integration Agreement are to become
effective as rate schedules in accordance with their terms.
Page 9
Memorandum to the VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee and
Representatives of Local Governments and Political Subdivisions
Served by Appalachian Power Company
January 10, 2002
B. APCo/PA Settlement Agreement.
1. Scope and Effect of the APCo/PA Settlement Agreement
As settlement discussions between APCo and the representatives for the Steering
Committee and Town of Wytheville progressed, it became evident that there was a
"jurisdictional gap" that needed to be addressed for the Public Authority customers to enjoy the
benefits and protections of any settlement. That jurisdictional gap exists because APCo's
contracts with the Public Authority customers are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Virginia
Commission, whereas the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement provides Net Energy
Cost Protection through the mechanism of the Virginia Fuel Factor that is subject to the
jurisdiction of the SCC. Moreover, there is some question whether the Restructuring Act
provides capped rate or default rate protections from high market prices for public authorities in
the APCo area, placing the jurisdictions at a possible disadvantage in the event they elect to
contract with a Competitive Service Provider, or if such alternative supplier should default and
be unable to provide the electricity.
A gap also exists because the present Public Authority contracts with APCo only extend
to June 30, 2002. Since these contracts do not extend to June 30, 2007, the protections afforded
through the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement would be of limited duration and
effect, depriving the Public Authority customers the "benefit of the bargain."
These gaps are addressed through the APCo/PA Settlement Agreement. In exchange for
the Town of Wytheville and the Steering Committee becoming signatories to the VirginigWest
Virginia Settlement Agreement, and subject to the conditions set forth in the APCo/PA
Settlement Agreement, APCo has agreed to offer an amendment to the current contract of each
Public Authority customer served by APCo that incorporates the elements set forth in the APCo
Contract Extension Offer.
The Steering Committee has agreed to recommend to each Public Authority customer
served by APCo that it enter into an amendment to its current contract that incorporates the
elements set forth in Item C., found in the APCo/PA Settlement Agreement.
Each Public Authority customer has a choice of three options;
however~ the Steering Committee has agreed to recommend
that each Public Authority customer elect Option 3 set forth
below.
The APCo/PA Settlement Agreement provides that each Public Authority customer has
three options with respect to its current and future service from APCo. Once a customer has
made an election, that customer shall not be entitled to any other option from APCo; provided,
however, that if a customer has elected Option 3 below but APCo does not become obligated to
Page 10
Memorandum to the VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee and
Representatives of Local Governments and Political Subdivisions
Served by Appalachian Power Company
January 10, 2002
enter into the contract amendment provided for under Option 3, then APCo has agreed to execute
an amendment that extends the customer's current contract through December 31, 2003 as
provided in Option 2 below, and containing the fuel protections set forth in the VirgiMgWest
Virginia Settlement Agreement.
Option 1: allow the current contract to expire on June 30,
20O2
As this option suggests, customers choosing this option will allow their current contracts
to expire on June 30, 2002. At that time, they will need to have selected a Competitive Service
Provider to provide retail electric energy. As discussed below, the price at which such service
may be offered is likely to be substantially higher than that afforded under the APCo/PA
Settlement Agreement. Also, such customer may lose the purchasing power oftbe Public
Authority customer group, as it is unlikely that APCo will continue to consider that customer
part of the PA group.
Option 2: extend the current contract through December
31, 2003, per the terms of the letters of the letters dated
February 12 and February 15, 2001, that were exchanged
between APCo and counsel for the Steering Committee.
This option involves the extension of a Public Authority customer's contract through
December 31, 2003 at rates that are contained in APCo's Standard Rate Schedules. The
February 12 and Februm'y 15, 2001 letters setting forth this understanding accompany this
memorandum. Under this option, a Public Authority Customer will obtain the price protection
benefits of the Virginia/Vest Virginia Settlement Agreement through the end of 2003, assuming
the conditions are met for that agreement to become effective. Unless the entire Public Authority
customer group, or a substantial portion of that group, elects this option, the purchasing power of
customers electing this option will be d'uninished.
Customers selecting this option will need to select a Competitive Service Provider to
provide retail electric energy by January 1, 2004. The price at which such service may be
offered will likely reflect the market prices prevailing at that time, which cannot be determined at
this time. Given APCo's status as a low cost provider, such market prices may be substantially
higher than those afforded under the APCo/PA Settlement Agreement.
Option $: extend the current contract through June 30,
2007, per the terms set forth in Item C of the APCo/PA
Settlement Agreement.
This option, which is recommended to each Public Authority customer by the Steering
Committee, incorporates the modifications and contract extensions agreed upon in the letters
Page 11
Memorandum to the VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee and
Representatives of Local Governments and Political Subdivisions
Served by Appalachian Power Company
January 10, 2002
referred to in Option 2. In addition, the contract term would be further extended to cover the
period January 1, 2004 through June 30, 2007.
Those Public Authority customers selecting Option 3 will have
the fuel price protections of the Virginia/West Virginia
Settlement A~reement through June 30~ 2007.
For those customers electing Option 3, the rates for service from July 1, 2002 through
June 30, 2007 shall be those contained in APCo's unbundled Standard Rate Schedules SGS,
MGS, LGS, LPS-TOD and/or OL then on file with and approved by the SCC, as applicable to
the individual PA Customer accounts.
The rates applicable to the PA Customers shall be adjusted by the same amount and in the
same manner as any changes in the nongeneration components of rates approved by the SCC
through June 30, 2007. If no such rates are on file with the VA SCC because it has terminated
such rates, then the rates contained in the last applicable Standard Rate Schedules shall be
charged by APCo to the PA Customer accounts through June 30, 2007; provided, however, to
accommodate the fuel protections contained in the VirgMigWest Virginia Settlement
Agreement, the Parties will agree to enter into good faith negotiations to develop a reasonable
fuel adjustment mechanism. The fuel protections contained in the Virginia/West Virginia
Settlement Agreement will be applicable to the PA Customers when they become effective for
APCo's other Virginia retail customers through June 30, 2007.
The rates for Street Lighting ("SL") shall be those in effect July 1, 2000, but shall be
subject to changes in the fuel factor through June 30, 2007.
Those Public Authority customers selecting Option 3 are
making a commitment that they have selected APCo to provide
generation service through June 30~ 2007.
Each Public Authority customer that elects to extend its current contract through June 30,
2007 makes certain other commitments as well. Customers electing Option 3 also agree that
they have chosen APCo to provide generation service through June 30, 2007; that they will not
choose a different generation supplier prior to June 30, 2007; and that they will not request that
the sec determine rates and provisions for default service from APCo different than that
provided for under their current contracts, as amended pursuant to the APCo/PA Settlement
Agreement. By so agreeing, a customer is not thereby precluded from qualifying for default
service from a different default service provider in the event that such a provider has been named
and APCo fails to deliver under the contract.
Page 12
Memorandum to the VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee and
Representatives of Local Governments and Political Subdivisions
Served by Appalachian Power Company
January 10, 2002
de
Each Public Authority customer must notify APCo in writing,
within a limited time, that it has elected one of the three
options. If a Public Authority customer fails to provide written
notice within the prescribed time, APCo will consider that
customer to have made an election to terminate its current
contract on June 30, 2002.
The Steering Committee and the Town of Wytheville became signatories to the
VirginigWest Virginia Settlement Agreement on December 18, 2001.
ACTION 1TEM:
Each Public Authority customer has until March 18,
2002, to notify APCo in writing which of the three options
it has selected, or it runs the risk that APCo will deem
that customer to have elected Option 1.
APCo has agreed to extend the period by an additional thirty (30) days if the customer
provides written notice to APCo that, despite good faith effort, the customer needs additional
time for its governing body to act upon such options.
The law firm of Williams Mullen has agreed to coordinate this notification process on
behalf of the Public Authority customers. The law firm will develop a data base to track and
provide written notice to APCo on behalf of each Public Authority customer that elects to have
Williams MuHen provide this written notification. We ask that each Public Authority customer
complete and return the attached form indicating that the customer designates us to provide
written notice to APCo on the customer's behalf, together with the name(s) of such customer's
representative(s) to receive further communications from us concerning this effort.
2. Effective Date
The APCo/PA Settlement Agreement provides that APCo's obligation to execute the
contact amendments provided for in Option 3, in addition to being conditioned upon the (a) the
Steering Committee's recommendation (provided herein) that each Public Authority customer
served by APCo enter into an amendment to its current contract that incorporates Option 3 and
the elements set forth in Item C of the APCo/PA Settlement Agreement and (b) the receipt of
written notification as described in section III.B. 1.d above, shah not become binding upon APCo
until the following additional conditions are met: (1) all of the events specified in Section VII,
paragraph number 6, subsections a. through c. of the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement
Agreement have occurred, and (2) the SCC has issued an order approving Exempt Wholesale
Page 13
Memorandum to the VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee and
Representatives of Local Governments and Political Subdivisions
Served by Appalachian Power Company
January 10, 2002
Generator ("EWG") status for the generating units identified in Section IV. 1 of the
Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement.
If condition (2) above is not met, APCo has agreed that if it is named the default service
provider in its service territory and a Public Authority Customer that elected to extend its current
contract through June 30, 2007, becomes a default service customer of APCo's on January 1,
2004, then the fuel protections contained in the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement
will be applicable to that customer through June 30, 2007.
IV. CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS AND NEXT STEPS.
To assist the Public Authority customers in selecting among the three options set forth in
the APCo/PA Settlement Agreement, it is important to consider the state of the retail market in
APCo's service territory. APCo has had in place a pilot program whereby APCo's retail
customers could select an alternative service provider to provide their generation service.
Notably, not a single retail customer switched to an alternative provider during the entire time
the pilot program was in effect.
In considering how to respond, each customer must ask whether there is another source
practically available to provide such electric services for a contract period lasting until either
December 31, 2003 or June 30, 2007 or whether such source would provide a price lower than
the "price to beat" reflected in the APCo/PA Settlement Agreement. These questions must also
be considered in the context of the limited time by which Public Authority customers must
respond to take advantage of APCo' offer to extend the contracts, and whether this time
constraint is such that an emergency exists.
In all likelihood, the response period provided for in the APCo/AP Settlement Agreement
will not provide sufficient time for a Public Authority customer to correctly assess its entire
needs for electric service, whether for the short term or through June 30, 2007, nor is it likely
that such customer has sufficient time to prepare and receive requests for proposals and to
review, consider, and act upon any proposals which may possibly be received.
As to the price of generation presently obtainable from the wholesale market,8 APCo's
December 3, 2001 filing in SCC Case No. PUE010306 provides a report ("APCo Market Price
Report") showing the results of its base market price calculations and adjustments, as required by
ordering paragraph (4) of the Commission's Final Order of November 19, 2001 in that case.
These prices will be APCo's "projected market prices" or "prices to beat" for calendar year
2002, unless the Commission determines otherwise.
8 Wholesale market prices represent the cost of purchasing electricity in the wholesale market, and as such
do not reflect or include any mark-up associated with a retail supplier's additional costs, expenses, and profit.
Page 14
Memorandum to the VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee and
Representatives of Local Governments and Political Subdivisions
Served by Appalachian Power Company
January 10, 2002
When the market-based generation revenues contained in Attachment 12 of the APCo
Market Price Report are compared to APCo's total embedded generation revenues (including the
Virginia-jurisdictional fuel factor revenues) that were filed as part of APCo's Corporate
Separation Plan, the market-based generation revenues substantially exceed APCo's embedded
generation revenues for each Virginia customer class. Based upon rough calculations, this
difference approaches $48 million across all customer classes.9 Put another way, APCo's retail
customers collectively might pay almost $48 million (approximately 12½ %) more for their
electricity today if they were able to find a supplier willing to sell them electricity at the
wholesale market prices projected for 2002, as calculated by APCo. Accordingly, it is highly
unlikely that a Public Authority customer will find a willing and suitable alternative supplier in
the near term to supply electricity at costs that are lower than those the customer will enjoy if
that customer elects to extend its contracts under either Option 2 or Option 3.
The Steering Committee has recognized the importance of this decision to each Public
Authority customer, and has recommended that informational meetings be scheduled in the near
future to afford representatives each Public Authority customer the opportunity to ask questions
about the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement, the APCo/PA Settlement Agreement,
and their options. The attorneys at Williams Mullen will be present to discuss the settlement
agreements and answer questions. The plans for these meetings are still in the formative stages;
however, there will be at least two such meetings that will be held in different locations within
APCo's southwest Virginia service territory, so as to provide the greatest opportunity for
representatives of each Public Authority customer to participate.
I:\WMC DLIB\TNICHOLS~0788779.04
9 This calculation has not been independently verified by representatives of APCo.
Page 15
Scott Norwood, P.E.
Principal
GDS Associates,
Exhibit "C'
PI~ 512.~94.0369
Fax: 512.494.0205
scottn@gdsassoc.com
January 18, 2002
Thomas B. Nicholson, Esquire
Williams, Mullers, Clark & Dobbins
Two James Center
1021 East Cary street
Richmond, VA 23218- ! 320
RE: APCo's Settlement Rate Offer to Local Government Customers
Dear Tom:
As you requested, GDS Associates, Inc. has evaluated the reasonableness of rates offered by
Appalachian Power Company ("APCo") in its December 18, 2001 settlement proposal to the
Virginia local governments and political subdivisions (collectively, the "Public Authorities").
As directed, GDS limited its analysis to the rates proposed by APCo for the July 1, 2002 through
June 30, 2007 contract extension period (settlement Item C.3.a.). In performing this assessment,
GDS has relied upon public information regarding APCo's Virginia retail rates and recent
information on competitive market prices in Virginia obtained fi.om public and confidential
sources.
APCo's Settlement Rate Offer
APCo's settlement offer would extend the current contracts of thc Public Authorities through
June 30, 2007. The proposed rates for service after-July 1, 2002 would be APCo's unbundled
Standard Rate Schedules SGS, MGS, LGS, LPS-TOD and OL, as approved by the Virginia State
Corporation Commission ("SCC"). In addition, the proposed settlement provides that rates for
street lighting service shall be APCo's SL rates in effect on July 1, 2000, as modified to reflect
future changes in the Company's fuel factor. Under Virginia's Electric Utility Restructuring
Act ("the Act"), the SCC may terminate such "capped rates" after January 1, 2004 if it finds that
competition exists within APCo's service area and that the capped rates are no longer necessary
to protect retail customers. While the prospects for such a finding presently appear small,
APCo's proposed settlement provides that if thc SCC terminates such rates prior to June 30,
919 Congress Avenue, Suite 800 Austin, Texas 78701 www.gdsessoc.com
Thomas B. Nicholson, Esquire
January 18, 2002
Page 2 of 5
2007 for any reason, then APCo's last effective approved rates would be charged to the Public
Authorities for the remaining term of the agreement.
Table 1 summarizes APCo's proposed settlement rates for major classes over a range of load
factors, and includes a breakout of the SCC approved unbundled generation component of such
rates. In evaluating the reasonableness of the proposed settlement rates, it is appropriate to
compare APCo's unbundled generation charges to available competitive market energy prices,
since transmission and distribution charges are expected to remain regulated and non-bypassable
for the foreseeable furore. While GDS has not evaluated the rates that would apply to individual
Public Authority accounts, it understands that the load factor of the group as a whole generally
varies over a range of 30% to 70%. As shown in Table 1, APCo's average unbundled
generation charges currently range fi:om 2.7 cents/kWh to 3.2 cents/kwh, depending on the load
factor of service.
Table 1
Summary of APCo's Standard Rates
(cents/kWh)
30% LF 50% LF 70% LF
SGS 2.71 4.98 2.71 4.81 2.71 4.71
MGS 3.10 5.44 3.10 4.78 3.10 4.41
LGS 3.28 5.95 2.73 4.33 2.49 3.63
LPS-TOD 3.72 5.74 2.86 4.07 2.50 3.36
Average 3.20 5.53 2.85 4.50 2.70 4.03
Market Electricity Prices
The unbundled generation rates presented in Table 1 represent retail generation charges. At
present, there are no reliable public sources for comparable competitive retail energy prices in
Virginia due to the infancy of the Commonwealth's retail market. Accordingly, in evaluating
the reasonableness of APCo's proposed settlement rates, GDS has adjusted published and
confidential prices for wholesale generation services in the Virginia market to reflect "retail
Thomas B. Nicholson, Esquire
January 18, 2002
Page 3 of 5
adders" (i.e., competitive retailer marketing, operating costs and profit) that would be included in
competitive service offerings to the Public Authorities.
The best publicly available information on future wholesale market energy prices in APCo's
region is provided by the New York Mercantile Exchange's (NYMEX) futures contracts for
electricity at the Cinergy and PJM hubs. (See www.nymex.com.). The current NYMEX
electricity futures prices for 2002 at the Cinergy and PJM hubs are $26.97/MWh (2.7 cents/kWh)
and $30.60/MWh (3.1 cents/kWh), respectively. These NYMEX futures prices are for 100%
load factor wholesale energy delivered at the Cinergy and PJM hubs. Therefore, in order to
make these futures prices comparable to APCo's unbundled generation rates, they must be
-adjusted to reflect the much lower load factor typical of retail loads, and to include retail adders
and any transmission costs required to deliver this energy to the AEP system. GDS has
significant experience negotiating competitive retail power contracts for commercial loads in
Texas. Based on this experience, we estimate that market electricity prices offered to the Public
Authorities would include at least 1.0 cents/kwh of retail adders over and above the wholesale
price of energy. Assuming the futures prices include an underlying fixed cost component of $5
per kilowatt-month, the NYMEX prices must also be increased by another 0.7 cents/kwh to
reflect delivery at a lower 50% load factor. In addition, GDS estimates that transmission costs
to deliver energy to the AEP system could add as much as 0.5 cents/kWh to the NYMEX prices.
Based on the above NYMEX prices and adjustments, the estimated competitive market price for
retail generation services delivered to APCo's service area at a 50% load factor would fall in the
range of 4.4 cents/kWh to 5.3 cents/kWh. The low end of this range is 54% higher than APCo's
current average unbundled generation rate for service at a 50% load factor (2.85 cents/kwh), as
presented in Table 1.
As a second test of reasonableness, GDS compared APCo's proposed settlement rates to the rates
obtained from a competitive solicitation GDS conducted late last year for a wholesale customer
located in APCo's Virginia service area. This recent wholesale transaction involved the delivery
of full requirements power through 2007. The rates offered by various bidders for service at an
average load factor of approximately 35% ranged from 3.8 cents/kWh up to 4.7 cents/kWh,
excluding transmission costs. These wholesale prices suggest a competitive retail market price
of at least 4.8 cents/kwh, as derived by adding 1.0 cents/kWh for retail adders to the 3.8
cents/kWh low end of the bids for wholesale energy. This 4.8 cents/kWh price is 50% higher
Thomas B. Nicholson, Esquire
January 18, 2002
Page 4 of 5
than APCo's current average unbundled generation rate for service at a 30% load factor (3.2
cents/kWh), as presented in Table 1. Although the market rates under this recent transaction are
fixed for the next five years while APCo's settlement rates are subject to increases, GDS believes
it is unlikely that APCo's rates will be higher than these market rates during the t~tm of the
settlement.
Potential for Changes to Settlement Rates
Under the Act, APCo's Standard Rates may be adjusted to account for future changes in fuel
costs or taxes. APCo's current approved fuel factor is 1.31 cents/kWh, which is approximately
25-30% of the total Standard Rate. Taxes generally represent a relatively small fraction of total
electricity charges; therefore, GDS would not expect future tax increases to significantly impact
APCo's Standard Rates. The vast majority of APCo's system generation requirements are
supplied fi.om the Company's coal-fired generating facilities. Due to the abundant supply of coal
and modest near-term g~owth in demand for coal, most experts currently project that coal prices
will escalate at annual rates in the range of 1.5% to 2.0% per year. Accordingly, increases in
APCo's Standard Rates due to future fuel cost increases should be relatively modest over the
next five years. In contrast, the prospect for increases in competitive market electricity prices is
much higher during the same period. This is due to the fact that the current excess supply of
electricity in most markets is forecasted to decline over the next several years, while at the same
time natural gas prices (which significantly impact market energy prices) are forecasted to
escalate at a relatively high rate (-3.5% per year). In summary, GDS expects that APCo's
Standard Rates will increase at a relatively modest rate over the 2002-2007 settlement period,
while much higher increases in competitive market energy prices (3% to 5%/year) are likely to
occur during this period.
Conclusions
The average rates offered to the Public Authorities under APCo's proposed settlement currently
range fi.om 4.03 cents/kWh to 5.53 cents/kwh over the typical load factor range of the group.
The average unbundled generation component of APCo's proposed rates currently ranges from
2.7 cents/kwh to 3.2 cents/kWh. Published and confidential information on wholesale market
energy prices in Virginia and confidential information on retail supplier costs fi.om other markets
Thomas B. Nicholson, Esquire
January 18, 2002
Page 5 of $
indicates that competitive retail market prices available to the Public Authorities are likely to be
at least 50% higher than the charges for comparable service under APCo's settlement offer.
GDS expects that this significant spread between APCo's Standard Rates and competitive market
prices will increase over the 2002-2007 term of the proposed settlement due to the relatively
modest increase in APCo's system fuel costs anticipated during this period. Based on the above
considerations, GDS concludes that APCo's proposed settlement rates will be significantly lower
than competitive market alternatives available to the Public Authorities over the term of the
proposed settlement agreement.
GDS appreciates the opportunity to assist the Public Authorities with their assessment of the rate
provisions of APCo's settlement proposal. Please call if you have questions regarding the above
findings and conclusion.
S~co~ Norwood
Principal
Exhibit "D'
TO:
FROM:
DATE:'
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Key Officials - All Jur/sdichons in Appalachian Poxver Company ("APCo") Area
R. Michael Amyx, Executive Director, VML
3'ames D. Campbell, Executive Director, VACo
~Ianuary 14, 2002
Ex~ensior~ of Cor~tracts for Electric Service for Governmental Use
IM1V~DI ATE ATTENTION A~l) ACTION~
The contracts of each jurisdiction for electric service in the APCo area currently in effect
will terminate on Julle 30, 2002 unless extended as provided herein below.
Retail electric service entails three elements: generation, transmission and distribution to
the user. Historically, all three elements have been bundled tog~.ther and the bundled service has
been provided by a single supplier which has been assigned a designated territory in the
Commonwealth. In much of the Southwest Virginia that suppli~.'r has been APCo. Although the
Virginia State Corporation Commission (the "$CC") has traditionally established the terms and
rates for the bundled service, for many years the Steering Comndttee composed of
representatives of the APCo jurisdictions have negotiated the re~rns, conditions and rates for this
service to APCo's public author/ties. The current contracts are i~ product of such negotiations
conducted in 1999-2000. However, in 1998 ~he General Assembly adopted the Virginia Elect'nc
Utility R.es~r~g Act (the "Act") whereby retail customers are to be granted a "choice" as to
whether they will continue to purchase the generation element from the incumbent supplier such
?%,e 1
as APCo or from an alternative supplier. The distribution and transmission elements remain with
the incumbent and are regulated as to retail customers and are negotiable by public-authorities.
The Act contemplates that there will be a truly competitive market for electric generation
and because of market competition that customers for the service may attain savings. Under the
Act, choice for APCo customers became effective on January 1, 2002. However, because the
price for the generation element in a competitive market will be determined by market influences
and not based on the cost of service as in the past, the actual cost to the user under "choice" may
be greater, perhaps substantially greater, than the public authorities have paid and are now
paying under current contracts.
Although the Act provides for a cap on rates as a protection against excessive rates if a
customer elects not to change generation supplier, and provides for a default rate in the event an
alternative supplier fails to perform, counsel to the Steering Committee advises that it is unclear
whether cap rates and default rates will be applicable and available to the public authorities.
As a result of the efforts oftbe Steering Committee and its counsel, APCo has agreed to
provide the public authorities an opportunity whereby they may elect to either (1) terminate the
current contracts on June 30, 2002 and seek proposals for services from alternative suppliers, or
(2) extend the current contracts from July 1, 2002 through December 31, 2003 at the applicable
rates on file for retail customers at the SCC, or (3) extend current contracts from July 1, 2002
through June 30, 2007 at terms and rates on file and approved by the SCC.
If a jurisdiction elects to terminate on June 30, 2002, it should immediately commence
preparations to seek proposals from reliable suppliers for generation and to negotiate with APCo
for terms and rates related to the distribution and transmission components of the service.
Page 2
If a jurisdiction elects to extend fi.om June 30, 2002 through December 31, 2003, or fi.om
June 30, 2002 through June 30, 2007, when under the Act capped rates and default rates are
scheduled to terminate for all customers (and when presumably there will be a tree competitive
market in the APCo area) its ~overning body must so elect by Resolution or Ordinance and
notify APCo (through the Steering Committee's counsel) by March 18, 2002.
The Steering Committee recommends that all jurisdictions in the APCo area elect option
(3) to extend contracts fi.om June 30, 2002 through 2007. Attached is a comprehensive
memorandum prepared by counsel to the Steering Committee explaining important
developments in the SCC and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") which
relate to this matter and which, beginning on page 10, explains in more detail the APCo
proposals and the elections required to be made by the public authorities. Although the Steering
Committee recommends option (3) extension of the contract through June 30, 2007, each
jurisdiction should carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages of all three options
before making an election.
Also attached is a form of resolution or ordinance which may be used in the event your
jurisdiction elects option (3) and which contains certain recitals supporting the decision to extend
the contracts and also includes the agreemems by the jurisdiction on which APCo's offer is
conditioned.
Because of the importance of this action by the public authorities, the Steering
Committee has authorized counsel to schedule informational meetings in Roanoke and
Wytheville to answer the questions about the contracts and the extensions.
The Roanoke meeting will be on January 24, 2002 at 2:00 p.m. at Valley Metro
Operations Center at 1108 Campbell Avenue, N.E., Roanoke, Virginia, and the Wytheville
Page 3
meeting will be held on January 25, 2002 at 10:00 a.n~ at the Town Municipal Building, 150
East Monroe Street, Wytheville, Virginia. All interested parties are invited to attend these
sessions.
Questions may also be directed to counsel:
Howard W. Dobbins, telephone (804) 783-6441;
Thomas B. Nicholson, telephone (804) 783-6904;
C.F. Hicks, telephone (804) 288-6652.
I :\WMC DLIB~tOW ARDDOXff/gg944.01
Page 4
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
A RESOLUTION determining that Appalachian Power C. ompany (sometimes dJb/a
American Electric Power) is the only source practicably available to provide electric service at
established rates to the City and for providing street light service to the City for the period from
July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2007, and authorizing an extension of the City's current contracts
for such services upon certain terms and conditions.
WHEREAS, the VML/VACo APCo Steering Committee (Committee) comprised of
representatives of local ~ovemments and political subdivisions has for many years negotiated on
behalf of such governmental units within the service area of Appalachian Power Company
(sometimes d/b/a American Electric Power) (APCo) the terms of standard contract forms which
have included rates for the purchase of electricity supply and delivery service and for the
installation, maintenance and delivery service for street lights by and for said governmental units
from APCo as a single or sole source provider; and
WHEREAS, the City's most recent contract for the purchase of electricity supply is for
the period beginning July 1, 2000, and will terminate on June 30, 2002, and for street lighting
service is for the period beginning January 1, 1993, and will terminate on December 31, 2002;
and
WHEREAS, on or about February 12, 2001, APCo agreed with the Committee to extend
the term of all such contracts to December 31, 2003, at rates set forth in the Company's Schedule
17 on file with the Virginia State Corporation Commission (the "Commission"); and
WHEREAS, on or about July 24, 2001, American Electric Power Co. ("AEP"), parent
corporation of APCo, filed a proceeding in the Federal Energy Regulation Commission
("FERC") seeking approval of amendment of its intercompany agreement which inter alia affects
the supply and computation of the price for electricity furnished to APCo in excess of that
produced by APCo, in which proceeding the Committee and the Town of Wytheville appeared
and objected; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the Committee and the Town of Wytheville agreeing to a
negotiated settlement of the FERC proceeding which provides substantial protection against
potential escalation of the fuel factor which is a component of APCo's total pricing for electricity
supplied to its retail customers, including the governmental units, APCo has granted to the
governmental units the election or option to: (1) terminate the current contracts on June 30, 2002;
orgy(2) extend the contracts at Schedule 17 rates to December 31, 2003 pursuant to the offer dated
February 12, 2001; o~9 (3)(a) to extend the current contracts through June 30, 2007, at rates
contained in APCo's unbundled Standard Rate Schedules, or any successor or replacement
schedules then on file and approved by the Commission; and ~l~(b) to extend street light service
at rates as in effect July 1, 2000, but subject to changes in the fuel factor; provided that election
(3) is conditioned upon the governmental unit so electing and notifying APCo of its election
within 90 days of December 18, 2001, that: (i) it has chosen APCo to provide generation service
through June 30, 2007; (ii) that it will not chose a different supplier prior to such date; andre(iii) it
will not request the Commission to determine rates and provisions for default service different
from that provided under its contract, as amended by election (3); and
WHEREAS, the Committee has recommended that all jurisdictions in the APCo service
area elect option (3) to extend contracts from June 30, 2002, through June 30, 2007, at the rates
and subject to the conditions all as set forth in the settlement agreement; and
WHEREAS, in consideration whereof, APCo is the only source practically available
which can and will supply electricity service and delivery thereof and to supply street lighting
service for the entire needs of the City at established rates for such bundled service or unbundled
H:LMeasuresLAPCO 2002.doc 2
generation service for the period from July 1, 2002 through December 31, 2007, as negotiated
and recommended by the Committee; and furthermore, based upon the information and
recommendation provided by the Committee, it appears that even if in the future there should
develop a truly competitive market in the APCo area for generation service, it is questionable
whether the Virginia Electricity Restructuring Act (the "Act") provides for capped rates or
default rates for public authorities in the APCo area which could place the City at a disadvantage
in the event it elects to contract with an alternative supplier or if such alternative generation
supplier should default and be tmable to provide the electricity; and it further appearing that the
contract extensions recommended and agreed to by the Committee will provide this City with a
safeguard against excessive electricity generation costs both at this date and in the foreseeable
future due to a lack of real competition in this area of Virginia.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. 13eeattse APCo is the only electricity generation provider which can and will
contract to supply electricity service and delivery and to supply street lighting service thereof to
the City for the entire needs of the City at established rates for such services for the period from
July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2007, as set forth above, it is hereby determined by this Council
that APCo is the only one source practicably available to provide such services, as more
particularly set forth in the City Manager's letter to this Council dated February 19, 2002.
2. This Council accepts the offer of APCo to extend its current contrac~for electric
service on a bundled basi~and for street lighting service from July 1, 2002 through June 30,
2007, and in accordance with the conditions in APCo's offer, this ~ agrees that: (i) it
has chosen APCo to provide generation service through June 30, 2007; (ii) it will not choose a
different supplier prior to such date; and, (iii) it will not request the State Corporation
Commission to determine rates and provisions for default service different from that provided in
H:LMeasuresLAPCO 2002.doc 3
the contracts, as amended and extended, all as more particularly set forth in the City Manager's
letter to this Council dated February 19, 2002.
3. The City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized to execute and attest,
respectively, and deliver on behalf of this Council, in form approved by the City Attorney, all
documents and take such actions as shall be deemed necessary and appropriate to carry out and
administer the foregoing election.
4. The City Clerk is directed to notify APCo of the aforesaid election and agreement
by transmitting a certified copy of this resolution to counsel for the Committee, Howard W.
Dobbins, 1021 East Cary Street, P.O. Box 1320, Richmond, VA 23218-1320, who is authorized
to deliver the same to APCo.
5. In compliance with the procurement ~Regulations governing sole source
procurement, the City's Purchasing Manager i§ hereby directed to post a certified copy
of this resolution in the City's public area for posting notices.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
H:LMeasuresLa~.PCO 2002.doc 4
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.Wo, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.va, us
February 19, 2002
File #467
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council:
On June 30, 2002, the three-year terms of office of Charles W. Day and Brian J. Wishneff
as Trustees of the Roanoke City School Board will expire. Mr. Day is ineligible to serve
another term inasmuch as he has served three consecutive three-year terms of office.
Pursuant to Chapter 9, Education, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
establishing a procedure for the election of School Trustees, Council must hold certain
meetings and take certain actions during the months of March, April and May to conform
with the selection process. Therefore, the concurrence of Council in establishing the
following dates is requested:
(1)
On Monday, March 18 at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may
be heard, Council as a Committee of the Whole, will review and consider all
candidates for the position of School Trustee. At such meeting, Council shall
review all applications filed for the position and Council may elect to interview
candidates for such positions.
(2)
On Monday, April 1 at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard, Council will, by public vote, select from the field of candidates, those
candidates to be accorded the formal interview and all other candidates will
be eliminated from the School Trustee selection process. The number of
candidates to be granted the interview shall not exceed three times the
number of positions available on the Roanoke City School Board, should
there be so many candidates.
N:\CKSMI\SCHOOL.02\ESTABLISHMENT Of SCHOOL BOARD DATES.DOC
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
February 19, 2002
Page 2
(3)
On Monday, April 15 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may
be heard, Council will hold a public hearing to receive the views of citizens.
(4)
On Thursday, April 18 at 4:30 p.m., Council will hold a meeting for the
purpose of conducting a public interview of candidates for the position of
School Trustee.
(5)
On Monday, May 6 at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard, Council will hold an election to fill the two vacancies for terms
commencing July 1,2002, and ending June 30, 2005.
Your concurrence in the above-referenced dates will be appreciated in order that
applicants may be advised of the proposed schedule.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:sm
N:\CKSMI\SCHOOL.02\ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHOOL BOARD DATES.DOC
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
February 21,2002
File #60-178-236
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35759-021902 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 2001-02 Grant Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of funds in
connection with CDBG program income from the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority and CDBG miscellaneous program income for eligible community development
activities.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 19, 2002.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:mh
Attachment
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Barry L. Key, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Frank E. Baratta, Budget Team Leader
H:~Agenda.02X£ebruary 19, 2002 corresp.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 19th day of February, 2002.
No. 35759-021902.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 Grant
Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
certain sections of the 2001-2002 Grant Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are
hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Community Development Block Grant FY01 $
CDBG Unprogrammed - FY01 (1-2) .............................
Community Development Block Grant FY02 $
CDBG Unprogrammed - FY02 (3-5) .............................
HOME Program FY01 $
HOME Unprogrammed - FY01 (6) ..............................
HOME Program FY02 $
HOME Unprogrammed - FY02 (7) ..............................
Revenues
Community Development Block Grant FY01 (8-13) .................. $
Community Development Block Grant FY02 (14-18) .................
HOME Program FY01 (19) .....................................
HOME Program FY02 (20-21) ...................................
1) Unprogrammed CDBG -
Other - FY01 (035-G01-0140-5189)
2) Unprogrammed CDBG -
RRHA - FY01 (035-G01-0140-5197)
6,668
7,265
3,107',187
626,986
2,601,887
342,326
720,022
42,022
772,634
19,634
3,107,187
2,601,887
720,022
772,634
3) Unprogrammed CDBG -
Section 108 Loan
Repayment - FY02
4) Unprogrammed CDBG -
Other- FY02
5) Unprogrammed CDBG -
RRHA- FY02
6) Unprogrammed HOME -
Funds - FY01
7) Unprogrammed HOME -
Funds- FY02
8) Parking Lot Income
9) Other Program
Income- RRHA
10) Demolitions
11 ) Home Ownership
Assistance
12) Rental Rehabilitation
Repayment
13) Land Sale
14) Parking Lot Income
15) Other Program
Income- RRHA
16) Williamson Road
Garage
17) Hotel Roanoke
Section 108 Loan
Repayment
18) Rental Rehabilitation
Repayment
19) First Union Loan
Repayments- FY01
20) First Union Loan
(035-G02-0240-5188)
(035-G02-0240-5189)
(035-G02-0240-5197)
(035-090-5323-5320)
(035-090-5324-5320)
(035-G01-0100-0002)
(035-G01-0100-0003)
(035-G01-0100-0004)
(035-G01-0100-0022)
(035-G01-0100-0040)
(035-G01-0100-0042)
(035-G02-0200-2202)
(035-G02-0200-2203)
(035-G02-0200-2207)
(035-G02-0200-2234)
(035-G02-0200-2240)
(035-035-1234-7235)
Repayments - FY02 (035-090-5324-5320)
21) HOME Program Income -
RRHA- FY02 (035-090-5324-5324)
$ 44,620
70,998
76,565
1,901
19,634
3,700
1,920
5,646
1,022
1,644
1
25,900
23,040
70,998
44,620
27,625
1,901
16,961
2,673
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall
be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
JAMES D. GRISSO
Director of Finance
February 19, 2002
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
JESSE A. HALL
Deputy Director
The Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
The Honorable William H. Carder, Vice-Mayor
The Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member
The Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member
The Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member
The Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
CDBG Program Income from Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
By agreement with the City of Roanoke, the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
administers a large segment of the City's Community Development Block Grant program. The Housing
Authority receives program income during the course of its administration of various projects through
the sale of land and the receipt of loan repayments from project area residents. The Housing Authority
is required to transfer this program income to the City of Roanoke. The City is required to use the
income for eligible community development activities.
The Housing Authority has made payments to the City in the amount of $83,830 from May 16, 2001 to
January 31,2002 in excess of revenue estimates previously adopted. Of this amount, $29,600 resulted
from parking lot rental, and $54,230 from various loan repayment programs.
CDBG Miscellaneous Program Income
The City has received miscellaneous program income as listed below. The amounts represent the
difference between what was actually received and the amount that was previously adopted based on
repayment estimates.
$44,620 from Hotel Roanoke, L.L.C. for loan repayment and interest on the $6,000,000 Section
108 loan from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. During FY02, Hotel
Roanoke made payment totaling $65,320.
$1,022 in various loan repayments and $5,646 in demolitions revenue.
$70,008 from the Williamson Road Parking Garage, which was constructed in part using CDBG
funds.
Honorable Mayor and Members
,~f City Council
February 19, 2002 Page 2
We recommend that City Council appropriate the total $206,116 in unanticipated CDBG program income
as follows:
Unprogrammed CDBG - Other- FY01
Unprogrammed CDBG - RRHA - FY01
Unprogrammed CDBG - Section
108 Loan Repayment- FY02
Unprogrammed CDBG - Other- FY02
Unprogrammed CDBG - RRHA- FY02
(035-G01-0140-5189)
(035-G01-0140-5197)
$ 6,668
7,265
(035-G02-0240-5188)
(035-G02-0240-5189)
(035-G02-0240-5197)
44,620
70,998
76,565
The amounts being appropriated to unprogrammed accounts will be available for future appropriation for
eligible community development purposes.
HOME Program Income
The Housing Authority also administers a segment of the City's HOME program. The assistance
provided by the Housing Authority is predominantly in the form of Iow- or no-interest active and deferred
loans to eligible homeowners and homebuyers. Loan repayments constitute program income to the
City's HOME program. As of January 31, 2002, loan repayments received in excess of budget estimate
equal $21,535.
We recommend that City Council appropriate the total $21,535 in unanticipated HOME program income
as follows:
Unprogrammed HOME- FY02
Unprogrammed HOME- FY02
(035-090-5324-5320)
(035-090-5323-5320)
$19,634
1,901
The amounts being appropriated to unprogrammed accounts will be available for future appropriation for
eligible HOME activities.
I would be pleased to answer questions City Council may have.
Sincerely,
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
JHA/THT:g
C:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Barry L. Key, Director of Management and Budget
Frank E. Baratta, Department of Management and Budget
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
February 21,2002
File #60-467
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35760-021902 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 2001-02 General and School Funds Appropriations, providing for
appropriation of funds to various school accounts, in connection with the Capital
Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Fund, Special Education Assistive Technology
Program, Special Education Capacity Building Program, Jobs for Virginia Graduates
Program, and the Expanded GED Testing Services Program.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, February 19, 20(:)2.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:mh
Attachment
pc:
Sherman P. Lea, Chair, Roanoke City School Board, 1638 Lonna Drive, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools
Cindy H. Lee, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board
H:XAgenda.02~February 19, 2002 corresp.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 19th day of February, 2002.
No. 35760-021902.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002
General and School Funds Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
certain sections of the 2001-2002 General and School Funds Appropriations, be, and the
same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
General Fund
Appropriations
Nondepartmental $ 71,628,765
Transfers to Other Funds (1) .................................. 71,106,060
Fund Balance
Reserved for CMERP - Schools (2) ............................. $ 787,310
School Fund
Appropriations
Education $129,469
Special Education Assistive Technology 2001-02 (3) ............... 1
Special Education Capacity Building (Silver) Grant 2000-01 (4-6) ..... 20
Jobs for Virginia Graduates 2001-02 (7) ......................... 52
Expanded GED Testing Services 2002-02 (8-11) .................. 7
2002 Advanced Placement (AP) Test Program (12) ................ 1
Facilities (13-19) ........................................... 1,631
971
5OO
188
568
5OO
274
O5O
Revenues
Education
Special Education Assistive Technology 2001-02 (20) ..............
Special Education Capacity Building (Silver) Grant 2000-01 (21) ......
$127,919,046
1,500
20,188
Jobs for Virginia Graduates 2001-02 (22) .........................
Expanded GED Testing Services 2002-02 (23) ....................
2002 Advanced Placement (AP) Test Program (24) .................
Transfer from General Fund (25) ...............................
Fund Balance
Reserved for CMERP - Schools (26) .............................
1 ) Transfer to
School Fund
2) Reserved for
CMERP - Schools
3) ADDT - Machinery
and Equipment
4) Other Professional
Services
5) In Service Workshops
6) In Service Supplies
7) Educational and
Recreational
Supplies
8) Supplements
9) Social Security
10) Mileage
11 ) Education and
Recreational
Supplies
12) Maintenance
Service Contracts
13) ADDT - Machinery
and Equipment
14) Replacement Data
Process Equipment
15) Replacement of
School Buses
16) ADDT - Machinery
and Equipment
17) Buildings
18) ADDT - Other
Capital Outlay
19) ADDT - Other
Capital Outlay
20) Federal Grant
Receipts
(001-250-9310-9530)
(001-3324)
(030-062-6579-6029-0313)
(030-062-6579-6029-0313)
(030-062-6579-6029-0587)
(030-062-6579-6029-0617)
(030-062-6741-6351-0614)
(030-062-6749-6334-0129)
(030-062-6749-6334-0201)
(030-062-6749-6334-0551)
(030-062-6749-6334-0614)
(030-062-6835-6113-0332)
(030-065-6006-6109-0821)
(030-065-6006-6302-0806)
(030-065-6006-6676-0808)
(030-065-6006-6681-0821)
(030-065-6006-6681-0851)
(030-065-6006-6682-0829)
(030-065-6006-6896-0829)
(030-062-6578-1102)
26,894
26,894
1,500
14,688
5,000
500
2,608
6,270
48O
25O
5OO
1,274
9,722
2,147
55,750
94,340
30,160
11,640
6,936
1,500
$ 52,568
7,500
1,274
46,014,562
21) Federal Grant
Receipts
22) Federal Grant
Receipts
23) Fees
24) State Grant Receipts
25) Transfer from
General Fund
26) Reserved for
CMERP - Schools
(030-062-6579-1102)
(030-062-6741-1102)
(030-062-6749-1103)
(030-062-6835-1100)
(030-060-6000-1037)
(030-3324)
20,188
2,608
7,500
1,274
26,894
183,801
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be
in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
t Sherman P. Lea, Chairman Marsha W. Ellison
Ruth C. Willson, Vice Chairman Gloria P. Manns
Charles W. Day Melinda J. Payne
~/-Roanoke
City School Board P.O. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031 · 540-853-2381
Brian J. Wishneff
E. Wayne Harris, Ed.D., Superintendent
Cindy H. Lee, Clerk of the Board
· Fax: 540-853-2951
February 19, 2002
The Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Members of Council:
The School Board respectfully requests City Council to approve the
following appropriations which were approved at its February 12 meeting.
· $210,695.00 from the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement
Fund to provide funds for music instrument replacement, administrative
technology equipment, replacement of school buses, facility
maintenance equipment, the relocation of modular units, physical
education equipment, and handicap access.
· $1,500.00 for the Special Education Assistive Technology program to
provide funds for the purchase of equipment and software to assist
students with disabilities. This continuing program will be reimbursed
one hundred percent by federal funds.
· $20,188.00 for the Special Education Capacity Building (Sliver) program
to provide funds to assist the division in providing direct services and in
making systemic change to improve results for children with disabilities.
This continuing program will be reimbursed one hundred percent by
federal funds.
· $2,608.00 for the 3obs for Virginia Graduates program to serve at least
25 economically disadvantaged students, providing classroom training
and work experience to assist the students to prepare for high school
graduation or to sit for the General Education Development (GED)
examination. This continuing program is funded from federal funds.
· $7,500.00 for the Expanded GED Testing Services program to establish
a satellite GED test center at the Virginia Employment Commission and
expand the testing services in the Roanoke City testing area. This
continuing program will be reimbursed one hundred percent by State
funds.
Preparing Students for Success
Members of Council
Page 2
February 19, 2002
re
CC~
$1,274.00 for the Advanced Placement (AP) Test program to reimburse
part or all of the cost of fees for the 2002 AP test for Iow-income
students who take the test. This is a new State funded grant.
The Board appreciates the approval of this request.
Sincerely,
Cindy H. Lee, Clerk
Mr. Sherman P. Lea
Dr. E. Wayne Harris
Mr. Richard L. Kelley
Mr. Kenneth F. Mundy
Mr. William L. Murray
Mrs. Darlene L. Burcham
Mr. William M. Hackworth
Mr. Jesse A. Hall
Mrs. Ann Hi Shawver (with accounting
details)
'~~1 Sherman P. Lea, Chairman
Ruth C. Willson, Vice Chairman
Charles W. Day
/Roanoke
City School Board P.O. Box ~3~45, Roanoke, Virginia 24034
Marsha W. Ellison
Gloria P. Manns
Melinda J. Payne
Brian J. Wishneff
E. Wayne Harris, Ed.D., Superintendent
Cindy H. Lee, Clerk of the Board
· 540-853-2381 · Fax: 540-853-2951
February 19, 2002
Mrs. Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
City of Roanoke
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Mrs. Parker:
The attached School Board request should be included on City
Council's February 19 agenda. :If there is a change to this request, you will
be notified on Wednesday, February :L3.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Cindy H. Lee, Clerk
re
cc' Mrs. Ann H. Shawver
Preparing Students for Success
JAMES D. GRISSO
Director of Finance
February 19, 2002
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
JESSE A. HALL
Deputy Director
The Honorable
The Honorable
The Honorable
The Honorable
The Honorable
The Honorable
The Honorable
Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
William H. Carder, Vice Mayor
William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
C. Nelson Harris, Council Member
W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member
William White, Sr., Council Member
Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
We have reviewed the attached request to appropriate funding for the School Board. This
report will appropriate the following:
$210,695 from the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Fund to provide
funds for music instrument replacement, administrative technology equipment, replacement
of school buses, facility maintenance equipment, the relocation of modular units, physical
education equipment, and handicap access.
$1,500 for the Special Education Assistive Technology program to provide funds for the
purchase of equipment and software to assist students with disabilities. This continuing
program will be reimbursed one hundred percent by federal funds.
$20,188 for the Special Education Capacity Building (Sliver) program to provide funds to
assist the division in providing direct services and in making systemic change to improve
results for children with disabilities. This continuing program will be reimbursed one
hundred percent by federal funds.
$2,608 for the Jobs for Virginia Graduates program to serve at least 25 economically
disadvantaged students, providing classroom training and work experience to assist the
students to prepare for high school graduation or to sit for the General Education
Development (GED) examination. This continuing program is funded from federal funds.
$7,500 for the Expanded GED Testing Services program to establish a satellite GED test
center at the Virginia Employment Commission and expand the testing services in the
Roanoke City testing area. This continuing program will be reimbursed one hundred
percent by State funds.
Members of Council
Page 2
February 19, 2002
$1,274 for the Advanced Placement (AP) Test program to reimburse part or all of the cost
of fees for the 2002 AP test for Iow-income students who take the test. This is a new State
funded grant.
We recommend that you concur with this request of the School Board.
Sincerely,
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
JAH/JSY/pac
Attachment
C~
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent of City Schools
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
February 21,2002
File #144
Stephanie M. Moon
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Tuesday,
February 19, 2002, Council Member White called attention to increased litter within the City
of Roanoke, and requested that the matter be referred to the City Manager for response.
Council Member Hudson also called attention to litter in the Mud Lick Road area.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:mh
H:XAgenda.02~February 19, 2002 corresp.wpd
M)DRESSING ROANOKE'S DROUGtlT
creating and saving water sources our first priority.
Do whatever it takes to clean up Cq~'stal Spring - and do it immediate¥ This has
been put off far too long.
Drill new wells at Carvin's Cove to get the water that has seeped into thc ground.
This was discussed, I believe, in 1999 - at thc last drought.
Pipe in water from river sources for manufacturing uses not needing purified water
from Carvin's Cove and Spring Hollow.
Strongly enforce anti-pollution laws for our rivers and streams: impose heaw fines
on polluters and force them to clean up the pollution, immediately.
Seek out ideas for water conser'~ation from other localities in drought situations.
Check out well-digging businesses for possible new water sites they ma,v have eta-
Get thc public sector really, involved in water conserqation through .school projects,
brain-stomfing meetings, newspaper articles with readers' suggestions, etc.
Cut out camping hiking, hunting, and fishing in our surrounding woods while in this
severe drought. Cigarettes and campfires in dry woods are a no-no. Out-of-
doors activities can surely be put on hold! And, we do not need to be using our
scarce water supply to put out fires. Actually, ~'er water should be used ~hen-
ever possible, and probably already is, to put out fires in our woods.
If necessar)', put a limit on household water use, according to famib' size. If the
limit is exceeded, impose a tine.
Apply for disaster relief, if possible, from the U.S. government to help develop
new sources of water for our city's population.
-- Submitted bv Donald and Rose Hussey, Roanoke Ci~
._'¢ 4-, 6, '- 5-
FINI)LNG AND FIXLNG LEAKS
Faucets and Showerheads: Dripping, tncklmg, or oozing faucets and shower-
heads can waste from 75 to several hundred gallons of water a week depending
on the size of the drip. Worn out washers are the m',fin cause of these leaks
and a new one generally, costs about 25 cents.
Faucets ~pically use 2 to 7 gallons per minute. Installing a low-flow faucet aerator
can reduce the flow by as much as 25% or up to a gallon and a half per minute.
Be sure to remove your aerator periodically, to clean the particles that may have
collected in the screen.
A Simple Test for Leaks: A leak2,' faucet is pretty obvious. But hidden leaks in thc
toilet, under thc sink. or bchind the washing machine can waste a ~ganfic amount
of water. ?md thc3' could be damaging your floors or ceilin~ too. Take a reading
of vour water meter. Wait an hour. making sure no one uses any water in your
home:' Check it again. If the reading has changed, you have got at least one leak
and you. need to investigate. (Note: another source suggests checking the meter
while no water is being used; tithe dials are turning a leak is indic, ated.)
Toilets: That trickling sound you hear in the bathroom could be a leak? toilet
wasting 50 gallons of water a day or more. But sometimes it leaks sflenth'. Try
this: Crush a dye tablet in its envelope and carefully empty the ~ontents into the
center of the toilet tank (or use a few drops of food colortag) and allow it to
dissolve. Wait about 8-9 minutes. Inspect the toilet bowl for signs of blue dye
indicating a leak. If the dye has appeared in the bowl your flapper or flush vah,'e
max.' need to be replaced. Parts are inexpensive and faith' easy, to replace. If no
dye has appeared in the 8-9 minutes' time, you probabg.' don't have a leak.
URBAN WATER CONSERVATION TIPS
In The Bathroom...
Install a low-flow showerhead that restricts the flow of water from
the shower to 2.5 gallons per minute.
Install a low-flow toilet that uses only 1.6 gallons of water per
flush.
Take shor~ showem. Install a showerhead with a cutoff valve or
turn the water offwhile soaping and turn it back on again to rinse.
When brushing teeth, turn the water offuntil it is time to rime.
Do not let the water nm while washing hands. Turn the water off
while soaping and turn it on again to rinse.
Wh~ shaving, fill the lavatory, with hot water instead of letting tho
water nm continuously.
Test toilets for leaks. Add a few drops of food coloring or a dye
tablet to the water in the toilet tank, bm do not flush the toilet. Wait
a few minutes to see ffthe coloring appears in the bowl. If so, the
toilet has a silent leak that needs to be repaired.
Use a toilet tank water displacement device, such as a toilet dam or
bag. Also, a plastic bottle can be filled with stones or with water.
recappc& and placed in the toilet tank. These devices will reduce
the volume of water in the tank but will still provide enough for
flushing. (Bricks are not recommended as they eventually crumble
and can damage the flushing mechanism.) Displacement devices
are not recommended for use with newer Iow-flow toilets.
Never use the toilet as a trash can to dispose of bugs, cigarette
butts, or other items. Unnecessary flushing wastes water and places
an unnecessary., burden on sewage treatment plants and septic tanks.
In The Kitchen...
Never run the dishwasher without having a full load.
Keep a container of drinking water in the refrigerator instead of
running water from the tap until it is cool. -
Keep conservation in mind when working in the kitchen. Small
water saxSngs, such as not making too much coffee or letting ice
cubes melt in a sink. can add up over time.
In The Laundry...
· Wash only a full load when using the washing machine. It takes
about 32 to 59 gallons of water per load!
Water Tips: High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. I
Home Water Saving Tips
IN THE BATHROOM
· Turn off the tap while brushing your teeth or shaving. Save 4-10 gallons a
day
· Never use your toilet as a wastebasket. Save 3-7 gallons per flush.
· Don't take marathon showers. Five minutes V~ll get you clean. Save 3-7
gallons per shower.
· Close your tub drain before turning on the water. Save 3 gallons or more.
· Fill your bathtub only halfway. Save 5 gallons or more Saves in hot water
costs, too.
IN THE KITCHEN AND LAUNDRY AREAS
· Fill your sink or basin when washing and rinsing dishes. Saves 8-15 gallons
per day. Saves in hot water costs, too
· Run you dishwasher only when full. Save up to 15 gallons per load. Saves in
hot water costs, too
· Wash vegetables and fruit in a basin. Use a vegetable brush to remove dirt.
Save 2-4 gallons per day.
· Run your garbage disposal only when necessary. Save 2-7 gallons per
minute.
· Run the washing machine only when full and adjust the water level setting
carefully. Washing machines use 22-25 gallons per load. Save the water for
1-2 loads every week. Saves in hot water costs, too.
HOW TO FIND AND FIX LEAKS
Faucets and Showerheads
Dripping, trickling, or oozing faucets and showerheads can waste from 75 to several
hundred gallons of water a week depending on the size of the drip. Worn out
washers are the main cause of these leaks and a new one generally costs about 25
cents.
Faucets typically use 2 to 7 gallons per minute. Installing a Iow-flow faucet aerator
can reduce the flow by as much as 25% or up to a gallon and a half per minute. Be
sure to remove your aerator periodically to clean the particles that may have
collected in the screen.
A Simple Test for LeaKs
A leaky faucet ~s pretty oOvious. But hidden leaks in the toilet, under the sink, or
behind a washing machine can waste a gigantic amount of water. And they could be
damaging your floors or ceilings too. Take a reading of your water meter. Wait an
hour, making sure no one uses any water in your home. Check it again. If the
reading has changed, you have got at least one leak and you need to investigate.
Toilets
That trickling sound you hear in the bathroom could be a leaky toilet wasting 50
gallons of water a day or more But sometimes it leaks silently Try this:
Crush a dye tablet in its envelope and carefully empty the contents
into the center of the toilet tank and allow it to dissolve. Wait about 8-9
minutes. Inspect He toilet bowl for signs of blue dye indicating a leak
If the dye has appeared in the bow~, your flapper or flush valve may need to be
replaced. Parts are inexpensive and fairly easy to replace. If no dye has appeared in
the 8 to 9 minutes time, you probably don't have a leak.
htlp:/: ww~'.mwra, state.ma, us, watcr;hlml, watsav.htm
Water Conservation Tips from The Texas Water Development Board:
For approximat~ .ly $10 -$25, the average homeowner can install two low-flow
showerheads, place dams or bottles in the toilet tanks, install low-flow aerators
on the faucets, and repair dripping faucets and leaking toilets. This could saw
10,000 to more than 25,000 gallons per year for a family of four, and it would
pay for itscffin less than a year! Even more could be saved ff good outdoor
water conservation is practiced for the lawn and garden.
Do not use hot water when cold water will do. Water and energy can be saved
bv washing hands with soap and cold water. Hot water should be added only.
when hands are especially, dir~-.
Be sure the water heater thermostat is not set too high. Extreme~ hot settings
waste water and encrK,' because the water often las to be cooled with cold
water before it can be used.
From "Clean Action Oceans" Shore - Tips Series:
If you don't have a low-flow toilet place m'o half gallon plastic bottles filled
with water in your toilet tank. This saves one gallon of water each time you
flush. (Note: another source cautions against using a brick for this; it may
crumble over time and cause damage to the plumbing.)
Check water meter while no water is being used. If thc dials are mo'~ing then
you mav have a leak.
Roanoke City Department of Planning
Building and Development
Room 166, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-1730 (Fax) 853-1230
Email: planning@ci.roanoke.va.us
February 19, 2002
Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor
Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member
Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Council Member
Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member
Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject: 2001 Annual Report
Planning Commission
I am pleased to provide Council with the following information on the Commission's
activities and attendance last year, as well as a brief overview of the major work
projects we hope to undertake durin'g 2002.
Last year the Commission officially met 15 times to consider the following items:
27 requests to rezone property or amend proffered conditions
,/ 10 street and/or alley closure requests
,/ 7 amendments to the City's zoning ordinance
,/ 3 public facility naming requests (1 bridge and 2 parks)
1 comprehensive development plan review for the Roanoke Academy for Math
and Science
2 reviews of public facilities for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan (South
Jefferson Redevelopment Plan and Roanoke Academy for Math and Science)
and
,/ 1 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (Melrose Rugby Neighborhood Plan)
The major work effort of the Commission and staff last year centered around adoption
of a new City Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2001-2020. The development of this plan
was a primary work effort for the Commission and the Planning staff, and included over
fifty evening meetings, numerous reviews and revisions of the document, coordination
of 6 task teams and a 44-member Citizen Advisory Committee, and several
presentations to other boards, civic groups, and City Council.
Also last year, neighborhood plans were initiated for Peters Creek North, Belmont-
Fallon, Gainsboro, Old Southwest, Southern Hills, Melrose Rugby, and Downtown
(Outlook Roanoke Update). Two of these plans have been completed and adopted and
the remaining ones are near completion and should be forthcoming in the next few
months for public hearing and adoption.
In addition to these plans, a major amendment of the City's zoning ordinance to include
a new zoning district - Institutional Planned Unit Development District (INPUD) was
recommended by the Commission and adopted by City Council. Also, the Commission
met jointly with City Council to review and recommend the South Jefferson
Redevelopment Plan, one of the City's newest economic development initiatives with
the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority.
The Commission's major goal for 2002 is the implementation of the Comprehensive
plan through the revision of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which was adopted in 1987.
Proposals have been solicited, interviews held and a consultant selected for the project.
Formal authorization from Council to hire the consultant is expected in the next few
weeks. The Commission's Ordinance and Names Committee will be active in the
review of the new ordinance, as well as a citizen's committee.
In addition to the Zoning Ordinance, the Commission also will be involved in the
adoption of several neighborhood plans during 2002 and we will continue to monitor our
progress in implementing the initiatives and strategies set forth in Vision 2001-2020.
Commission members are particularly interested in working to pursue initiatives related
to new housing development, village centers, redevelopment of underutilized
commercial and industrial areas, and integration of city design principles for new
development.
Meeting attendance information and the status of certifications of Commission
members is attached to this report for your information.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert B. Manetta, Chairman
City of Roanoke Planning Commission
/mpf
CC;
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Rolanda Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
MEETING ATTENDANCE/CERTIFICATION
A total of 12 regular and 3 special meetings were held by the Planning
Commission during 2001.
Commission Member
No. of Meetings Attended
Gilbert Butler (Certified)
Wayne Campbell (appointed 4/01)
Kent Chrisman (Certified)
Alfred Dowe (Certified)
Melvin Hill(Certified)
Robert Manetta (Certification pending)
Richard Rife
13
7 of 10
14
15
11
12
14
MARY F. PARKER. CMC
City. Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue. S.W. Room 456
Roanoke. Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 85%1145
E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us
February 21,2002
File #200
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy Cit.x Clerk
SIIEILA N. IlAR[MAN
Assistant Deput.,, City Clerk
Robert B. Manetta, Chair
City Planning Commission
2831 Stephenson Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Manetta:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Tuesday,
February 19, 2002, a public hearing was held to consider an amendment of Vision
2001-2020, the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, dated
August 20, 2001, to include Outlook Roanoke Update, an updated development plan for
downtown Roanoke.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, a resolution amending Vision 2001-2020, the
City's adopted comprehensive plan, to include the Outlook Roanoke Update as an element
of the comprehensive plan, was tabled.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:mh
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
H:'Agenda.02\February 19. 2002 corresp.wpd
HARTERED 1882~
Roanoke City Department of Planning
Building and Development
Room 1661 Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-1730 (Fax) 853-1230
Emaih planning@ci.roanoke.va.us
February 19, 2002
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Ralph K. Smith, Mayor
William H. Carder, Vice Mayor
William D. Bestpitch, Council Member
C. Nelson Harris, Council Member
W. Alvin Hudson, Council Member
William White, Sr., Council Member
Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Adoption of Outlook Roanoke Update as the downtown element of
the Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission Action'
On January 23, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the above
plan. Several persons spoke in favor of the adoption; no one spoke in opposition to the
plan. Subsequently, by a vote of 6-0 (Messrs. Butler, Campbell, Chrisman, Hill, Manetta
and Rife voting in favor; Mr. Dowe absent), the Planning Commission adopted a
resolution recommending amendment of Vision 2001-2020, the City's adopted
comprehensive plan, to include Outlook Roanoke Update, as an element of the plan.
Background
In 1997, the City of Roanoke, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., and the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority collaborated to develop Outlook Roanoke, a plan
for downtown Roanoke. Several initiatives identified in Outlook Roanoke have been
realized (e.g., the Higher Education Center, the rail walk, and the improvements on
Williamson Road and the Second Street Bridge).
Over the past couple of years, downtown has experienced several development
projects, and more are planned. Some of these projects included establishment of the
South Jefferson Redevelopment Area, pursuance of an IMAX theatre, improvements to
Roanoke Passenger Station for the arts, potential development adjacent to Jefferson
Center, improvements to the Main Library, construction of the Linear Rail Walk,
improvements to Henry Street, and completion of a Higher Education Center. In
addition, two key planning activities influenced downtown: Vision 2001-2020
Comprehensive Plan and neighborhood plans for neighborhoods adjacent to the
downtown (e.g., Gainsboro, Old Southwest, Belmont/Fallon). The need to coordinate
1
Roanoke City Planning Commission Architectural Review Board Board of Zoning Appeals
these projects and plans resulted in the development of the Outlook Roanoke Update
(downtown plan).
In August 2000, Urban Design Associates (UDA), an architecture and planning firm,
was hired by Downtown Roanoke Inc. to facilitate a planning process and prepare an
update for downtown development. UDA sub-contracted with Hill Studio, P.C.,
Nottingham and Associates, Inc., and ZimmermanJolk Associates, Inc. to prepare the
plan.
A steering committee consisting of citizens, downtown business persons, neighborhood
leaders and City staff was created to oversee the development of the downtown plan.
Several sub-committees were also created to address specific issues regarding the
downtown area (e.g., housing, parking and transportation, technology, entertainment,
the Main Library and the Jefferson Center).
In November 2000, neighborhood meetings also were held in Old Southwest,
Belmont/Fallon and Gainsboro to discuss coordination between the downtown plan and
the neighborhood plans.
In February 2001, a public meeting was held at the Higher Education Center to discuss
downtown issues. The results of that meeting are summarized in the section of the
downtown plan entitled, Planning Process: Good Things/Bad Things.
In September 2001, a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the City Council
was held to present the recommendations of the Outlook Roanoke Update and provide
opportunities for further discussion.
Considerations
The purpose of the downtown plan is to provide a framework for prioritizing and
coordinating the development projects and planning activities in the downtown area.
The plan identified several priorities that are categorized into five initiative areas and
opportunities:
1. Elmwood Park Initiative (park enhancement, library alternatives, new
development opportunities)
2. Church Avenue Initiative (Jefferson & Church development opportunities,
Williamson & Church development opportunities, Church Avenue development
opportunities)
3. E-Town Initiative (Warehouse Row, Campbell Avenue, and other development
opportunities)
4. Market Initiative (City Market area development opportunities)
5. Jefferson Center Initiative (Jefferson Center area development opportunities)
The plan recommends implementation of these development initiatives when two or
more individual components are ready to move forward.
2
The plan also identifies market strategies for economic development, residential
development and retail/entertainment.
1. The economic development strategy recommends marketing the variety of
amenities in the downtown.
2. The residential strategy recommends the targeting of market-rate housing in the
downtown through adaptive re-use of existing buildings and new construction.
3. The retail/entertainment strategy encourages the expansion of specialty retail
and dining opportunities.
The downtown plan further recommends infrastructure and
designed to encourage connectivity within the downtown and
neighborhoods as well as the region (e.g., greenways).
traffic improvements
beyond to adjacent
Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City adopt neighborhood
plans for all neighborhoods. The downtown is considered one of the City's
neighborhoods.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommends that City Council amend Vision 2001-2020, the
City's adopted comprehensive plan, to include Outlook Roanoke Update, as an element
of that plan.
CCZ
Respectfully submitted,
Robert B. Manetta, Chairman
City of Roanoke Planning Commission
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Rolanda Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
3
tN THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION recommending amendment of Vision 2001-2020, the City's
adopted comprehensive plan, to include Outlook Roanoke Update...
WHEREAS, in 1997, the City of Roanoke, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., and the
Roanoke Development and Housing Authority collaborated to develop Outlook Roanoke, a
development plan for downtown Roanoke;
WHEREAS, in the last several years, downtown Roanoke has experienced several
development projects, and more are planned;
WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke has recently adopted Vison 2001-2020, the City's
comprehensive plan, and neighborhood plans for neighborhoods adjacent to downtown
Roanoke;
WHEREAS, the future development projects and the various plans relating to the
neighborhoods in the vicinity of downtown Roanoke need to be coordinated for the
appropriate development and growth of the City of Roanoke;
WHEREAS, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., retained an architectural and planning firm
to develop ~)utlook Roanoke Update, an updated development plan for downtown Roanoke;
WHEREAS, Outlook Roanoke Update resulted from the efforts of a committee and
subcommittee, consisting of downtown business persons, neighborhood leaders and City
Staff;
N :\CAPS~RESOLUTIONSxR'Ou tl°°kR°an° kCUpdat¢'w'pd
WHEREAS, Outlook Roanoke Update recommends that certain infrastructure changes
be made which are designed to encourage an easier flow of traffic within the downtown area
and between downtown and adjacent neighborhoods and other areas; and
WHEREAS, this Commission finds that Vision 2001-2020, the City's adopted
comprehensive plan, should be amended to include Outlook Roanoke Update.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission for the City
of Roanoke that the Planning Commission recommendi that City Council amend Vision.
2001-2020, the City's adopted comprehensive plan, to include Outlook Roanoke Update as
an element thereof.
Adopted this 23rd day of January, 2002.
ATTEST:
By 3P~Tg'~/'t~
Secretary,
Koano~e ulty F£anning commission
N :\CAPS\RESO LUTION SXR-OutlookRoanokeUpdat*'wpd
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue. S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk~ci.roanoke.va.us
January 31,2002
File #277-289
STEPHANIE M. MOON
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant Deputy City Clerk
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Smith and' Members of Council:
Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, the following matter will be advertised for public
hearing on Tuesday, February 19, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber, fourth
floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building.
Amendment of Vision 2001-2020, the adopted Comprehensive Plan for the
City of Roanoke, Virginia, dated August 20, 2001, to include Outlook
Roanoke Update, an updated development plan for downtown Roanoke.
With kindest personal regards, I am
MFP:mh
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, OMC
City Clerk
pc:
Robert B. Manetta, Chair, City Planning Commission, 2831 Stephenson Avenue,
S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Willard N. Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney, transmitted electronically by e-mail
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator
Stephanie M. Moon, Deputy City Clerk
Cindy M. Ayers, Executive Secretary, City Manager's Office, transmitted
electronically by e-mail
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 City Council will consider amending Vision 2001-2020, the adopted
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, dated August 20, 2001, to include
Outlook Roanoke Update, an updated development plan for downtown Roanoke.
Copies of Outlook Roanoke Update to be considered by City Council are on file in the
Office of the City Clerk.
A public hearing will be held before the Council of the City of Roanoke on Tuesday,
February 19, 2002, 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 the proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan.
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,
February 14, 2002.
GIVEN under my hand this 29thday of January
,2002.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
Note to Publisher:
Please publish twice in The Roanoke Times on Sunday, February 3 and February 10, 2002.
Send Publisher's Affidavit and Bill to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
456 Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
H:\NOTlCESSN-OutlookRoanokeUpdate (PH 2-19-02) wpd
The Roanoke Times
Roanoke, Virginia
Affidavit of Publication
The Roanoke Times
ROANOKE CITY CLERK'S
215 CHURCH AVE SW RM
ATT: MARY PARKER, CL
ROANOKE VA 24011
REFERENCE: 80023382
01839520
Outlook Rke
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 Febru~r~ ~00~ Wi~ess ~y hand and official
s eal.~~_~_~/~_~_ ........ Notary Public
My commission expires ~_~_~.~_~_
PUBLIS}[ED ON: 02/03 02/10
TOTAL COST: 275.52
FILED ON: 02/13/02
to ~15.2-2204, of me Co~ of
mnendlng Vision 2001,2020,
Virlglnla, d,,t®d August 20,
2001, to include Outlook
Rotmoke Update, an updated
tovm Roanoke.
Copies of Outlook Roanoke
CIt~ Coun~l are on file In 'h'm
Office of the City CJedc
A pul:dlc hearing will be
. of Romtoke on Tu~, FMxu*
cji Ctmmbers, Noel C. Taytm'
Munl;Ipal "Building, 2*-5 ·
Churc~ Avenue, S.W.~ Roatloke,
tt~ cmmpre~ermve*p~n.
If you are a per~n v/d:h a dis.
(853-254'1), * thsfore 12:00
2002.
GIV~I under my hand tJ~ 29th
Mmy F. Pa~er, C~ CreW.
Authorized _~
Signature: ..... Billing
Services
Representative
FAX TRANSMISSION
CITY OF ROANOKE
CITY CLERK/CITY COUNCIL
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
(540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
To:
Fax #:
From:
Subject:
The Roanoke Tribune Date: 01/30/02
343-7366 Pages: 2
Michelle Hopkins, Executive Sec.
Attached is a Public Hearing Notice to run once in The Roanoke Tribune. Please
send the bill to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, at the address above. Thank you.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION amending Vision 2001-2020, the City's adopted comprehensive
plan, to include Outlook Roanoke Update as an element of the comprehensive plan.
WHEREAS, in 1997, the City of Roanoke, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., and the
Roanoke Development and Housing Authority collaborated to develop Outlook Roanoke, a
development plan for downtown Roanoke;
WHEREAS, in the last several years, downtown Roanoke has experienced several
development projects, and more are planned;
WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke has recently adopted Vison 2001-2020, the City's
comprehensive plan, and neighborhood plans for neighborhoods adjacent to downtown
Roanoke;
WHEREAS, the future development projects and the various plans relating to the
neighborhoods in the vicinity of downtown Roanoke need to be coordinated for the
appropriate development and growth of the City of Roanoke;
WHEREAS, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., retained an architectural and planning firm
to develop Outlook Roanoke Update, an updated development plan for downtown Roanoke;
WHEREAS, Outlook Roanoke Update resulted from the efforts of a committee and
subcommittee, consisting of downtown business persons, neighborhood leaders and City
Staff; and
H:\RESOLUTIONS\Res for Council-OutlookRoanokeUpdate.wpd
WHEREAS, Outlook Roanoke Update recommends that certain infrastructure changes
be made which are designed to encourage an easier flow of traffic within the downtown area
and between downtown and adjacent neighborhoods and other areas; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended, after public notice and
public hearing, that Vision 2001-2020, the City's adopted comprehensive plan, be amended
to include Outlook Roanoke Update as an element thereof;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Roanoke that
Vision 2001-2020, the City's adopted comprehensive plan, be amended to include Outlook
Roanoke Update as an element thereof.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
H:\RESOLUTIONS\Res for Council-OutlookRoanokeUpdate.wpd