Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Council Actions 08-20-01
WYATT 35514-082001 ROANOKE CITY CO UNCIL REGULAR SESSION August 20, 2001 2:00P. M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL 1. Call to Order--Roll Call. The Invocation was delivered by The Reverend Kevin Smith, Pastor, Washington Heights Grace Brethren 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: Meetings of Roanoke City Council are televised live on RVTV Channel 3. Today's meeting will be replayed on Channel 3 on Thursday, August 23,2001, at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 4:00 p.m. Council meetings are now being offered with closed captioning for the heating 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 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKAGE ON THE INTERNET FOR VIEWING AND RESEARCH PURPOSES. TO ACCESS THE 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. 2 PRESENTATIONS: A RESOLUTION paying tribute to Carl H. Kopitzke upon his relinquishment of the Chair of the Mill Mountain Advisory Committee, and expressing to him the appreciation of this City and its people for his exemplary public service. Adopted Resolution No. 35514-082001. (7-0) File #67-80-110 Proclamation declaring September 2001 as Native American Month. File #3-80 Presentation of awards for Achievements in Financial Reporting. File #1-10-80 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 C-2 Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Monday, July 16, 2001, the work session held on Monday, July 30, 2001, and the regular meeting held on Monday, August 6, 2001. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispense with the reading thereof and approve as recorded. Annual report of the Municipal Auditor for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. File #109-280 3 C-3 Annual report of Audit Committee for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. File #109-300 C-4 Qualification of the following persons: Sheila N. Hartman as Assistant Deputy City Clerk, effective August 7, 2001; Gail Burruss as a member of the Advisory Board of Human Development for a term ending November 30, 2004; William C. Holland as a member of the Personnel and Employment Practices Commission for a term ending June 30, 2004; and Evelyn F. Board as a member of the Human Services Committee for a term ending June 30, 2002. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. File #15-38-72-110-202 REGULAR AGENDA 3. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: ao Request of the Roanoke Arts Commission to discuss the Percent for Arts Program and Municipal Art in the City. Mark C. McConnel, Chair. Referred to the City Manager recommendation to Council. File #230 for study, report and be Request to address Games of Virginia. Sports, Inc. Received and filed. File #334 Council on behalf of the 2001 Commonwealth Peter Lampman, President, Virginia Amateur 4 Request to present information on efforts to preserve Read Mountain and for adoption of a resolution of support from the City of Roanoke. Ronald O. Crawford, Spokesperson. The City Manager was requested to informally contact as many property owners as possible in the Read Mountain Area and the City Attorfiey was instructed to prepare the proper measure for consideration by Council at its regular meeting on Tuesday, September 4, 2001. File #548 4. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: ao A communication from the Commonwealth's Attorney with regard to the Cost Collection Unit for fiscal year 2000-01. Received and filed. File #60-133 A communication from the Commonwealth's Attorney with regard to acceptance of funding for the Drug Prosecutor's Office; and a communication from the City Manager concurring in the recommendation. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35515-082001 No. 35516-082001. (7-0) File #60-76-133 and Resolution Co A communication from the Commonwealth's Attorney in connection with cash assets forfeited to the Roanoke Commonwealth Attorney's Office; and a communication from the City Manager concurring in the recommendation. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35517-082001. (7-0) File #60-133 5 A communication from the Roanoke City School Board requesting apPropriation of funds for the Reading Excellence Act grants for Virginia Heights Elementary School and Westside Elementary School; and a report of the Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in the request. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35518-082001. Member Wyatt abstained from voting.) File #60-236-467 (6-0, Council A communication from the Roanoke City School Board with regard to participating in the 2001 Interest Rate Subsidy Program Bond Sale - VPSA School Financing Bonds, Series 200lB, to be used for improvements at Fairview Elementary School and Fishbum Park Elementary School. Adopted Resolution No. 35519-082001 and Resolution No. 35520-082001. (7-0) Council authorized public hearings to be held on Monday, September 17, 2001 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. File #53-467 A communication from David A. Bowers, Attorney, representing Roger Roberts of Diamond Point, Inc., requesting certain information with regard to the proposed expansion of The Roanoke Times manufacturing plant which is proposed for development behind his client's property located at 121 West Campbell Avenue. The matter was referred to the City Attorney for response. File #2-227 6 5: REPORTS OF OFFICERS: a. CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: NONE. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: A communication with regard to execution of the 2001-02 HOME Investment Partnerships Agreement with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Adopted Resolution No. 35521-082001. (7-0) File #178-236 A communication recommending acceptance of the bid submitted by Heitkamp, Inc., for remote television inspection of the old Roanoke River Interceptor Sewer. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35522-082001 and Ordinance No. 35523-082001. (7-0) File #27 A communication recommending that the City Manager be authorized to execute the 2001-02 Community Development Block Grant Agreement with the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce. Adopted Resolution No. 35524-082001. (7-0) File #99-236 A communication recommending acceptance of the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Incentive Program. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35525-082001 and Resolution No. 35526-082001. (7-0) File #60-236-305 7 o A communication recommending approval of revised fees for use of City park facilities and services, effective September 1,2001. Adopted Resolution No. 35527-082001. (7-0) File #67-289 o A communication recommending acceptance of bids submitted by Magic City Motor Corporation and J. W. Burress, Inc., for one cab/chassis and one hydraulic crane for the Parks and Recreation Department. Adopted Resolution No. 35528-082001. (7-0) File #67-472 7e A communication in connection with funding for the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35529-082001. (7-0) File #60-246 ge A communication in connection with acceptance of Library of Virginia Infopowering Grant funds for the purpose of purchasing four computers each for Raleigh Court and Williamson Road Branch Libraries. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35530-082001 and Resolution No. 35531-082001. (7-0) File #60-236-323-472 Council Member Wyatt requested a report on the number of computers in each branch library and the main library. 8 A communication recommending acceptance of a certain Local Law Enforcement Block Grant from the United States Department of Justice, in the amount of $140,859.00, with the City providing $15,657.00 in local match. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35532-082001 and Resolution No. 35533-082001. (7-0) File #5-60-236 10. A communication recommending that the City Manager be authorized to execute the Automatic Fire Aid Agreement with the City of Salem; and authorize notice of termination of the lease of the fire station located at 4810 Salem Turnpike, N. W. (Fire Station No. 12). Adopted Ordinance No. 35534 on first reading. (4-3, Council Members Wyatt, Harris, and Hudson voted no.) File #70-373 b. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: A report transmitting unaudited financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. Received and filed. File #1-10 6. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. 8. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: NONE. 9 10. 9. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: ao Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Members of City Council. Vice-Mayor Carder commended the City administration/City staff on measures which were taken that resulted in the City's unaudited year end fund balance as reported by the Director of Finance under item 5.b.1. File #60-80-184 Council Member Hudson expressed appreciation to those citizens of Roanoke who have supported him in his position regarding curbside refuse collection and the need for a bond referendum on the $31 million bond issue. File #53-144 be Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council. OTHER HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. IT IS A TIME FOR CITIZENS TO SPEAK AND A TIME FOR COUNCIL TO LISTEN. MATTERS REQUIRING REFERRAL TO THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE REFERRED IMMEDIATELY FOR ANY NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT TO COUNCIL. THE MEETING OF ROANOKE CITY 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, FOR A JOINT MEETING OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL AND THE ROANOKE CITY SCHOOL BOARD. l0 Ms. Harriet W. Stanley, 1424 West Drive, S. W., requested that her status on the phYsically challenged list for solid waste collection be immediately and permanently restored. File #66-144 Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., expressed concern with regard to the nejd for better communication between Council and the citizens of Roanoke. She advised that the City of Roanoke does not provide a participatory government because citizens are not allowed to engage in dialogue with Council members during Council meetings, citizens are given only five minutes at Council meetings to make remarks, and citizens are not permitted to address Council in work sessions. File #66-132-175 THE MEETING WAS DECLARED IN RECESS AT 5:35 P.M., TO BE RECONVENED AT 5:45 P. M., IN THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM, ROOM 159, NOEL C. TAYLOR MUNICIPAL BUILDING, FOR A JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL AND THE SCHOOL BOARD. ROANOKE CITY CO UNCIL REGULAR SESSION August 20, 2001 7:00P. M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL Call to Order-- Roll Call. (Council Member White was absent.) The Invocation was delivered by Council Member C. Nelson Harris. The Pledge of Allegiance to thc Flag of the United States of America was lcd by Mayor Ralph K. Smith. Welcome. Mayor Smith. NOTICE: Meetings of Roanoke City Council are televised live on RVTV Channel 3. Today's meeting will be replayed on Channel 3 on Thursday, August 23,2001, at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, August 25, 2001, at 4:00 p.m. Council meetings are now being offered with closed captioning for the hearing impaired. 12 A. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A joint public hearing by City Council and the City Planning Commission to consider the Vision 2001 Comprehensive Plan, City of Roanoke, dated August 3,2001. Adopted O~'dinance No. 35535-082001. (6-0) File #200-424 o Public hearing on the question of rezoning that certain tract of land containing approximately 2.80 acres, more or less, located on Colonial Avenue, S. W., being a portion of a larger tract of land bearing Official Tax No. 1570101', from RS-2, Residential Single-family District, to C-2, General Commercial District. Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager. Adopted Ordinance No. 35536-082001. (6-0) File #51 Public heating on the sale of City property on Colonial Avenue, S. W., to Carilion Health Systems (CHS, Inc.), containing approximately 2.80 acres, more or less, and being a portion of Official Tax No. 1570101, and a 50-foot easement for a term of five years across adjacent City-owned property located on Colonial Avenue, upon certain terms and conditions. Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager. Adopted Ordinance No. 35537-082001. (6-0) File #2-166-221 o Public heating on a request of Lee Hi Land Group that conditions on property located on the north side of Orange Avenue, N. E., one-quarter mile east of Granby Street, Official Tax No. 7140114, which was rezoned pursuant to Ordinance No. 33516-080497, be amended. Robert Copty, Managing Parmer, Spokesperson. Adopted Ordinance Bestpitch voted no.) File #51 No. 35538-082001. (5-1, Council Member o Public hearing on the request of Larry Bly and Martin Hall that property located at 322 Bullitt Avenue, S. E., Official Tax No. 4013516, be rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to C- 1, Office District. Eric R. Spencer, Attorney. To be readvertised for public hearing on Monday, September 17, 2001 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. File #51 Public hearing on the request of Kayser Properties, LLC, that a portion of Old Thirlane Road, N. W., bounded on the west by 1-581 and on the east by property bearing Official Tax No. 5420106, be permanently vacated, discontinued and closed. Jon Hager, Vice-President, Ventures, Ltd., Spokesperson. To be readvertised for public hearing on Monday, September 17, 2001 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. File #514 Public hearing on the request of Newbem Properties, LP., that property located at the terminus of Tuckawana Circle, N. W., containing approximately 1.67 acre, Official Tax No. 6472003, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Jess Newbem, Spokesperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 35539-082001. (6-0) File #51 Public hearing on the issue of whether the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, should be amended to prohibit the keeping of cattle, sheep, goats and swine in areas of the City not zoned for agricultural use, unless on a farm of five acres, in size or larger. Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager. Adopted Ordinance No. 35540-082001. (6-0) File #24-54-66 14 B. OTHER HEARING OF CITIZENS: CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. IT IS A TIME FOR CITIZENS TO SPEAK AND A TIME FOR COUNCIL TO LISTEN. MATTERS REQUIRING REFERRAL TO THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE REFERRED IMMEDIATELY FOR ANY NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT TO COUNCIL. Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., corrected a statement made by the Mayor at the 2:00 p.m. session, in which he advised that he had met with Ms. Helen E. Davis following the last City Council meeting. She clarified that the meeting did not relate to City business, but involved Mayor Smith as a private citizen and not as a member of City Council. File #54-66-132-175 Ms. Bethel suggested that instead of prohibiting goats in the City of Roanoke (see public hearing 5.a.8), the City should use goats as a means of clearing overgrown City lots of grass and Weeds. Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., continued her remarks which were presented at the 2:00 p.m. Council session. She advised that there are numerous City projects, all proceeding on a fast track, and citizens are not permitted to engage in dialogue with Council Members within the confines of the three to five minutes that they are allotted to speak at City Council meetings. She suggested that Council Members meet with citizens in the four quadrants of the City to engage in dialogue on matters of mutual interest and concern. File #66-132 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 20th day of August, 2001. NO. 35514-082001. A RESOLUTION paying tribute to Carl H. Kopitzke, upon his relinquishment of the chair of the Mill Mountain Advisory Committee, and expressing to him the appreciation of this City and its people for his exemplary public service. WHEREAS, Mr. Kopitzke began his service as chair of the Committee, then known as the Mill Mountain Development Committee, in January 1986; and WHEREAS, Mr. Kopitzke was a guiding force in the re/titalization of the picnic and recreational areas on Mill Mountain; and WHEREAS, Mr. Kopitzke led in efforts to dedicate the star overlook on Mill Mountain as the M. Carl Andrews Overlook; and WHEREAS, Mr. Kopitzke led in the design and creation of the Mill Mountain Star Trail and had a hand in the design and location of the new Mill Mountain Discovery Center. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. City Council adopts this means of recognizing, commending and expressing appreciation for the many years of service rendered to the City of Roanoke and its people by Carl H. Kopitzke as a member and chair of the Mill Mountain Advisory Committee. H. Kopitzke. The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this Resolution to Mr. Carl ATTEST: City Clerk. H :LM EA SURESh'- kopiW..ke. 1 - jj J ~- j CITY OF ROANOKE WHEREAS, evidence of early human settlement in the Roanoke Valley can be dated to 11,500 years ago; and · WHEREAS, groups ofwoodlandlndians known as the Totero andMonican tribes built their wigwams and log houses to be the first "Roanokers"; and WHEREAS, centuries would come and go, and the American Indians were the only people in this area; and WHEREAS, the first Roanoke Valley exploration was led by Europeans, Thomas Batts and Robert Fallam in 1671; and WHEREAS, a Virginia State marker has been erected in southeast Roanoke and is dedicated to those Native Americans who called what we know today as Roanoke, their home. NO~, THEREFORE, L Ralph IC Smith, Mayor of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the month of September 2001, throughout this great All- America City, as NATIVE AMERICAN MONTH. Given under our hands and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twentieth day of August in the year two thousand and one. ATTEST: Mary F. Parker City Clerk Mayor REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ..... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL July 16, 2001 2:00 p.m. The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday, July 16, 2001, 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 W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., William White, Sr., Linda F. Wyatt, William D. Bestpitch, William H. Carder, 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 meeting was opened with a prayer byThe Reverend James Beatty, Pastor, Bethel AME Church, Cave Spring. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Ralph K. Smith. PRESENTATIONS: TRAFFIC-COUNCIL-CHURCHES-DECEASED PERSONS: The Mayor advised that on Sunday, July 1, 2001, 12 youth and two adults from Virginia Heights Baptist Church who were returning to Roanoke from a Christian youth camp in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, were involved in an accident; three youth remain in the hospital with serious and critical injuries; and Miss Jessika Lewis, a 13 year old youth who was critically injured in the accident, passed away on Friday, July 6, 2001. Vice-Mayor Carder offered the following resolution expressing sympathy to the congregation of Virginia Heights Baptist Church, and to the family of Miss Jessika Lewis: ACTION: (#35457-071601) A RESOLUTION expressing sympathy to the congregation of Virginia Heights Baptist Church and their pastor, our fellow Council member, The Reverend C. Nelson Harris. (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35457-071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) PROCLAMATIONS: The Mayor presented a Proclamation declaring Sunday, August 5, 200'1, as National Kids Day. (For full text, see proclamation on file in the City Clerk's Office.) CONSENT AGENDA The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent Agenda were considered to be routine by the Members of Council and would be enacted by one motion in the form, or forms, listed on the Consent Agenda, and if discussion was desired, that item would be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. He called specific attention to one request for a Closed Meeting to discuss appointment of a new Municipal Auditor. COUNCIL-MUNICIPALAUDITOR: Acommunication from Council Member William White, Sr., Chair, Audit Committee, requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss appointment of a new Municipal Auditor, pursuant to Section 2.'1-344 (A)('1), Code of Virginia ('1950), as amended, was before the body. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) ACTION: ACTION: Mr. White moved that Council concur in the request of Council Member White to convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss appointment of a new Municipal Auditor, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) ZONING: A communication from Edward A. Natt, Attorney, representing Southside Development Company, with regard to rezoning a parcel of land containing 4.05 acres, more or less, designated as Official Tax No. 2280601, situate at the southeast terminus of Bean Street, N. W. (Tract III, Eden Park), from C-1, Commercial District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, was before Council. He explained that the City Clerk discovered that the legal advertisement for the public hearing on July 16 was not published in The Roanoke Times; his client is under severe time guidelines and constraints; as a result of the newspaper's mistake, the matter would normally not be heard until the Council meeting on August 20 at 7:00 p.m.; however, his client requests that Council make an exception to its normal policy and authorize the matter to be advertised for public hearing at the regular meeting of Council to be held on Monday, August 6, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. White moved that Council concur in the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None ......................................................................... -0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) CITY PROPERTY-LEASES: A communication from the City Manager advising that following the request of the Specific Reading and Learning Difficulties Association (commonly referred to as Montessori School) to cancel its lease of property located at 3379 Colonial Avenue with the City of Roanoke, which request was granted, to be effective September 1,2001, the City was contacted by a parents group, The New Vista Montessori School, which is interested in leasing a portion of the property for a similar purpose and have proposed a term of one year at $3000; and in order to consider a new lease, Council must hold a public hearing, was before the body. The City Manager recommended that the City Clerk be authorized to advertise a public hearing for Monday, August 6, 2001, to consider entering into a new lease for the building and approximately 7.2 acres of real estate associated with property located at 3379 Colonial Avenue, S. W. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) ACTION: Mr. White moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City Manager. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None ......................................................................... -0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) The C~ty Manager presented copy of a communication from Jeffrey D. Krantz, representing New Vista Montessori School, advising that the terms of the lease are as follows: One year with the request to renew year to year for an additional four years, Annual lease fee of $3,000.00, and General upkeep and maintenance of property and grounds will be the responsibility of New Vista Montessori School. 4 ACTION: OATHS OF OFFICE-ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION-YOUTH- PENSIONS-COMMITTEES: The following reports of qualification were before Council: Sharon Hicks as a member of the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term ending May 31, 2004; George Kegley as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission for a term ending June 30, 2002; and William E. Skeen as a member of the Board of Trustees, City of Roanoke Pension Plan, for a term ending June 30, 2005. (See Oaths or Affirmations of Office on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. White moved that the reports of qualification be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) REGULAR AGENDA HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: HOUSING/AUTHORITY-TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY- HABITAT FOR HUMANITY: William Poe, representing the Roanoke Regional Housing Network, presented copy of the 21st Century Challenge to Eliminate Substandard Housing in the Roanoke Valley report. He advised that the 21st Century Challenge was first introduced to Roanoke in the fall season of 1999, and since that time the committee, which is composed of representatives of the Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation, Total Action Against Poverty, Habitat for Humanity, City of Roanoke, Northwest Neighborhood Environmental Organization, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority and the Council of Community Services, developed the housing report. He stated that the challenge is to eliminate substandard housing in the City of Roanoke within ten years and Members of City Council are requested to accept that challenge. Over the past 18 months, he noted that 26 organizations have surveyed seven inner City neighborhoods, in order to provide a bench mark from which to build in view of the numerous opportunities to improve housing in the City of Roanoke. He stated that there is no justification for substandard housing in Roanoke City today because of existing resources; however those resources need to be better allocated, with a commitment to housing. He requested that Council accept the challenge and make a commitment to eliminate substandard housing which cannot be done by government alone, but requires the assistance of neighborhood organizations, churches, and for profit and not for profit groups. He stated that the recommendations contained in the 21st Century Report are broken down into three areas: legislative, administrative and funding as set forth in Volume I, Pages 1 - 11. Administratively, he noted that additional support is requested to make the Rental Compliance Program mandatory, that the City continue to provide the Vacant House Catalogue and create a loan pool of $10 million for inner city housing projects and renovation by utilizing a combination of municipal bonds, a Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority Iow interest bond issue and Community Development Block Grant funds as a loan loss reserve to entice lending institutions to re-establish a loan pool. Elizabeth Middleton, Director of Community Development and Outreach, Total Action Against Poverty, advised that survey instruments were developed in the spring of 2000 by a partnership which included representatives of Roanoke City, the Northwest Neighborhood Environmental Organization, interns, and Total Action Against Poverty. She stated that surveys were conducted by individuals and representatives of community groups and more than 25 different community groups participated in the actual survey taking. She referred to Volume I of the report which consists of information about each neighborhood, housing conditions, including color coded maps, and Volume II which provides a list of all vacant properties within the neighborhoods that were surveyed that offer opportunities for future development. She explained that the survey is accurate within plus or minus five per cent and is intended to serve as an overall snapshot of the conditions of housing within the City of Roanoke. Theodore J. Edlich, Executive Director, Total Action Against Poverty, advised that over 50 per cent of housing in the downtown neighborhoods is in good condition; and one-fourth of all lots in inner city neighborhoods are vacant with approximately $20,000.00 worth of infrastructure on each lot. He stated that only 142 structures were identified as boarded up buildings, which is a Iow number of houses where significant impact could be made, because each of those houses has a detrimental effect on the blocks and the neighborhoods in which they are located, and they depreciate the worth of housing and discourage additional housing. He noted that housing is also an economic development issue; there are approximately 1800 vacant lots and if a $100,000.00 house is constructed on each of those lots, $2 million of additional revenues would be generated to the City, and, based on the number of persons per household, there could be as many as 5000 additional persons which would help to increase the City's population to over the 100,000 mark at which point the City would become the beneficiary of other kinds of government resources. He noted that downtown housing will not happen in and of itself, but only if plans are developed and a commitment is made to make a difference, and it is believed that the neighborhoods, along with the entire community, are interested in targeting downtown neighborhoods in order to bring them up to a quality level. He referred to a communication from Dr. Anthony Stavola, Past President, Greater Raleigh Court Civic League, urging City leaders to use the 21st Century Report and recommendations, along with recommendations from the Roanoke Renaissance report, to develop a strategy to revitalize inner city neighborhoods, to strengthen the rental inspection program effort, and to develop new programs to promote home ownership and incentives that will encourage new housing development while preserving older housing that is in sound condition. There was discussion in regard to specific models used by other localities that could help the City of Roanoke to implement certain recommendations contained in the report; the proposed new research centre on South Jefferson Street which will attract persons to the area who will have a choice as to where they live in the Roanoke Valley which will involve sensitive issues that need to be addressed, along with construction of infill housing with the proper design specifications so that houses will be compatible with the character of the neighborhoods; some communities in the Commonwealth of Virginia have offered creative housing enticements to new teachers and law 7 enforcement officers by identifying houses in need of renovation and making the housing available with Iow interest loans and/or grants to renovate the structures; with Iow interest loans and there is a need for commitment from the private sector to create market rate housing and to reclaim vacant lots. Estelle H. McCadden, 2128 Mercer Avenue, N. W., representing the Presidents' Council of Neighborhood Organizations, encouraged citizens to insure that their neighborhoods are listed correctly in the housing report. She read a communication from the Presidents' Council advising that the report represents a comprehensive survey of housing conditions in inner city areas; neighborhood groups represented by the Presidents' Council have been at the forefront of the day to day battles to save Roanoke's neighborhoods; the vitality and growth of the City are linked to this effort and if these neighborhoods do not receive the attention and investment they need to build on efforts already underway, none of the City's efforts in economic development, parks improvements, or new facilities will be successful in the long term; and if the City is to provide the mix of housing options necessary to stabilize its population and to bring new residents to the community, these areas must be revitalized. (See communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Bob Caudle, 4231 Belford Street, S. W., advised that residents of the Greater Deyerle area believe that the entire City is their neighborhood and wish to offer their assistance as needed. Mark Petersen, President, Southeast Action Forum, endorsed the recommendations contained in the housing report. He stated that he chose to live in the southeast quadrant of the City because it is an affordable area; however, many homes are rented to persons who have no vested interest in the house in which they reside, the property owner will do only the minimal amount of work that is necessary to keep the house in repair in order to comply with the housing code; however, the housing code does not go far enough to encourage the sale of the house to an individual who would be interested in relocating to the City of Roanoke. Second, he added that there is a problem with weed abatement and abandoned vehicles, which are issues that can be easily corrected if the current complaint system is eliminated; i.e: a neighbor calls the City to report overgrown lawns that need to be mowed or vehicles that need to be removed. He encouraged the City to move away from the current complaint system to a more proactive system by hiring additional code enforcement officers to focus on these types of complaints which will eliminate the need for reporting complaints by citizens, because many citizens are reluctant to report code violations for fear of retaliation from their neighbors. He called attention to the plight of elderly citizens who cannot afford to make improvements to their homes and suggested that they be given a six year real estate tax assessment deferment, which would enable them to pay the deferment in six years at a Iow interest loan and invest the money that would be used for the tax assessment for housing repairs. Mr. Ern Reynolds, 2059 Westover Avenue, S. W., presented information on implementing a public/private partnership for older structures. (See document entitled, "Gentrifying Our Aging Houses and Old Buildings" on file in the City Clerk's Office.) V. Lee Wolfe, 206 Rutherford Court, N. W., President, Gainsboro Neighborhood Alliance, endorsed the challenge to eliminate substandard housing in Roanoke City. She advised that residents and the decency of their home environment give balance and integrity to the City and to the entire Roanoke Valley; and strict and immediate adherence to the recommendations in the final report submitted by the Roanoke Regional Housing Network will meet the objectives of the Gainsboro Neighborhood Alliance, Valley Beautiful and her personal mission which is to save Roanoke City from further distraction and decline. (See communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) No other persons wishing to address Council, and there being no further questions or comments by Council Members, without objection, the Mayor advised that the 21st Century Report and remarks of speakers would be received and filed. VITAL SIGNS-THE NEW CENTURY COUNCIL: Robert B. Manetta advised that in 1992, The New Century Council movement reviewed regional solutions to problems that multiple jurisdictions face, and the Vital Signs report was one of the projects that evolved from recommendations by a variety of components of The New Century Council study process. He introduced Priscilla Richardson, Communications and Marketing Consultant, to present findings contained in the Vital Signs report. Ms. Richardson advised that in the early 1990's, more than 1,000 citizen volunteers participated in a visioning process which identified goals and strategies for an area encompassing more than 500,000 people in western Virginia, including the Counties of Allegheny, Bland, Botetourt, Craig, Floyd, Franklin, Giles, Montgomery, Pulaski, Roanoke, Smyth and Wythe and the Cities of Clifton Forge, Covington, Radford, Roanoke and Salem, which was officially designated as Virginia's Technology Corridor in 1997 by the Virginia General Assembly. She further advised that a number of regional projects grew from the original vision formulated by citizens of the region, one of the most prominent was the Vital Signs report. She stated that the project began in 1997 through numerous public meetings and discussions on indicators, or objective measures, which assess an area's environmental, social and economic health; and in 1998, the first data report, "Vital Signs: Community Indicators for the New Century Region", was published. She advised that in 1999 a second report, "Toward Sustainability: Virginia's Technology Corridor in the 21't Century", was published, which provided a detailed discussion of sustainable development and analysis of new subjective data on perceptions of residents of their quality of life; and "Vital Signs: Sustainability Indicators for Virginia's Technology Corridor" is the third report published as a result of the project, which provides a background on the project, describes national and international sustainable development movements and connects Vital Signs with the initiative led by the Environmental Law Institute. Ms. Richardson explained that according to analysis of the data in the Vital Signs report, Virginia's Technology Corridor has made only modest improvements in social, economic and environmental indicators over the past several years, despite the strong economy, and for this reason, the region needs to take bolder stops toward building a more sustainable society; and major findings of the report include: The region comprises only 7.7 per cent of the population of Virginia (down from 8.2 per cent in 1990, which translates into less state legislative influence, but greater opportunity to build a sustainable society; Pounds of solid waste per year per person increased to 1,758, still above the national average of 1600 pounds; Total parks and recreational acres per 1,000 residents (1,297) remains well above the total for Virginia (291), but the region needs to take bolder steps to prevent the gradual erosion of agricultural land by urban sprawl; Births to teenage girls (ages 15 - 17) declined in 1996 and 1997, but increased in 1998 and were down slightly in 1999; Child abuse figures declined from 1998 to 1999, but remains above the rate per 1,000 children compared to Virginia; Elder abuse figures remain higher than figures for Virginia; Person-to-person and property crime rates remain under those of Virginia, but juvenile arrest rates are higher and increased since 1996; Education, SOL scores have improved, but percentage of fully accredited schools remains below the percentage for the entire state; Health indicators show improvements in pre-natal care; infant mortality rates are better than rates for Virginia, but increased from 1996 to 1998; accidental death rates have been falling, as have suicide rates, but suicide rates remain higher than those of the state; and Economic indicators show growth in per capita income (but figures are still below the state and nation), slow employment growth compared to the state, and educational levels (high school and college graduates lower than those of the state or nation). In closing, Ms. Richardson advised that the report concludes with three recommendations for business, government and non-profit organizations; i.e.: Participate in "education for sustainability" a task in which the news media is crucial to show the links among the environment, the economy and the community; Keep, refine and use indicators of sustainability; and Move the community toward sustainability by daily, organizational and individual action. (See Vital Signs report on file in the City Clerk's Office.) There being no questions or comments, without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the Vital Signs report and remarks of Ms. Richardson would be received and filed. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: None. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: None. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: WORKERS COMPENSATION-CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that all employees of the City of Roanoke are covered by workers' compensation as required by state law; the City of Roanoke is self-administered and self-insured for Workers' Compensation; currently, the City experiences approximately 400 new Workers' Compensation claims annually, and continues to administer some active claims from previous years, which involve significant amounts of paperwork and can be handled more efficiently by a company that deals with workers' compensation exclusively; and the Office of Risk Management initiated an evaluation process to determine the logic of employing a Workers' Compensation Third Party Administrator. It was further advised that after submission of requests for proposals, non-binding on the part of the City, four Third Party Administrators were interviewed, with Landin, Inc., being the clear choice of all panel members; Landin proposes to administer all workers' compensation claims for the City for a fee comparable to that of hiring a workers' compensation specialist to replace the person who recently retired; Landin has offered the assurance that all injured City employees will receive quality service to speed their recovery; use of a Third Party Administrator should enable the Office of Risk Management to spend more time administering general liability and automobile liability claims; and these classes of claims have the greatest potential financial impact to have their outcomes affected by extra time and effort devoted to their investigation and administration. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to enter into a one year contract, with an option to renew for two additional one year periods by mutual agreement, with Landin, Inc., to perform Third Party Administrator functions for Workers' Compensation for the City of Roanoke, in an amount not to exceed $40,000.00 per annum. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder offered the following resolution: "A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a bid and execution of a contract with Landin, Inc., for the provision of services as a third party administrator for workers' compensation claims for the City upon certain terms and conditions, and rejecting all other bids received." Mr. Carder moved the adoption of the resolution. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson. There was discussion in regard to controlling costs; will private company encourage employees to return to work as soon as possible; will employees find themselves in a position where theywill be dealing with a company over which the City has no control; there should be a clear understanding of budget complications; and Council Members should be provided with a summary of major contract provisions. In view of the number of unanswered questions by Council Members, Mr. White moved that action on the report be tabled. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted. Later during the meeting, Mr. Hudson moved that the matter be removed from the table. The motion was seconded by Mr. White and adopted, Council Member Wyatt abstained from voting. The City Manager presented copy of the proposed contract with Landin, Inc., which provides for a flat fee of $40,000.00. She advised that there is no financial incentive other than to manage the City's entire Worker's Compensation caseload, with a goal to assist the employee into the proper medical setting so that he or she can return to work as soon as possible. She explained that the reduction of one full time staff position, with salary and benefits, exceeded the $40,000.00 contract fee with Landin, Inc.; Workmen's Compensation law provides that any company serving on the City's behalf should not release an employee to return to work until the employee is released by his or her personal physician; and the expertise that the City is seeking through the contract with Landin, Inc., is to insure that the City has proper medical case management. She called attention to a provision in the contract that provides for the agreement to be renewed for two successive 12 month periods unless there is 90 days advance notice to the contrary by the City. The City Manager explained that the City of Roanoke is one of the few communities that continues to administer Worker's Compensation claims and inasmuch as the entire field has become more complex, it is not unusual for municipalities to seek outside expert assistance. Ms. Wyatt referred to that portion of the contract which provides that court costs and fees, attorney fees, fees for under cover operatives and detectives, costs for professional expert testimony, opinions or advice, claims for medical examination fees, costs for reports from government agencies, certain medical and vocational rehabilitation costs, costs for printing and photocopying are not covered in the $40,000.00 contract fee. She advised that such expenses can be costly items and inquired as to the responsible party for making the determination on when those services are necessary. The City Manager advised that excluded costs are currently incurred by the City on occasion, outside of an analysis of the comparison costs of the staff position versus contract costs. She explained that excluded costs would be authorized by the City in advance and the contract would be clarified accordingly. Mr. Hudson inquired if the City has written documentation from other jurisdictions that have used outside contractors; whereupon, the City Manager advised that she would respond to the question at a later date. Mr. White called attention to the need for a provision in the contract which would require the City's approval on costs in excess of a certain dollar amount. Additionally, he stated that there is no non-discrimination provision in the proposed contract, although he was of the understanding that Council intended for all contracts entered into by the City to contain a standard non-discrimination policy. He also inquired as to the average of excluded costs incurred by the City over the past three years; whereupon, the City Manger advised that she would respond to the question at a later date. The Director of Finance advised that in fiscal year 2000-01, the City spent $1,050,000.00 on Worker's Compensation wages and medical claims, $800,000.00 is budgeted in fiscal year 2001-02, and the types of costs under consideration are immaterial compared to that number. In view of additional unanswered questions, Mr. Hudson moved that the matter be tabled until the next regular meeting of Council on Monday, August 6, 2001. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted. In response to a request by the City Manager for clarification of the types of information to be provided, Members of Council requested the following: What safeguards are included in the contract to protect the City's interests in regard to excluded costs, and at what point would Landin, Inc., be required to obtain the City's approval for such expenses. How will the new system benefit City employees? A copy of the request for proposals which contains the scope of services. There should be more communication between the City administration and Council Members on questions pertaining to agenda items prior to the Council meeting. The proposed contract with Landin, Inc., and any other contract entered into by the City, should contain a standard non-discrimination clause. Copy of documentation from other jurisdictions of comparable size to Roanoke in regard to advantages of using outside contractors; and additional costs incurred in addressing workers' compensation claims. There was discussion with regard to including the non-discrimination clause in all City contracts, in which Mr. White and Ms. Wyatt requested that the record reflect that they intend to vote against any City contract that does not include the non-discrimination clause. GENERAL SERVICES-BUDGET-CITY INFORMATION SYSTEMS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Management Services Fund provides organizational support services for photocopying, postage, printing and courier services; responsibility for Management Services currently lies with the Department of Management and Budget (DMB); however, DMB's approved strategic business plan reassigns the responsibilities of the Management Services Fund to other departments, as follows: Courier, mail processing and printing activities is reassigned to the Department of General Services; and Photocopying is reassigned to the Department of Technology due to the impending convergence of photocopying and printer technology. The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a budget ordinance reallocating revenues and appropriations from the Management Services Fund to the Departments of General Services and Technology. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35458-071601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 General, Water, Sewage, Civic Center, Department of Technology, Materials Control, Management Services, Fleet Management, and Risk Management Funds Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) ACTION: Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35458-071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. White and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) BUDGET-PARKS AND RECREATION-CMERP: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that on October 2, 2001, Council concurred in funding recommendations for fiscal year 2000-01 Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP); CMERP is used to fund equipment purchases, maintenance and other one-time priority purchases; the need has been identified to resurface, repair and restripe various tennis and basketball courts for Parks and Grounds Maintenance; and by Council approval is required for appropriation of funds from CMERP in order to acquire services. It was further advised that bids were requested after due and proper advertisement; three (3) bids were received and evaluated; and McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc., was the Iow responsive and responsible bidder and meets the required specifications. The City Manager recommended that $99,900.00 be appropriated from prior fiscal year's CMERP to an account in the Capital Projects Fund entitled, "Repair, Restripe and Resurface Tennis/Basketball Courts"; and that the City Manager be authorized to accept the bid of McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc., at a total cost of $99,900.00; and reject all other bids received by the City. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Hudson offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35459-071601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 General and Capital Projects Funds Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) ]7 ACTION: Mr. Hudson moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35459-071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch. Mr. White requested a list of projects included for funding from the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program by location. With regard to future reports, Mr. Bestpitch requested information identifying companies submitting bids, the amount of the bids, and the City Engineer's estimate of the project versus the actual Iow bid. He stated that it would be his preference to receive that level of detail on future projects. Ordinance No. 35459-071601 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) Mr. Carder offered the following emergency ordinance: (#35460-071601) AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of McNeil Asphalt Maintenance, Inc., to repair, resurface and restripe tennis and basketball courts for Parks and Grounds Maintenance, upon certain terms and conditions; and rejecting all other bids made for such items; and providing for an emergency. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) ACTION: Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35460-071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUDGET-FIRE DEPARTMENT- EQUIPMENT: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City currently has 58 Keyboard Data Terminals (KDTs) that are in use in vehicles of the Police (54) and Fire Departments (4); KDTs are no longer in production by Motorola and replacement parts are no longer manufactured; advances in technology offer the City the opportunity to employ mobile computers that increase Police Officer safety and efficiency; evaluation of current technology and objectives set forth by the Public Safety Team caused the Panasonic CF28 to be the preferred mobile computer by the City of Roanoke; Roanoke City, Roanoke County, and the Town of Vinton participated in a Request For Quotation for mobile computers and required accessories; and vendors offering the Panasonic CF28, as well as vendors offering comparatively designed mobile computers, were invited to submit competitive bids. It was further advised that eight bids were received and evaluated; the evaluation revealed that GTSI Corporation's bid of $5,406.00 per mobile computer, mount, operating system software and extended warranty was the Iow bid; the Vehicle Radio Modem and Text Messenger required to operate the mobile computers were bid only by Motorola, Inc., at a price of $3,097.00 per unit, at a total cost per unit of $8,503.00; funding totaling $340,120.00 is included in Account No. 013-052-9831-9203 for the purchase of 40 mobile computers and required components; and the remaining 18 units, totaling $153,054.00, will be funded from the Department of Technology's prior years retained earnings fund. The City Manager recommended that Council authorize acceptance of the bids of GTSI Corporation for the purchase of mobile computers, pursuant to details of the bid dated May 16, 2001; Motorola, Inc., for purchase of Vehicle Radio Modems and Text Messenger, pursuant to details of the bid dated May 16, 2001; reject all other bids received by the City; authorize the City Manager to execute all forms and agreements with GTSI Corporation and Motorola, Inc.; and appropriate $153,054.00 from Department of Technology Retained Earnings to Account No. 013-430-1602-9015. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) ACTION: Mr. Carder offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35461-071601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 Department of Technology Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35461-071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson. Ms. Wyatt expressed concern that the City has not engaged in long range planning to meet ever changing technology needs. She encouraged leasing as opposed to purchasing computers inasmuch as the technology changes at such a rapid pace. Mr. White suggested that the matter of including line items in future fiscal year budgets for technology, vehicle replacement and other items be referred to the City Manager and to fiscal year 2002-03 budget study; whereupon, without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the matter would be referred to the City Manager and to fiscal year 2002-03 budget study. Ordinance No. 35461-071601 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) Mr. Carder offered the following resolution: (#35462-071601) A RESOLUTION accepting the bid of GTSI Corporation for the purchase of mobile computers and accepting the bid of Motorola, Inc., for the purchase of vehicle radio modems and Text Messenger Software, upon certain terms and conditions, and awarding contracts therefor; authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite contracts for such items; and rejecting all other bids made to the City for the items. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) ACTION: Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35462-071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None ......................................................................... -0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) TRAFFIC-EQUIPMENT-STREETS AND ALLEYS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program for the prior year identified the need to replace two 21/2 ton dump trucks, two 10 ton dump trucks and one 15 ton dump truck in the Streets and Traffic Department; bids were requested and eight bids were received; the lowest responsive and responsible bid submitted on all chassis was Magic City Motor Corporation, at a unit cost of $36,540.00 for the 21/2 ton chassis, $45,333.00 for the 10 ton chassis and $53,892.00 for the 15 ton chassis, for a total cost of $217,638.00; the lowest responsive and responsible bid submitted on all dump bodies was Roanoke Welding Company, at a unit cost of $3,895.00 for the 2~/2 ton dump body, $4,465.00 for the 10 ton dump body and $7,200.00 for the 15 ton dump body, for a total cost of $23,920.00; and funding is available from the SunTrust Lease of Vehicle, Account No. 017-440-9851-9015. The City Manager recommended that Council authorize award of bids as above set forth, and issuance of purchase orders, in the total amount of $241,558.00, and reject all other bids received by the City. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution: (#35463-071601) A RESOLUTION accepting certain bids for the purchase of trucks and related equipment, upon certain terms and conditions, and rejecting all other bids made for such equipment. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) ACTION: Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35463- 071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) POLICE DEPARTMENT-ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT- EQUIPMENT: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Roanoke City Police Department's new building at 348 West Campbell Avenue is nearing completion; funding for the building did not include exercise equipment for a fitness room on the second floor; the Roanoke Association Chapter of the Virginia Police Benevolent Association (PBA) has offered to donate $20,000.00 toward purchase of exercise equipment, which is new equipment, including a treadmill for cardiovascular exercise, as well as free weights, benches, and protective pads for the floor; no restrictions will be imposed on the use of donated equipment by any Police Department employee, however, it is requested that a plaque be installed in the room to acknowledge the donation; and Section 2-263, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, requires action by Council to approve acceptance of gifts exceeding $5,000.00 in value. The City Manager recommended that Council authorize acceptance of exercise equipment, valued at $20,000.00, from the Roanoke Association Chapter of the Virginia Police Benevolent Association, Inc., and express appreciation for said donation. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Hudson offered the following resolution: (#35464-071601) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to accept the donation of exercise equipment, valued at $20,000.00, for the Police Department's new building from the Roanoke Association Chapter of the Virginia Police Benevolent Association, and expressing appreciation for the donation. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) ACTION: Mr. Hudson moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35464-071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) BUDGET-GRANTS-TREES: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that City staff identified a $10,000.00 Urban and Community Forestry Grant available to communities through the Virginia Department of Forestry; application for the grant was made through a proposal entitled, "Demonstration Project: Central City Tree Planting"; the project is needed because tree replacement in Roanoke's central city neighborhoods has not kept pace with other urban neighborhoods; and the Virginia Department of Forestry notified the City of Roanoke on June 5, 2001, that a grant of $10,000.00 was awarded to the City of Roanoke for the project. It was further advised that the Urban and Community Forestry Grant is a Federal grant sponsored by the U. S. Forest Service and administered by the Virginia Department of Forestry; funds are awarded on a reimbursement basis after verification of match; the grant requires a 50 per cent local match; sufficient matching funds were identified using $3,674.00 funds from Supplies-Trees Account No. 001-053-4340- 3004, a Parks and Grounds operating budget account, and $6,326.00 in kind match using department labor and equipment costs; the $10,000.00 grant award will be used to purchase an estimated 50 trees at an estimated cost of $200.00 each, which will be purchased, planted and guaranteed by a professional landscaping company; as part of the project, the City will also purchase 50 wholesale trees for planting by City employees in the central City neighborhoods in cooperation with various neighborhood organizations; a request for reimbursement of $10,000.00 will be submitted following completion of the project in the Spring of 2002; and time of performance of the project is July 1, 2001 through May 15, 2002. The City Manager recommended that Council accept the Urban and Community Forestry Grant and authorize the City Manager to execute any required grant agreement, or other related documents, such agreement to be approved as to form by the City Attorney, and appropriate $13,674.00 in Federal and local cash match funding in accounts to be established in the Grant Fund by the Director of Finance, the in-kind match of $6,326.00 will be accounted for in the Parks and Grounds operating budget; and authorize establishment of corresponding revenue estimates in the Grant Fund. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Bestpitch offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35465-071601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 General and Grant Funds Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) ACTION: Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35465-071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson. Mr. Bestpitch advised that trees are quality of life and health issues, additional initiatives will be developed in the coming weeks to address the matter, and requested that Council be receptive to measures that can be taken to prevent the loss of more trees in the City of Roanoke. Ordinance No. 35465-071601 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None ......................................................................... -0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution: (#35466-071601) A RESOLUTION accepting the Urban and Community Forestry Grant from the Virginia Department of Forestry. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) ACTION: Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35466- 071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) BUDGET-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT-COMMITTEES: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Human Services Committee budget, in the amount of $474,769.00, was established by Council with adoption of the General Fund budget for fiscal year 2001-02 on May 7, 2001; requests from 40 agencies, totaling $866,863.91 were received, and appeals were filed and heard on April 17, 2001, from the following agencies: All Star Clinics, TAP - HOPE VI Project, American Red Cross - Roanoke Chapter Disaster Services, Roanoke Adolescent Health Partnership, Northwest Neighborhood Environmental Organization, and Presbyterian Community Center; all appeals were denied and performance audits will be conducted by the Council of Community Services to evaluate effectiveness and efficiency of funded programs. The City Manager recommended that Council transfer $474,769.00 from the Human Services Committee, Account No. 001-630- 5220-3700, to new line items to be established in the Human Services Committee budget by the Director of Finance, as set forth on Attachment 1 to the report; and that the City Manager be further authorized to execute contracts with The Salvation Army for the Homeless Housing Program - Red Shield Lodge, ($14,000.00) and Abused Women's Shelter - The Turning Point, ($14,000.00); St. John's Community Youth Program, Inc., ($5,000.00); and the Council of Community Services, for performance audits ($11,000.00). (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) ACTION: Mr. Hudson offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35467-071601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 General Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Hudson moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35467-071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder. Mr. White requested clarification with regard to Attachment 2 to the report which illustrates allocations/recommendations by Roanoke Valley jurisdictions, and inquired if the agencies had, in fact, requested funds from other area jurisdictions, to which question the City Manager advised that she would respond at a later date. Mr. White requested that Attachment 2 be deleted from the official record until it is known if other jurisdictions were specifically requested to provide their share of funding; whereupon, it was the consensus of Council that Attachment 2 would be withdrawn from the report, with the understanding that the City Manager will provide the requested information prior to the next meeting of Council on Monday, August 6, 2001. Ordinance No. 35467-071601 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Carder, and Mayor Smith ............................................................................ 5. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) (Council Member Bestpitch advised that his spouse is employed by the YMCA of Roanoke Valley and since a percentage of funding is allocated to the organization, he will abstain from voting.) Mr. Carder offered the following resolution: ACTION: (#35468-071601) A RESOLUTION concurring in the recommendations of the Human Services Committee ("Committee") for allocation of City funds to various nonprofit agencies and performance audits for Fiscal Year 2001- 2002; authorizing the City Manager, or her designee, to execute a contract with The Salvation Army for provision of services under the Homeless Housing Program and/or Abused Women's Shelter, to execute a contract with St. John s Community Youth Program, Inc., for provision of services, and to execute a contract with the Council of Community Services to perform the necessary audits. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35468-071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted bythe following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Carder, and Mayor Smith ............................................................................ 5. NAYS: None ......................................................................... -0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) (Council Member Bestpitch advised that his spouse is employed by the YMCA of Roanoke Valley and since a percentage of funding is allocated to the organization, he will abstain from voting.) DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: BUDGET: The Director of Finance submitted a written report advising that at the close of fiscal year 2001, budgeted funds were obligated for outstanding encumbrances; purchase orders or contracts were issued for goods and services as of the close of fiscal year 2001, but delivery of the goods or performance of the services had not been completed; reappropriation of funds carries forward the unspent budget funds that were originally appropriated and are contractually obligated for the goods and services; and appropriation amounts are as follows: General Fund Open Encumbrances Water Fund Open Encumbrances Sewage Fund Open Encumbrances 2,252,172.00 348,23O.O0 492,805.00 ACTION: Civic Center Fund Open Encumbrances Transportation Fund Open Encumbrances Department of Technology Fund Open Encumbrances Fleet Management Fund Open Encumbrances School Fund Open Encumbrances School Food Services Fund Open Encumbrances 59,952.00 960.00 144,811.00 118,989.00 1,170,053.00 24,695.00 The Director of Finance recommended that Council adopt budget ordinances reappropriating funds into the current year budget, in order that encumbrances may be properly liquidated. (For full text, see report on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. White offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35469-071601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 General Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. White moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35469-071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................ 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) Mr. Bestpitch offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35470-071601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 Water Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) ACTION: ACTION: ACTION: Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35470- 071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................ -6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) Mr. Bestpitch offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35471-071601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 Sewage Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35471- 071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) Mr. Bestpitch offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35472-071601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 Civic Center Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35472- 071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: ACTION: ACTION: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) Mr. Bestpitch offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35473-071601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 Transportation Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35473- 071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) Mr. Bestpitch offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35474-071601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 Department of Technology Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35474- 071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) 3O ACTION: ACTION: Mr. Bestpitch offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35475-071601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 Fleet Management Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35475- 071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) Mr. Bestpitch offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35476-071601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 School Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35476- 071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ............................................................................ 5. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was.) (Council Member Wyatt abstained from voting inasmuch as she is employed by the Roanoke City Public School System.) 3! ACTION: Mr. Bestpitch offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35477-071601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 School Food Services Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35477- 071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ............................................................................ 5. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) (Council MemberWyatt abstained from voting inasmuch as she is employed by the Roanoke City Public School System.) CITY ATTORNEY: CITY CODE-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Attorney submitted a written report advising that on June 18, 2001, Council adopted Ordinance No. 35423-061801, implementing recommendations contained in a letter from the City Manager to Council with regard to United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations requiring certain scientific study and evaluation every five years of the local limits section of the City's sewer use standards; following the required study, it was found that amendments to several definitions and sections of Article III, Sewer Use Standards, Chapter 26, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is required; the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) also approved the amendments; upon review of the above referenced ordinance, it appears that one definition in §26-43, Definitions, relating to chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) ratios should have been deleted; in addition, subsection (k)(1)(b)(4) of §26-56, Discharge permits for industrial waste, requires the addition of two words; and amendments are of a housekeeping nature to correct an inadvertent oversight in the previous ordinance. (For full text, see report on file in the City Clerk's Office.) ACTION: Mr. White offered the following emergency ordinance: (#35478-071601) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Chapter 26, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, Article III, Sewer Use Standards, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by amending certain subsections of §26-43, Definitions, and §26-56, Discharge permits for industrial waste, with regard to certain items specifically regulated by this Code in order to comply with regulations of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which proposed amendments have been approved by both the EPA and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ); and providing for an emergency. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. White moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35478-071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None ......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: PARKS AND RECREATION: A report of the City Planning Commission advising that the Acting Director of Parks and Recreation has requested that Washington Park be renamed to Booker T. Washington Park to reflect the history of the park; and the name change is also recommended by a citizen committee established to make improvements to Washington Park. The City Planning Commission recommended that Council rename Washington Park as Booker T. Washington Park, as requested by the citizen committee and the Department of Parks and Recreation. (For full text, see report on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution: (#35479-071601) A RESOLUTION renaming Washington Park as the Booker T. Washington Park. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) ACTION: Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35479- 071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) STREET NAMES-STREETS AND ALLEYS: A report of the City Planning Commission advising that new industrial development along Frontage Road resulted in the extension of Ordway Drive from Hershberger Road to Ferndale Drive; a cul-de-sac was installed on Ferndale Drive near William Ruffner Middle School for traffic safety purposes; and the name of the new street connection was not changed to reflect the new street pattern. The City Planning Commission recommended that Council rename Ferndale Drive from extended Ordway Drive to its terminus as Ordway Drive, and noted that there would be no change in the name of Ferndale Drive from Ferncliff Avenue to the cul-de- sac. (For full text, see report on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder offered the following resolution: (#35480-071601) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to officially name a public right-of-way located within the City. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) ACTION: Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35480-071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: 34 ACTION: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, and Mayor Smith ................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Y.M.C.A.-CITY PROPERTY: Ordinance No. 35438, authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement, deed and any related and necessary documents providing for the sale and conveyance of City- owned property located at 506 Church Avenue and the adjoining lot, bearing Official Tax Nos. 1113419 and 1113418, to the YMCA of Roanoke Valley, Inc., upon certain terms and conditions, having previously been before the Council for its first reading on Monday, July 2, 2001, read and adopted on its first reading and laid over, was again before the body, Mr. Hudson offering the following for its second reading and final adoption: (#35438-071601) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement, deed and any related and necessary documents providing for the sale and conveyance of City-owned property located at 506 Church Avenue and the adjoining lot, bearing Official Tax Nos. 1113419 and 1113418, to the YMCA of Roanoke Valley, Inc., upon certain terms and conditions. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Hudson moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35438-071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Carder, and Mayor Smith ............................................................................ 5. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) (Council Member Bestpitch abstained from voting inasmuch as his spouse is employed by the YMCA of Roanoke Valley, Inc.) MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: CELEBRATIONS-COUNCIL-STADIUM: Mr. Hudson commended The Roanoke Times on sponsoring the "Music for Americans" celebration which was held at Victory Stadium on July 4th. He stated that he was proud of the fact that the City of Roanoke has a stadium that will accommodate thousands of persons. PARKS AND RECREATION: Vice-Mayor Carder referred to the recent closure of the skateboard park which is located in Wasena Park for renovations. For the benefit of those persons who were unaware of the proposed renovations, he advised that construction will begin during the week of July 23rd and should be completed on or about August 30th. SPECIAL PERMITS-COMPLAINTS: Vice-Mayor Carder referred to telephone calls and other forms of correspondence regarding the removal of basketball goals which encroach on City property adjacent to residential homes, some of which have been in existence for 15 - 20 years. He also referred to those instances where there are cul de sacs and one way streets where young people play basketball, and inquired if the basketball goals could be treated like an easement. He requested that the City Attorney research the question of whether the City could be indemnified against liability, upon application bythe property owner. REFUSE COLLECTION-RECYCLING: Vice-Mayor Carder referred to revisions to the City's solid waste collection program, which went into effect on July 1,2001, and requires citizens, in some instances, to place their refuse containers at the curb rather than at the alley for collection. He expressed concern that neighborhoods could become littered with refuse and/or unsightly because residents may choose to store their refuse containers at the front of their property. He stated that as the City proceeds with the modified refuse collection process and, if it is discovered that neighborhoods are becoming unsightly and citizens are short cutting the process by leaving their refuse containers in front of their residence, it will be important to monitor the situation to insure that the City does not lose the integrity of its neighborhoods. Mr. Bestpitch advised that based upon recent information received by Council, approximately 50 locations have been reinstated for alley collection that had previously been designated for street collection. He stated that if there are specific locations where street collection cannot be continued for a specific reason, then alley collection should be reinstated; however, in those locations where alley collection is possible, refuse should continue to be collected from the alley. He asked that the City administration continue to move forward and evaluate the situation in an effort to accommodate as many citizens as possible. Mr. White requested an update by the City Manager on the status of refuse collection; whereupon, the City Manager expressed appreciation for Council's patience and tolerance through what has been a significant time of change for the community. She advised that the process has been a learning experience for staff in regard to the methods of communication that were used with citizens and how communication occurred as citizens called the City for assistance. She stated that every call was addressed, and as a result, 47 blocks of streets have been adjusted, which demonstrates that the City is trying to be flexible and sensitive to the concerns of its citizens. She stressed the importance of the cleanliness of the City which was demonstrated last fall when weekly collection of bulk trash and tree limbs was initiated. With regard to the modified refuse collection procedure, she advised that some mistakes were made and there were certain unforeseen circumstances that complicated the first two weeks; i.e.: the program should not have been initiated on a week that had a holidaywhich caused confusion, the City relied on the news media, the Presidents' Council of Neighborhoods and civic leagues as the primary methods of communication; however, issues of communication relating to future changes will be approached differently; and information will be mailed to each City resident by the end of the week providing an overview of the entire system. She stated that the Solid Waste Department was down by four positions when the program was started two weeks ago and two pieces of vehicular equipment were out of service, all of which were unforeseen circumstances. On the positive side, she stated that there has been a tremendous response to the recycling effort and the City is receiving calls from citizens requesting recycling containers who have not previously recycled. For the month of May, she advised that the City collected 12 tons of plastic, aluminum, cans and glass and during the first week of the current program, which was a holiday week, nine tons were collected. She stated that there 37 was confusion by citizens as to which recyclables to set out, there were a number of requests for physically challenged assistance, and some citizens were confused as to where refuse containers were to be placed, which led to a number of calls regarding miscollections and caused multiple collections in some parts of the City. She explained that the refuse collection cycle was relatively complete by Friday afternoon, July 20, and staff of Solid Waste Management was desirous of accomplishing the task on their own because there is a great sense of pride and morale in the Solid Waste division, with staff that is concerned about the cleanliness of the City as well; and the goal was to start the week of July 23 with a clean slate, with all citizens knowing the proper location to set out their refuse. She advised that Roanoke County staff worked alongside City staff on Saturday, July 21, with Roanoke County staff concentrating primarily on main streets and City crews working side streets and subdivisions; and approximately 38 tons of refuse were collected compared to a typical collection day of approximately 20 tons. She stated that collection started on Monday morning, July 16, on target with citizens having a better understanding as to the location where items were to be placed. She added that City staff has tried to insure that citizens are educated as to where their items are to be collected, a special telephone number was staffed on Saturday, July 14 to respond to questions and while some changes, are necessary, the system is beginning to work, call volumes are down compared to last week, and it is hoped that the community and Council will give City staff at least two additional weeks to make adjustments, to disseminate information and to clarify concerns. She stated that more and better services can be provided as a result of the change and taxpayers' money will be saved. She called attention to certain unsafe alleys in the City of Roanoke and noted that if refuse collection is returned to the alleys, significant changes will have to be made. Ms. Wyatt advised that she appreciates the City Manager's willingness to revisit the issue if it is determined at a future date that street collection is not working. She asked that the City not find itself so locked into the new procedure that it is not willing to revisit the issue, because Council Members and City staff are elected and/or appointed to serve the community in the most cost effective manner, but at the same time, there is a responsibility to listen to the wishes of the citizens. Mr. Hudson concurred in the remarks of Council Members Bestpitch and Wyatt. He stated that based on citizen input he has received, street refuse collection is not working. He expressed concern for those senior citizens who wish to comply with the new program, but, for physical reasons, are unable to move their refuse containers to the street for collection. The Mayor extended appreciation to Roanoke County for its willingness to assist the City on Saturday, July 21, in order to complete the weekly refuse collection cycle. He stated that on Thursday, July 19, which is his birthday, he will work on the back of a refuse collection vehicle which will give him a better understanding of the refuse collection process. He advised that several months ago, the City was approached with regard to debris build up along the banks of the Roanoke River, and on the morning of July 4th, 35 members of the Kiwanis Club collected three truck loads of debris from the banks of the Roanoke River. He stated that Kiwanians are willing to perform this volunteer task two times per year as a service to the City, and encouraged another civic organization to volunteer its services on Labor Day, September 3, 2001. EMERGENCY SERVICES-FLOOD REDUCTION/CONTROL: The Mayor advised that he recently traveled with the Roanoke Chapter of the American Red Cross to the flood ravaged areas of West Virginia. While he commended the American Red Cross on the outstanding work of its volunteers, he stated that he observed a breakdown of local emergency service management in the West Virginia area. He requested that the City Manager provide Council with an update on the City of Roanoke's Emergency Disaster Plan. OTHER HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Mayor advised that this is a time for citizens to be heard; and matters requiring referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for response, report or recommendation to Council. COMPLAINTS-REFUSE COLLECTION-RECYCLING: Ms. Josephine Hutcheson, 1111 Loudon Avenue, N. W., advised that elimination of trash collection in alleys is unfair to residents of northwest Roanoke, as well as City sanitation workers. She stated that all citizens pay taxes, however, the City insists on doing what it wants, regardless of the wishes of the citizens. She added that closing alleys is not justified to save money, and it is unfair to senior citizens who, in some instances, must maneuver their refuse containers down steep inclines to reach the street, all for the cause of saving money. She asked that alley refuse collection services be reinstated. Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., appeared before Council on behalf of all residents of Historic Gainsboro, Gilmer and Patton Avenues, N. E., and requested that residential trash collection return to procedures that were in effect prior to July 1, 2001; whereupon, she petitioned that the above referenced neighborhood be declared exempt from all curb side refuse collection. She stated that both alley and curbside collection is needed in Historical Gainsboro-- alley collection for those residents on the south side of Gilmer and Patton Avenues because topography of the land requires pushing or pulling the large blue containers down a steep hill, embankment or steps. She explained that some south side residents do not need medical exemption, but they are elderly citizens who cannot manipulate the large blue containers down and up the embankment. In addition to individual concerns, she added that residents are concerned about the health and safety of City employees who will have to negotiate hills or steps in all kinds of weather which can be hazardous. She called attention to the need for clarification as to which day refuse collection will take place in each quadrant of the City. She also requested clarification as to whether the south side of Gilmer Avenue, N. E., and the south side of Patton Avenue, N. W., will be exempt from street collection, and asked that refuse collection be returned to the pre July 1, 2001 procedure. At 5:24 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess to be immediately reconvened in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke. At 5:30 p.m., the meeting of Roanoke City Council reconvened in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding, and the following Members of Council in attendance, for the purpose of holding a joint session with the Roanoke Civic Center Commission to discuss expansion needs and special needs of the Roanoke Civic Center. PRESENT: Council Members W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., William White, Sr., Linda F. Wyatt, William D. Bestpitch, William H. Carder and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ............................................................................... 6. ABSENT: Council Member C. Nelson Harris ............................. 1. (Vice-Mayor Carder left the meeting following the presentation by the Manager of the Roanoke Civic Center.) 4O ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Vernon M. Danielsen, Mark E. Feldman, Edward L. Lambert, Robert C. Poole, Sandra W. Ryals and Calvin L. Johnson, Chair ................................................................. 6. ABSENT: Commissioner Thomas G. Powers ............................ 1. STAFF PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; James D. Grisso, Director of Finance; Mary F. Parker, City Clerk; Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Relations; Gary E. Tegankamp, Assistant City Attorney; James Evans, Manager, Roanoke Civic Center; Christene Powell, Assistant Manager, Roanoke Civic Center; and (Susan Bryant-Owens,) Secretary, Roanoke Civic Center Commission. Following dinner, the business session convened at 6:00 p.m. ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER-CONSULTANTS' REPORTS: Mr. Evans reviewed the results of a study prepared by Rosser International in October 1999, which provides for a $64 million Civic Center expansion program. Components recommended by the architect include the following: Two 32,500 square feet exhibit halls, Private boxes on three sides of the coliseum, Club seats/club lounge on the south side, Concourse renovation and expansion, Seating bowl-aisle closure/seat replacement, Restaurant/sports bar, Additional seating - raise coliseum roof, Improved back of house amenities, Auditorium renovations, Enclosure of plaza, and Parking improvements. 41 Mr. Evans advised that issues with the exhibit hall include limited availability of weekend dates during prime season (October - April), with the coliseum used as an exhibit hall 45 days per year and lost business totaling $85,000.00, or 16 event days. He stated that exhibit hall components include 32,000 square feet of open space, new kitchen facilities, new storage facilities, relocated cooling tower, ticket office and administrative office and a new truck dock/marshaling yard, at a total cost of $13,065,000.00. He reviewed the following funding sources: Exhibit Hall Cost - Additional Franchise Requirements $ 3,065,000.00 1,276,020.00 Total Project Costs $ 14,341,020.00 Operating Supplement Available for Capital Improvements New Exhibit Hall Revenue 612,870.00 150,000.00 $ 762,870.00 Available Serviceable Debt 8,391,570.00 Additional Debt Required 5,949,450.00 He also reviewed the following funding alternatives: One per cent increase in Admissions Tax - $ 114,389.00 ($1.25 million in debt service) One per cent increase in Meals Tax annually - $ 1.5 million ($17 million in debt service) One per cent in Lodging Tax - $ 850,000.00 ($10 million in debt service) Mr. Evans reviewed other short term needs, as follows: 42 HVAC replacement (over six years) $ 1,888,650.00 Auditorium 750,000.00 Fall Protection System 250,000.00 Side and End Court Risers 365,000.00 TOTAL $ 3,253,650.00 At 6:15 p.m., Vice-Mayor Carder left the meeting. The City Manager advised that the entertainment sports world views the City of Roanoke as a viable location which was indicated by recent decisions of the NBDL, SFX, and other entertainment venues; however, to this point, the Civic Center has not reached a level where the City can maximize its potential. She called attention to the National Basketball Development League (NBDL) franchise agreement, which, in anticipation of the possibility of the community expanding or upgrading the facility, recognized the opportunity to promote naming rights and the idea of luxury boxes and suites, and if and when the NBDL becomes tenants and at such time as the City is ready to move forward in those areas, they are prepared to help identify individuals and corporations to assume those responsibilities. She added that if the City were to build the same facility to the specifications that are necessary to be competitive in today's market, the $64 million figure projected by the consultant would triple. She stated that it is acknowledged that the City cannot fund a $64 million project at one time, however, some components can be funded using a phased in approach and increased revenues from activities that would be returned to the Civic Center. She advised that Roanoke has the potential to become the entertainment center of southwest Virginia and the stadium/amphitheater project will help to promote that identification. She stated that Council is not requested to make decisions on revenue sources today; however, the briefing was presented in an effort to be responsive to the Council's request for information on exhibit hall space. She advised that in talking with representatives of the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau and the General Manager of The Hotel Roanoke, there are certain conferences and conventions that make a decision not to come to Roanoke because of insufficient exhibit hall space, which has a significant economic impact on the community. At the appropriate time, she requested that Council provide City staffwith future direction which will enable the City of Roanoke to remain competitive with other localities. 43 There being no further business, at 6:45 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess 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. On Monday, July 16, 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., William White, Sr., Linda F. Wyatt, William D. Bestpitch, and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ............................................................................... 5. ABSENT: Council Members William H. Carder and C. Nelson Harris ............................................................................ -2. 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 Mayor Smith. 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, July 16, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of Lee Hi Land Group, on the question of amending proffered conditions presently binding upon a tract of land lying on the north side of Orange Avenue, N. E., Official Tax No. 7140114, as set forth in Ordinance No. 33516- 080497, adopted on August 4, 1997, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Friday, June 29, 2001 and Friday, July 6, 2001. (See publisher's affidavit on file in the City Clerk's Office.) 44 A report of the City Planning Commission recommending that Council approve the request to amend proffered conditions, advising that amended conditions address inappropriate uses of the site as well as limiting the number of curb cuts to one, was before the body. (For full text, see report on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. White offered the following ordinance: "AN ORDINANCE to amend {}36.1-3 and 36.1-4, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 714, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in order to amend certain conditions presently binding upon certain property previously conditionally zoned C-2, General Commercial District, and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance." Mr. White moved the adoption of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson. Mr. Bestpitch expressed concern that neither the petitioner or his representative was present to respond to questions. He stated that in 1997, the property was rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to a development plan; however, sale of the property was not consummated and another party is now interested in purchasing the property. He inquired as to the status of the development plan for review by City staff prior to Council's amendment of the proffered conditions. Mr. White offered a substitute motion that action on the matter be tabled inasmuch as the petitioner was not present to respond to questions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted. TAXES-BUSINESS INCUBATORS: Pursuant to action by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, July 16, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of the Blue Ridge Small Business Development Center, Inc., d/b/a The New Century Venture Center, for designation of property located at 1354 Eighth Street, S. W., to be exempted from taxation, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Sunday, July 8, 2001. (See publisher's affidavit on file in the City Clerk's Office.) A communication from the City Manager advising that the Blue Ridge Small Business Center, Inc., owns property described as Official Tax Nos. 1130511, 1130512, 1130514, 1130515, 11305'16, 1130719, 1130814, and 1130809, located at 1354 Eighth Street, S. W., which property houses The New Century Venture Center, an incubator for small businesses; annual taxes due for 2000-01 were $4,561.68 on an assessed value of $78,000.00 for the land and $299,000.00 for the building; the Blue Ridge Small Business Center, Inc., petitioned Council in January 2001, for adoption of a resolution in support of the organization obtaining tax-exempt status from the General Assembly on property located in the City of Roanoke; loss of revenue to the City will be $3,649.34 after a 20 per cent service charge is levied by the City in lieu of real estate taxes; and the service charge will be $912.34, was before Council. The City Manager recommended that Council support the request of the Blue Ridge Small Business Center, Inc., for exemption from taxation to the General Assembly, pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)6 of the Constitution of Virginia. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. White offered the following resolution: (#35481-071601) A RESOLUTION supporting tax exemption of certain property of the Blue Ridge Small Business Development Center, Inc., located in the City of Roanoke, an organization devoted exclusively to charitable or benevolent purposes on a non-profit basis. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) ACTION: Mr. White moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35481-071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch. Lisa Ison, President, The New Century Venture Center, advised that The New Century Venture Center is a business incubator that opened in July 1996 and operates as a 501 (C)(3) non-profit corporation, the sole mission of which is to nurture startup companies in the area and help them through the critical early steps of business development. She further advised that since its inception five years ago, the Center has assisted over 50 companies, graduated 12 companies and currently houses 23 tenants that employ 155 persons. She stated that the Center operates as a mixed use incubator by accepting companies involved in service, operations, high tech and light manufacturing operations, and current occupants include 17 service companies, five high tech companies, one high tech light assembly operation and ten firms represent women or minority owned businesses. Of the 12 graduates, she noted that five have remained in the City of Roanoke and now employ 33 persons; two graduates purchased their own buildings and remodeled the structures into attractive facilities, thus encouraging surrounding business owners to update their properties; another graduate was acquired by a Colorado-based telecommunications company for $13 million and because of the workforce and quality of life in the Roanoke Valley, a decision was made to remain in the Roanoke area and renovate a large facility, with creation of 40 additional high tech engineering jobs. She stated that in January 2001, The New Century Venture Center entered into a partnership with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority to create an entrepreneur training program, the purpose of which is to identify existing and prospective individuals and entrepreneurs within the City's public housing development by helping them develop their businesses into viable operations; there are two on site participants and five additional participants are scheduled to enter the program. She explained that the small business incubator is a valuable part of Roanoke City's overall economic development program which fills a void for those entrepreneurs who may not have a chance otherwise and who need an environment that is conducive to business ownership, and it is rewarding to play an important role in assisting young companies that are starting to grow into successful business operations, which creating job opportunities for Roanoke's citizens. In closing, Ms. Ison stated that The New Century Venture Center does not receive funds through the City of Roanoke and if the tax exemption is approved, the Center will continue to pay an amount equal to 20 per cent of the City's real estate tax levy. Mr. White spoke in support of the request of The New Century Venture Center; however, he called attention to previous requests that City staff review the status of 501(C)(3) non-profit corporations to provide Council with a review of current properties on the City's tax role versus tax exempt properties, and submit a policy recommendation for consideration by Council. The Mayor expressed concern with regard to the precedent of granting tax exempt status, and stated that he would prefer some type of allotment to the organization as opposed to opening the door to tax exempt status. The City Manager advised that this is an area that warrants scrutiny; a previous Council enacted a policy that applicants agree to pay 20 per cent of what would be the normal real estate tax, and 47 ACTION: previous to that decision, tax exempt agencies were not required to pay any real estate taxes; therefore, there are two different categories of tax exempt status in the City of Roanoke. She spoke in support of the request of The New Century Venture Center because it contributes directly to the economy of the City of Roanoke. Pursuant to the request of Council Member White, she advised that she would evaluate the current procedure for real estate tax exemption and provide a policy recommendation for consideration by Council. Resolution No. 35481-071601 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, and Mayor Smith ............................................................................ 5. NAYS: None ............................................................ , ............. 0. (Council Members Carder and Harris were absent.) The Mayor declared the public hearing closed. CITY PROPERTY-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Pursuant to action taken by Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, July 16, 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 approximately 1,000 square feet, more or less, of City-owned property located in Garden City Park, described as a strip of land approximately 100' x 10' between the creek and the rear property line of Official Tax No. 4390812, being a portion of Official Tax No. 4390619, to Cheryl Marie Proctor Chandler, 3655 Ventnor Road, S. E., upon certain terms and conditions, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Sunday, July 8, 2001. (See publisher's affidavit on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Due to an error in property description, the City Manager requested that the matter be withdrawn. Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the matter would be withdrawn. 48 BONDS/BOND ISSUES-WATER RESOURCES-SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER-STADIUM-SCHOOLS: Pursuant to action of the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, July 16, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, with respect to the proposed adoption of a resolution authorizing the City of Roanoke to contract a debt and to issue general obligation public improvement bonds of the City and in anticipation of the issuance thereof general obligation public improvement bond anticipation notes of the City, in the principal amount of $31,245,000.00, for the purpose of providing funds to pay the costs of acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, extension, enlargement and equipping of various public improvement projects of and for the City, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Monday, July 2, 2001 and Monday, July 9, 2001. (See publisher's affidavit on file in the City Clerk's Office.) The City Manager and the Director of Finance submitted a joint written report advising that on June 18, 2001, Council endorsed and concurred in recommendations contained in an update to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2002-2006, which included a list of new capital improvement projects and funding scenarios; and consistent with recommendations in the Capital Improvements Program update, the following capital projects contained in the updated plan need to be funded by the next issuance of bonds, pursuant to the Public Finance Act of 1991 (Code of Virginia): Crystal Spring Water Filtration Plant Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Program Schools Stadium/Amphitheater $ 5,445,000.00 5,000,000.00 4,600,000.00 16,200,000.00 Total $ 31,245,000.00 The City Manager and the Director of Finance recommended that Council adopt a measure authorizing issuance of $31,245,000.00 general obligation bonds, pursuant to the Public Finance Act of 1991 (Code of Virginia). (For full text, see report on file in the City Clerk's Office.) ACTION: Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution: "A RESOLUTION authorizing the issuance of thirty-one million two hundred forty-five thousand dollars ($31,245,000) 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 the costs of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, extension, enlargement and equipping of various public improvement projects of and for such City; 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; and otherwise providing with respect to the issuance, sale and delivery of such bonds and notes." Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of the resolution. The motion was seconded by Mr. White. Mr. Hudson advised that he supports the need for general obligation bonds; however, in good conscience, he could not support a $31 million bond issue without providing an opportunity for citizen input through a bond referendum. Mr. Bestpitch referred to the $5 million allocated for curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements and called attention to those citizens who have waited for many years for funds to be dedicated for that purpose. He stated that $5 million will take the City a long way in reaching its goals and encouraged Council Members to vote in favor of issuing the bonds. Mr. White advised that the $5 million designated for sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements is a major step forward, and one of his priorities during his Council service has been to improve the City's financial condition in order to fund such improvements. 5O Ms. Wyatt advised that a portion of the bond funds are designated for the Roanoke City Public School System, and inasmuch as she teachers at a City elementary school, she inquired if she should abstain from voting on the resolution; whereupon, the City Attorney advised that since the proposed measure pertains to capital expenditures at the Roanoke Academy for Mathematics and Science, Ms. Wyatt would not have a conflict of interest and could therefor cast her vote on the resolution. The Mayor requested information on the City's bonded indebtedness. He stated that old debt is being retired at the rate of about $3 million per year and the proposed $31 million bond issue is in addition to funds that will be necessary for the two high school renovation projects, as well as civic center improvements in the range of $64 million over the next several years. He inquired as to the bonded indebtedness of the previous Council and the present Council, and stated that the City must retire debt at a faster pace if it is to continue to expand the City's bonded indebtedness. He requested information on the City's level of bonded indebtedness five years ago. The Director of Finance responded to the City's level of bonded indebtedness over the past three years; i.e.: on June 30, 1999, the City and the School Board had $119 million in general obligation bond debt, $77 million City debt and $42 million school debt; on June 30, 2000, the City had a $99 million debt and the Schools had $58 million, for a total of $157 million; and as of June 30, 2001, the City will have $94 million outstanding debt and the School debt will be $61 million, for a total of $155 million. He stated that the principle reduction in bonded debt for next year for the City and School budget totals approximately $9 million, $6 million to be retired by the City and $3 million to be retired by the School Board. Inasmuch as general obligation bond resolutions require four affirmative votes for adoption, the resolution was lost by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt and Bestpitch ................ 3. NAYS: Council Member Hudson .............................................. 1. (Mayor Smith voted present, which he later clarified as an abstention.) (Council Members Carder and Harris were absent.) The Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Later during the meeting, Mr. Bestpitch raised a point of order in connection with the impact of the public hearing on the general obligation bond issue, and inquired as to the status of bond projects and how the matter can be brought back to the Council floor for a vote. In clarification, the Mayor advised that his abstention on the resolution was based on the fact that he did not receive a satisfactory response to his question regarding the City's bonded indebtedness. The City Attorney advised that the matter can be brought back to the Council floor by the City Manager; however, he will confer with bond counsel on the question of whether another public hearing must be legally advertised and conducted by Council. Ms. Wyatt spoke in support of an information sharing briefing by the City Manager and the Director of Finance in connection with methods used by other municipalities in the Commonwealth of Virginia to fund large types of capital improvements, the level and term(s) of indebtedness, bond rating, etc., and how the City of Roanoke compares with other municipalities of comparable size. CITY PROPERTY-BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD: Pursuant to instructions by Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, July 16, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on a proposal of the City of Roanoke to convey to Trigon Insurance Company certain City owned property identified as Official Tax Nos. 4016001, also known as Key Plaza, and 4016003, located on Franklin Road, S. W., the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Sunday, July 8, 2001. (See publisher's affidavit on file in the City Clerk's Office.) A communication from the City Manager advising that Trigon Insurance Company (Trigon), successor in interest to Blue Cross of Southwest Virginia and Blue Shield of Southwest Virginia, is the owner of a multi-story office building located on Official Tax No. 4016002 at the corner of Franklin Road and Jefferson Street in downtown Roanoke; adjacent parcels to the building, Official Tax Nos. 4016001 ACTION: (Key Plaza) and 4016003, are both owned by the City of Roanoke; the City is solely responsible for maintenance and upkeep of these areas and for repairs to Key Plaza; Trigon has offered to purchase Key Plaza and Official Tax No. 4016003 for the purchase price of $100.00, thereby relieving the City of its continuing obligations to maintain both parcels; proper maintenance of the two parcels of land would be insured and subject to routine and customary real estate taxation by the City; and Trigon has agreed that the Special Warranty Deed conveying the parcels of land to Trigon shall require that, unless the City agrees, Trigon and its successors shall continue to use and maintain the parcels of land as a plaza or open area, was before Council. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute a deed and any other appropriate documents to be approved as to form by the City Attorney, to transfer Official Tax Nos. 4016001 and 4016003 to Trigon Insurance Company. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. White offered the following ordinance: (#35482-071601) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to execute the necessary documents providing for the sale and conveyance of certain City-owned parcels located at or near 111 Franklin Road, S. W., and at the intersection of Franklin Road and Jefferson Street, bearing Official Tax No. 4016001 (Key Plaza) and Official Tax No. 4016003, upon certain terms and conditions, and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. White moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35482-071601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, and Mayor Smith ............................................................................ 5. NAYS: None ......................................................................... 0. (Council Members Carder and Harris were absent.) The Mayor declared the public hearing closed. OTHER HEARING OF CITIZENS: The Mayor advised that this is a time for citizens to be heard; and matters requiring referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for response, report or recommendation to Council. COMPLAINTS-REFUSE COLLECTION-RECYCLING: Mr. Woodrow Hickman, 1010 Norfolk Avenue, S. W., appeared before Council in connection with refuse collection in his section of the City which has not been collected for approximately three weeks. He expressed concern for elderly and disabled persons who are physically unable to push their refuse containers to the street for collection, and because of the topography of the land with high embankments, refuse collection is best served from the alley. He stated that sanitation workers are under paid, the department is understaffed and more employees are needed to render the service. He complained about the accumulation of debris and weeds on the property of a business located in his neighborhood, the property owner does not live in the area, therefore, the condition of the property has caused a decrease in property value for other property owners in the neighborhood. POLICE DEPARTMENT-COMPLAINTS-CITY SHERIFF- COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY: Jeff Artis, Chair, Roanoke Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), 1450 Lafayette Boulevard, N. W., advised that the SCLC has a history of pro law enforcement. However, he stated that on Friday, July 13, 2001, the SCLC completed an investigation of alleged police brutality, one involving the Sheriff's Department and one involving the Roanoke City Police Department, both of which related to individuals residing at the Roanoke Rescue Mission who were arrested for intoxication in public. He added that one of the individuals, while in custody of the Sheriff's Department, reported that he was hand cuffed and slammed into the bars of his jail cell, suffering bodily injury and beaten by law enforcement personnel; and another individual, while in custody of the Roanoke City Police Department, reported bodily injury and also beaten by law enforcement personnel. He added that further research conducted by the SCLC finds that as of Friday, July 13, the proper documents concerning these alleged police beatings had not been properly filed, indicating a possible cover up, and photographs of the victims will be posted on his web-site. He stated that as an organization, the SCLC does not support police brutality or misconduct, and in light of these two alleged cases of police brutality and other information gathered by the SCLC over the past several years regarding Roanoke's law enforcement personnel, the SCLC will formally ask the U. S. Department of Justice to investigate all Roanoke City law enforcement agencies, including the Roanoke City Police Department, Sheriff's Department, and Commonwealth Attorney's Office. Jack Mills, 1400 Irving Road, Thaxton, Virginia, Ombudsman for the Commonwealth of Virginia for Women, Children and Minorities, as appointed by National Southern Christian Leadership Conference President, Herbert Coulton, advised that the purpose of his position is to diffuse difficult situations in the community in an effort to develop harmony. He stated that he was requested by the President of the Roanoke Chapter, SCLC, to support Mr. Artis in his presentation before Council, and suggested that a Member of Council convene a meeting of appropriate persons to talk "with" each other rather than "to" each other with regard to alleged actions of law enforcement personnel in the City of Roanoke. SPECIAL PERMITS: Mr. Preston Moore, 435 Willow Oak Drive, S. W., advised that he has been informed by City Building Inspectors that a basketball goal erected on City right-of-way and without the permission of Council, which faces his property on Willow Oak Drive, must be removed. He stated that the basketball goal was erected prior to his acquisition of the property which is located on a cul de sac, and requested a special exception by the City to permit the basketball goal to encroach on City right-of-way. COMPLAINTS-TAXES-CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr. Robert Gravely, 617 Hanover Avenue, N. W., addressed Council with regard to City issues of concern, specifically, insufficient wages for the City workforce and the high real estate tax rate in the City of Roanoke which makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the average City worker to purchase a home. COMPLAINTS-STREETS AND ALLEYS: Mr. George Gunther, P. O. Box 12353, expressed concern with regard to alley closings in the City of Roanoke which will eliminate rear access to private residences, in some instances, by emergency vehicles. Instead of closing the alleys, he suggested that alleys be widened to allow for improved access and cleared of debris to eliminate health and safety hazards. ACTION: ATTEST: At 8:10 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for one closed session. At 8:30 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, with all Members of the Council in attendance, except Council Members Carder and Harris, Mayor Smith presiding. COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Mr. Bestpitch moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her knowledge that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2) only such public business matters as were identified in any motion by which any Closed Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Hudson, White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, and Mayor Smith ............................................................................ 5. NAYS: None .......................................................................... 0. (Council Members Carder and Harris were absent.) At 8:32 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess until Monday, July 30, 2001, at 12:15 p.m., in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke. APPROVED Mary F. Parker City Clerk Ralph K. Smith Mayor The regular meeting of Roanoke City Council which convened on Monday, July 16, 2001, and declared in recess until Monday, July 30, 2001, was called to order on July 30, at 12:15 p.m., in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, by Mayor Ralph K. Smith. PRESENT: Council Members W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., William White, Sr., Linda F. Wyatt, William D. Bestpitch, William H. Carder, C. Nelson Harris, 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. In view of the fact that a number of persons were present out of their interest in one or more briefing items on the agenda, following discussion, it was the consensus of Council that the fifth Monday of each month will be conducted as a work session of the Council and citizens are invited to attend the meetings, but will not be recognized for comments. Inasmuch as one citizen had previously registered to speak, the Mayor called upon Mr. Douglas Woody, 4854 Autumn Lane, N.W., who spoke against the closing of the fire station on Salem Turnpike, N.W. He referred to copy of an annexation decree dated June 6, 1975, which provides for a fire station in the Salem Turnpike area. COUNCIL-COMMITTEES: Council having previously agreed that a portion of each fifth Monday work session would be reserved for Council Members to report on their liaison roles to various Council-Appointed authorities, boards, commissions and committees, Members of Council presented the following reports. Vice-Mayor Carder, Council's liaison to Downtown Roanoke, Inc. (DRI) reported that the Outlook Roanoke Plan has gone through three updates and should be released in the near future and DRI is trying to build support for downtown development through the Plan. He stated that Downtown Roanoke, Inc., recently relocated to the City Market area and hired a full time manager to address marketing of the City Market. He further stated that the "Big Lick" street sweeper is in operation in downtown Roanoke; and DRI is working on developing the Zimmerman property in conjunction with the Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce and the Foundation for Downtown Roanoke, Inc. He advised that of concern is the fact that Downtown Service District tax collection has remained relatively flat over the last six to seven years, especially in view of downtown development. Vice-Mayor Carder reported that the Virginia Museum of Transportation is conducting a Museum Assessment Program in order to become a certified museum which should be completed by October 8; major emphasis is on the construction of a new canopy which will be funded by TEA-21 money and City involvement; and the Transportation Museum is constructing an automobile gallery through private contributions. Vice-Mayor Carder advised that the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitor's Bureau would like to compliment Roanoke City Council and the City administration on increasing the City's Ioding tax, the proceeds of which are to be used to increase advertising and marketing of the Roanoke area. He stated that the RVCVB is working to implement a strategic plan to raise the visibility of the Convention and Visitor's Bureau and to increase the awareness of the benefits of tourism and marketing tourism dollars. He advised that the RVCVB received a $10,000.00 grant for the African-American Heritage tour and two additional trade shows have been added in an effort to generate more convention business; City-wide hotel occupancy is currently at 53 per cent which is Iow compared with the national average of approximately 65 per cent; and two new hotels will be locating in the Roanoke area in the near future. He stated that Roanoke County has increased its funding for RVCVB from $112,000.00 to $150,000.00, the City of Salem increased its contributions to $10,000,00 and Franklin County increased its contribution from $2,500.00 to $5,000.00. He advised that the Special Events Committee continues to focus on The Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony, Dickens of a Christmas, the St. Patrick's Day Parade, and the Blues and Jazz Festival. Mr. Hudson advised that he serves as Council's liaison to the Roanoke Civic Center Commission and called attention to a briefing on July 16 with regard to future needs of the Civic Center totaling $64 million. He stated that he serves as liaison to the Roanoke Valley Cable Television Committee which is currentlyworking on a new franchise agreement with Cox Communications; he serves on the Virginia CARES Board of Directors which works to bring inmates back into the community through job placement; and he also serves on the Virginia Municipal League Transportation Safety Committee, as well as Council's liaison to the Mayor's Committee for People with Disabilities. Ms. Wyatt advised that she serves as Council's liaison to the America's Roanoke's Promise Board of Directors and the Roanoke Neighborhood Development Corporation (RNDC). She commended the work of the City Manager and the Director of Finance who were of assistance to RNDC through difficult times, and advised that RNDC has met its fund raising goal of $75,000.00. Mr. Bestpitch advised that he serves on the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee as Council's liaison. He commended the work of the new Neighborhood Coordinator and the new Assistant City Manager for Community Development and stated that the City can look forward to a strong and healthy relationship with its neighborhoods. He noted that on September 21 -22, the City of Roanoke will host the State Neighborhood Conference at the Holiday Inn Tanglewood, and invited Council Members to participate in the Conference. He advised that he also serves on the Mill Mountain Zoo Board of Directors, the Zoo is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year and the Board of Directors is working on a long range master plan to upgrade and expand Zoo operations and to improve certain areas of the Zoo, and there may be pertinent funding issues to be addressed in the future as Council moves through the budget process. He explained that the Mill Mountain Zoo lease is about to expire and with major investments and a major capital fund drive, the Board of Directors of the Mill Mountain Zoo is interested in a longer term lease arrangement with the City. Council Member Harris advised that he serves as Council's liaison to the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. He stated that Council has been briefed on the Lincoln 2000 Project and GOB North and South projects. He called attention to monthly meetings with John Baker, Executive Director, and Willis Anderson, Chairperson, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority and advised that if Council Members have questions or concerns, he will be pleased to bring these matters to the attention of Mr. Baker and Mr. Anderson. Council Member White advised that he Chairs the Audit Committee and the Legislative Committee and both committees presented Council with written annual reports. He commended the City Attorney for his assistance with legislative matters and the Municipal Auditor, for his assistance with audit matters. He advised that Mr. Bird will retire on September 30, 2001, as Municipal Auditor and commended him on his outstanding service to the City of Roanoke. The Mayor advised that he serves as ex officio to all Council-Appointed committees. He reported on the Mill Mountain Advisory Committee and advised that since its inception in the 1960's, only two persons have served as Chair until recently when Carl H. Koptizke resigned his position as Chair, but will continue to serve as a member of the committee. He requested that a measure be prepared commending Mr. Koptizke on his many years of service and his contributions as Chair of the Mill Mountain Advisory Committee. 3 The Mayor advised that he will present his State of the City Address on Tuesday, August 7, an invitation was extended to all Members of Council to share their ideas for inclusion in the document, and encouraged Council Members to submit their responses by the close the business day. He stated that the Mayor's Technology Committee is meeting with communications personnel and plans to present an in-depth report to Council in the near future. CITY MANAGER BRIEFINGS: FIRE-EMS: The City Manager introduced a briefing on the Fire/EMS Department Strategic Business Plan 2000-2007. She called attention to discussions during fiscal year 2001-02 budget study, in which several members of Council challenged City staff to review resource allocations and to explore the question of whether there is an opportunity through a regional effort to better respond to certain parts of the community; whereupon, she called upon Chief James Grigsby to present the briefing. Chief Grigsby advised that there are 14 fire stations in the City of Roanoke and each fire station should cover approximately seven square miles which is used as a guideline. He explained that major areas of the seven year plan include: Fire Suppression: A goal of reducing life and dollar loss to the community, New station construction, Standards of response coverage, Employee safety, and Mutual response and aid with surrounding jurisdictions. Emergency Medical Services: Grow advance life support personnel to 45, Monitor service demands and make recommendations for changes in resource needs, (unit system status approach), and Evaluate EMS user fee structure and make recommendations in parallel with Medicare fee structure enhancements. Fire Prevention and Investigation: Fire protection engineer, Increase fire business inspections, Mail Code compliance, Increase public education, New fall program - RISK WATCH: Pre-school thru fifth grade, and Coordinate with Standards of Learning. Fire-EMS Training: Conduct training needs analysis, Increase contact hours, Regional training, Implementation of a training bureau concept, and Identify additional training resources. Apparatus and Equipment Maintenance: Explore regional maintenance concept, Contract out specialized needs, and E. G. Aerial Ladder Maintenance. Technology: New Fire-EMS records management system - computerized incident reporting, GIS-GEO, Mobile data terminals - voiceless communications, and Automatic vehicle Iocator system. ISO (Insurance Service Organization) Class 3 City: July 16 thru July 27 (conduct evaluation), Ongoing review of service levels, and Help identify areas needing improvement, Fire Water system 9 -1 -1. He stated that the Fire/EMS Department is preparing for national accreditation which is fairly new for fire service, currently there are less than 50 departments in the United States that are nationally accredited and the City of Roanoke Fire/EMS would like to be accredited by the end of fiscal year 2001-02. He advised that there are currently 14 fire stations, 275 personnel, 13 engines, four ladders, and six medic units, a required daily staffing at 64 individuals on duty in the operational divisions, responding to 90 per cent of the City's population in under four minutes, and ems calls to 92 per cent of life threatening calls in under eight minutes. He reviewed the following performance measures: Fire: Four minutes 90 per cent of the time to all structure fires, Eight minutes 90 per cent of the time to all other types of fire incidents, and 13 personnel on initial response to all structure fires. EMS: Eight minutes 90 per cent of the time to all life threatening medical emergencies, and Twelve minutes 90 per cent of the time to all non-life threatening medical emergencies. He reviewed the sequence of events that may occur from ignition to suppression of a fire; .i.e.: detection of the fire and report of the fire which are indirectly manageable; receive process call 9 - 1 - 1 (one minute), turn out (one minute) and travel from station to scene (four minutes) which are directly manageable; and scene controlled. He noted that the following are examples of calls for service: Fire: House and building fires, Fire alarm activations, Car fires, Brush and trash fires, Chemical hazards, Technical rescues, and Aircraft incidents. EMS: Heart attacks/strokes, Assaults/shootings, Car accidents, Falls/construction and industrial accidents, Diabetes/allergic reactions, OB deliveries, and Other medical emergencies. He explained that 80 per cent of calls are medical related and 18 per cent are fire related, there are 17 front line apparatus to handle the 18 per cent of calls and six front line ambulances to handle 79 per cent of calls; there are approximately 110 - 115 working fires per year, and for the period of January 2000 - June 2001, 7 there were 155 working fires in the City of Roanoke. He stated that the definition of a working fire is the first responding fire apparatus arriving on the scene does a size up which determines if it is a working or non-working fire, i.e.: is smoke coming out of the windows. He further stated that in a typical working fire, 12 - 15 people are needed to handle tasks and the average is 18.6 people on each working fire; and there are approximately 15,000 engine calls with about 10,000 of the calls representing non-patient transports. Chief Grigsby reviewed factors that determined the need for station construction/relocation: Location: Performance Measures (four minute window), Population (Density, age), Major transportation infrastructure improvements, Calls per fire zone district (high life hazard vs. Iow life hazard), Facility type, condition and age, Bay size to accommodate modern apparatus, Genderissues, and Useful life as a fire station. He reviewed a chart on fire station status containing information on the year of construction, current condition, size, location, life expectancy, action needed and estimated cost/repair based on a building condition assessment prepared by Balzer and Associates dated October, 1999. He reviewed a three phase building plan, i.e.: Phase I involves consolidation of Stations 1 and 3, with architectural, engineering and land acquisition to occur the first year and construction during the second year. He explained that Station 1 is located on Church Avenue, S. W., and Station 3 is located on Sixth Street, S.W. He stated that benefits provide that a single station, properly located, can serve this area within the required four minute response time 90 per cent, size and ability to accommodate modern equipment, a facility for fire-ems administration, and gender accommodation. He explained that the area recommended for Station No. 1 relocation is in the vicinity of Elm Avenue, S. W. (Williamson Road corridor). Chief Grigsby advised that Phase II would consolidate Station Nos. 5 and 9; Station 5 is currently located at 12th Street and Loudon Avenue and Station 9 is located at Melrose Avenue and 24th Street; the second year of the plan would involve architectural, engineering and land acquisition and the third year would include construction. He stated that benefits include: one station properly located can service this area within the required four minute response time 90 per cent; aerial ladder apparatus can be relocated; there would be an ability to accommodate modern equipment; employee safety; gender accommodation and provide additional service to the community through police satellite offices and multi-use facilities. He explained that Phase III construction recommends that a station be built on upper north Williamson Road which would be Station No. 10, and is an airport station which is in good condition, with good sides, with a five to 20 year life expectancy, and reasons for the recommendation are twofold, i.e.: the airport is desirous of building a new station as envisioned in its master plan to meet Federal Aviation Administration requirements, and to locate a station on north Williamson Road which is an underserved part of the City. He stated that benefits include increased response coverage of under four minutes to an additional three per cent of the population, to meet FAA requirements, and to provide increased service to upper Williamson Road and the northeast area. Chief Grigsby advised that working in conjunction with his counterparts in Roanoke County and the City of Salem, three recommendations are submitted for Council's consideration: Recommendation No. 1: Staffing: Six positions to No. 4 station, 3763 Peters Creek Road, and place an additional ambulance unit in service, Dedicate more resources to 80 per cent service calls, Provide underserved area with faster ambulance response times, Provide back-up to one of the busiest ambulances in the system, Reduce fire engine "first responder" calls, keeping them more available for fire emergences, Area can be served by Fire Station No. 4 and No. 13 to provide four minute/90 per cent fire response, and Low demand for service area (run demand by engine company). Regional Cooperation: Automatic aid with the City of Salem to provide a fire engine from their Fire Station No. 2 (419 and Salem Turnpike) to Cityfire zones No. 5 and No. 8 (area immediately north and south of Salem Turnpike from City line to Peters Creek Road). The City will provide a fire engine to Salem -west to 419, north Route 11 and South Veterans Medical Center. Recommendation No. 2: Staffing: Six positions to Roanoke County Clearbrook Fire Station (220 South) to help cross staff one engine and one ambulance, Provide 220 South/Southern Hills area with faster response times for both fire and ambulance, Provide four minute/90 per cent fire response to underserved area which is growing commercially, and Reduces City's longest response time. Regional cooperation: Roanoke County will assign 12 full time employees; Roanoke City will assign six full time employees; combined resources of 18 full time employees, staffing needed for one engine and one ambulance, seven day/24 hour coverage, Paid to paid staff, County apparatus, and Cost sharing details to be worked out by respective administrations. There was discussion with regard to an annexation decree in which certain commitments were made when the Salem Turnpike area was annexed to the City; whereupon, it was the consensus of Council that the City Attorney would research the annexation decree and provide Council with an opinion as to whether the City has honored the terms of the annexation agreement. ]0 Recommendation No. 3: When construction Phase II (northwest section) is completed in approximately three years, 12 positions will become available for reallocation. Fire administration recommends taking no action on these positions until future service levels are analyzed, then bringing a detailed recommendation for Council's consideration. He presented a status table of fire stations in their current condition and station status after business plan implementation in 2007; and presented the following cost breakdown: Phase I Phase II Phase III $4,700,000.00 2,575,000.00 1,555,000.00 Total - $8,830,000.00 He advised that re-use of existing stations could be as follows: Fire Station No. 1 - Partner with Julian-Stanley Wise Foundation to develop into a fire/rescue museum. Fire Station Nos. 3, 5, and 9 - Several community groups have expressed an interest in attaining buildings for neighborhood use. A summary of questions and/or comments by Council Members is as follows: The difference between a Class 3 and a Class 2 City as rated by the Insurance Service Organization, and the City's goal to improve its rating to Class 2. Response times/Station location; Staff retirements in the next six months; A request for information covering the last six months response time on each call for assistance, broken down by fire station. The question of whether a majority of the area proposed for consolidation of Fire Station No. 1 is located in historic old southwest. ]! If $51,420.00, which is the estimated repair cost for Fire Station No. 5, is approved, what would be the life expectancy of the fire station? The dollar amount of $62,000.00 for an elevator for Fire Station No. 5 seems high. Additional costs incurred for community rooms that are constructed as a part of a public facility. Has the City of Salem approved Recommendation No. 17 What steps need to be taken to formalize the agreement? Has the proposal been presented to residents of the Ridgewood Park area? The City Manager responded that the next step will be for the jurisdictions to create a formal document that would then be adopted by the two localities, followed by presentations to various civic groups. Roanoke City and Roanoke County should not start down this path unless the two localities are serious about regional cooperation, thereby making this the first step in a gradual incremental process whereby Roanoke City Fire and EMS and Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Services are combined into one Roanoke Valley department. While discussing regionalism for Fire/EMS services, the localities should begin to discuss police services. City staff should immediately brief Ridgewood Park residents on the proposed recommendations and provide Council with a summary of response(s). There being no further questions or comments, without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the briefing would be received and filed. COMMUNITY PLANNING-COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The City Manager advised that City staff, citizens and Council have spent considerable time engaged in the process of updating the City's Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2001. She stated that as the process comes to a close, City staff would like to brief Council on the status of the plan before the joint public hearing before Council and the City Planning Commission on August 20 to be followed by subsequent adoption of the plan by both bodies. She requested the opportunity to highlight those issues within the plan that are the most significant or controversial, or those issues that might require the greatest change in the community for the future. She stated that following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance will be revised which will involve major implementation of many of the changes that are reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. Evelyn S. Lander, Director, Community Planning, reviewed key components of the new Comprehensive Plan that have been developed over the past year with substantial public involvement. She called attention to a joint public hearing by City Council and the City Planning Commission which is scheduled for Monday, August 20, 2001, which means that final revisions will have to occur within the next two weeks in order to present the document for public review before the August 20 public hearing. She presented the following information on plan themes which are critical to the success of the new Comprehensive Plan: Regionalism is the key to addressing many of the goals and recommended policies of the plan. Council's continued leadership will be needed to move regional items forward and collaborate with other governmental officials. Partnerships are essential to the plan because government cannot do it alone. Citizens, businesses, and civic organizations must take an active role in helping to achieve the recommendations of the plan. Economic development initiatives are fundamental to both the economy and quality of life of the City and the region. Diverse economic development is the basis for housing opportunities and a sustainable population. Protecting and enhancing Roanoke's environment is critical to maintaining its quality of life and encouraging economic development. Housing opportunities must be enhanced in the City to provide better housing choices for a diversity of residents and incomes. The design of buildings, streets, and developments must be of high quality that enhance the community. City government needs to provide leadership in encouraging development that creates a beautiful and attractive City. Ms. Lander advised that key recommendations from the Housing and Neighborhoods section of the plan include: One of the key recommended strategies for moving the City forward is to look at the City neighborhoods as villages that are served by small commercial centers. Raleigh Court and South Roanoke neighborhoods have vibrant community centers. Henry Street once provided such a center to the Gainsboro neighborhood. The plan identifies several neighborhood centers and recommends appropriate commercial and ]3 mixed housing opportunities around these centers. It is important to point out that the creation of these centers may result in the redevelopment of some existing neighborhood areas--some demolition of existing residential buildings may have to be done to provide for new mixed use development. A strong emphasis is placed on creating new housing opportunities in the City-both in the choice of housing types and in the price ranges. It is important that citizens have choices in housing for all neighborhoods and that neighborhoods provide a range of homes, from affordable to high end. Neighborhood plans will continue to be done for all City neighborhoods. Approximately one-third of the City has been studied Comprehensive Plan and make more detailed recommendations regarding specific strategies and zoning patterns. Environmental resources include greenways, mountain viewsheds, trees, historic resources and air and water quality. Specifically, the City and the region's environmental resources are very important to the City's quality of life and its future. In particular, greenways, viewsheds, and trees were identified as critical to Roanoke's future. The preservation and enhancement of historic properties is critical to understanding Roanoke's sense of place and its past history. Already, the City has seen controversy in some of its past policies regarding historic neighborhoods. However, it is important to note that the City Market and Roanoke's historic neighborhoods have been successful economic investment tools. Air and water quality is increasingly more important to Roanoke's future sustainability. New protection regulations will not be easy to deal with, but are very much needed to have quality air and water now and in the future. The economic development plan element includes an expanded economic base, redevelopment of underutilized sites, town village centers and regional efforts. More specifically, economic development is fundamental to achieving the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The plan recommends an expanded economic base that targets various industry cluster. It is important that the City continue to diversify its economic base and consider new areas for redevelopment. Downtown continues to be key to the City's economic well-being and downtown housing is recommended for expansion, as well as better utilization of second and third floor spaces. Village centers are keys to ]4 Roanoke's residential neighborhoods. These recommended commercial and mixed use areas will provide unique environments and services to residents, thereby competing well with surrounding suburb development that relies on the automobile. Regional economic development and approaches continue to be recommended. Infrastructure include regional transportation planning, multi-modal systems (pedestrians, bicycles, transit), airport, and technology infrastructure. More specifically, transportation systems do not stop at jurisdictional lines. Regional planning for transportation systems is important to ensuring quality development that enhances existing built communities. The development of multi modal transportation systems for cars, pedestrians, bicycles and transit is strongly recommended in the plan. The City should not be dependent on cars for transportation. It should encourage sidewalks, greenways, and bicycle facilities as well as considering transit alternatives in the future. The regional airport is important to economic development and to the residents of the region. Special attention is needed to ensure quality facilities and operations that adequately serve its users. If Roanoke is to attract new technology and businesses that use the technology, infrastructure must be provided to service those users. Continued leadership is needed to work with private businesses to provide services and promote them as available. Public services include community policing, recycling, code administration and multi-service facilities. More specifically, community policing as a philosophy for providing public safety continues to be emphasized in making Roanoke safe. Recycling also was identified as very important to a sustainable community. Roanoke's programs will need Council's continued leadership to emphasize recycling as important. Code administration for building, zoning, development, and nuisance regulations should continue to be improved to meet the needs of Roanoke's citizens and businesses. Careful balancing of interests is important to the success of any new regulations that may be proposed. Two multi-service facilities (or centers) are recommended as pilot projects to better serve citizens where the needs are the greatest. These are not meant to duplicate services provided by City Hall, but to provide better access to citizens where it is needed and to have City staff work collaboratively in the community to address issues and needs. It is important to note that there are not community centers and will not be in every neighborhood. They could, however, be located in existing public buildings in a neighborhood. The people plan element includes quality education, excellent facilities and programs, lifelong learning, workforce development and regional approaches for human services. More specifically, it is essential that Roanoke's school system continue to provide quality education to its youth. It is important that the school facilities and programs be outstanding and open to all citizens beyond school hours. Life long learning is essential to Roanoke's future for both young and old. The City's libraries and schools should provide quality programs to enhance continued education. Workforce development, which is education and training, is critical to both economic development initiatives and that of people. Regional approaches to providing human services should be encouraged and pursued. The City design plan element includes design principles and collaborative work efforts. More specifically, the design of new buildings and facilities is critical to creating a beautiful City. The plan provides recommendations for various areas of the City including commercial corridors, streets and neighborhoods. These principles are not mandatory but should be encouraged. It is anticipated that the principles would be promoted through collaborative work efforts between City staff and private developers. Ms. Lander identified the following key initiatives: target industry clusters, technology infrastructure, redevelop commercial and industrial land, village centers, multi-service facilities, new housing opportunities, critical amenities, marketing and tourism, streetscapes and healthy economy. More specifically, she advised that the ten initiatives were discussed during the planning process to help make the plan a reality; and these initiatives can be referred to as the "top ten" action items to be pursued by both government and private entities. Ms. Lander advised that implementation tools include the City's zoning ordinance, integrated budgets, regional cooperation and public-private partnerships. More specifically, she stated that to assist in implementing the plan, additional strategies must be undertaken, as follows: A new zoning ordinance should be developed over the next year. City operating budgets and capital improvement program budget should reflect the Comprehensive Plan and adopted Neighborhood plans. Regional cooperation is necessary to effectively achieve many of the goals for the future. Public private partnerships are essential to implementation of the plan. Government cannot do it alone. In order to measure progress, Ms. Lander advised that it is recommended that the City administration provide Council and the citizens with an annual report card on actions taken or pending. In addition, she stated that it is recommended that community indicators be developed to assist in monitoring the sustainable community; discussions with Virginia Tech have already begun and the Vital Signs report from the New Century Council would also be of help. She added that continued citizen involvement is important to ensuring that Roanoke is doing what it needs to do; and ongoing planning for the City and its neighborhoods must continue. Ms. Lander presented copy of public comments to date on the Comprehensive Plan. Questions and comments by Council Members are summarized as follows: Neighborhood schools should be celebrated. Is the City looking at the possibility of returning neighborhood schools to quadrants of the City? Neighborhood schools are the concept of the future in terms of neighborhood design. Concern was expressed with regard to the condition of the main library in which the City Manager advised that the main library is addressed in the Downtown Roanoke Outlook Plan, with alternatives for Council's consideration. She stated that one recommendation has to do with re-siting a new library in Elmwood Park, but at a different location in order to maximize the park; and the other alternative is a total relocation of the library in order to provide for what is identified in the Outlook Roanoke Plan as a world class downtown park facility that would leave the entire park free of the building and would site the main library facility further into the downtown area. She further advised that at a future Council meeting, representatives of Downtown Roanoke, Inc., and the Outlook Roanoke Plan will be requested to make a presentation on all elements of the plan. In view of what is already on the plate and given the cost of a new library at either location, she stated that several years should be devoted to developing a constituency that will be prepared to build a first class library facility. She explained that the library issue is at least five years into the future in terms of becoming a reality in view of other City capital needs and other City projects. Question was raised as to how one builds a constituency for a library that is in the condition of Roanoke's. ]7 The zoning ordinance should be revised using a process of going street by street and block by block and if the process is done correctly, requests for zoning variances will be a rare exception. What options are available for underground utility lines and any changes should be incorporated in revisions to the zoning ordinance. Some time between now and the August 20 public hearing, there should be a prioritizing of those portions of the Comprehensive Plan that are realistic and can be accomplished on a fast track. Quarterly status reports should be provided. Should Iow income subsidized housing be spread out, not only throughout the City but throughout the neighborhoods? Should there be a clustering of social service agencies throughout the City or in one area? The plan is designed to help each neighborhood become more viable economically, town centers are a critical component, and all neighborhoods need to understand why town centers would be beneficial in the future. There will be sensitive issues and the City must be prepared to face those issues. What are the City's plans to make village centers successful; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the first step is to identify those areas where village centers are desired and create an expectation with future developers that that is the route the City wishes to follow and the City will not settle for less. She stated that the City serves as the link between the developer and the neighborhood because none of the centers will succeed unless the neighborhood uses the services, therefore, developers will have to go into the neighborhoods and determine what types of support services or activities the immediate community, as well as the transient community, is willing to support; the City can then offer incentives through tax rebates, credits and certain kinds of rehabilitation; however, that which takes place on private property is the responsibility of the developer. There being no further discussion or questions, without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the briefing would be received and filed. LEASES-HUMAN SERVICES: The City Manager introduced a briefing with regard to leasing a building for combined health, social services, and human services functions. Vickie Price, Chief Social Work Supervisor, Department of Human Resources, advised that in the 1997 Long-Range Facilities Master Plan, Police Department and Health and Human Services space needs were identified as the top two priorities; needs of the Police Department are being addressed through a two-phase Capital Improvement Plan construction project; and the consultant determined the need for a one-stop Health and Human Services Building at approximately 90,000 square feet and an estimated cost of $24 million. She stated that in October, 2000, a request for proposals was issued to determine developer interest in providing the proposed space; and at Council's March 10, 2001, Financial Planning Session, the City administration shared its intent to meet this space need through leasing and also discussed the fiscal year 2003 operation budget impact of the Health and Human Services Building. She stated that Social Services, Health Department, Juvenile Justice, Human Services Coordinator and Office on Youth currently have 66,098 square feet of combined space, however, proposed space needs total 83,256 square feet. She advised that the advantage of leasing versus purchasing reduces up front capital costs for the City; the building will remain on the tax rolls should State funds be eliminated; the City is not liable for the building and associated costs; and most Federal and some State directives prefer the lease of real property. Ms. Price advised that the advantages of the proposed location is the co- location of Health and Human Services functions which should result in improved public services; the site is accessible to Health and Human Services client populations; parking is available for clients and patients as well as staff; the location is supported by public transportation, with support installation of integrated data and communication systems, and sufficient staff/client training space and adequate office space. She reviewed a slide illustrating current limitations of individual office space and a slide showing proposed individual office space. Ms. Price noted that a request for proposals was issued in October, 2000 for a facility to house Health and Human Services in one location (90,000 square feet); responses were received from representatives of the Cotton Mill Building at 6th Street, S. W., for $1,728,191.00, the Heironimus Building on Jefferson Street for $1,306,450.00 and the Sears Building on Williamson Road for $1,305,957.00; . and proposals were reviewed by representatives of Health and Human Services, the City Attorney's Office, and departments of Engineering, Finance, General Services and Management and Budget. She explained that the proposal review committee selected the Sears building on February 7, 2001, as its top choice because the location is on bus lines and accessible to a majority of clients and patients; costs (proposed cost per square foot is within the original estimates) of $13.27 per square foot for 83,236 square feet for a newly renovated building (build out cost of $2.5 million), rent of $1,104,541.72 per year for 20 years, $801,807.00 annual reimbursement from the State, annual local share of $302,734.72/$3.64 per square foot; and parking in a lot that provides adequate parking for 397 spaces for clients, patients and staff. She advised that the City's responsibilities include design review and approval, direct installation of State-required computer wiring, cost of utilities, i.e. electric, water, sewer and review of renovation/construction cost documents; and the lease contractually obligates the landlord to invest $2,497,080.00 in interior and exterior renovations, janitorial services and supplies, building maintenance, building repair and parking lot maintenance. Ms. Price advised that the lease will be presented to Council for formal action on August 6, 2001, followed by submission to the State for review, complete detailed design drawings, with construction to be completed by August, 2002, and projected occupancy of the facilities during the first quarter of fiscal year 2003. With regard to potential re-uses of the current space in Municipal North, the City Manager called attention to certain offices that are currently located off site from the Municipal Building complex and the first priority would be to bring those operations back to City Hall. Also, she called attention to the advantage of having the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority offices in the downtown area because of the close working relationship that will be required with the Housing Authority in the years ahead. Question was raised as to whether Downtown Roanoke, Inc., has concerns with regard to the number of persons that will be leaving the downtown area as it relates to loss of business for downtown businesses; whereupon, the City Manager advised that Downtown Roanoke, Inc., is aware of the proposal and the President of Downtown Roanoke, Inc., advises that Downtown Roanoke supports the concept of the Sears location which is not seen as having a negative impact. There was discussion with regard to the 397 parking spaces that will also be available for civic center overflow parking in the evening. It was explained that Social Service activities will be located on the second floor and a newly built third floor, the first floor will be vacant for other business purposes, the Health Department will be housed on the second floor and the third floor will also include administrative offices for each of the five agencies and office space for the remainder of staff. 2O Question was raised as to the proposed use of the current police building; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the plan previously reviewed by Council calls for demolishing the existing police building and using the space for parking for the entire complex. Question was also raised as to the need for 86,000 square feet of available space, whereupon, Ms. Price advised that the department is required by State and Federal mandates to provide additional training for clients and staff and current space does not provide a sufficient area for training needs and visitation rooms. She stated that certain common areas will be shared such as conference rooms, kitchen space, etc. The Mayor spoke to the advantages of considering the stadium/amphitheater issue in conjunction with the lease of the Sears building, because negotiations on both issues are closely related. He stated that in order for the stadium/amphitheater project to succeed, roadway adjustments will be needed and there is an opportunity to begin revitalization in the Wayne Street area. The City Manager suggested that Council allow City staff to hire an architectural/engineering firm to prepare design work on the stadium/amphitheater project and to make recommendations on road improvements which could take six months or longer and would, in effect, delay the human services building project by another six months. She advised that there is the potential of convening a meeting of property owners along the Williamson Road area to discuss needed improvements which will help those businesses take advantage of additional traffic along Williamson Road when the stadium/amphitheater becomes a reality. There were additional questions and comments with regard to the following: What is the net cost of the lease compared with what it would cost if the principal only is reimbursed. Will improvements be added to the value of the property when calculating real estate taxes? Will a long term lease have any impact on the City's bonding capacity? A shuttle bus could be provided for employees/clients of the building to the Williamson Road area and to downtown Roanoke from 12:00 noon until approximately 2:00 p.m. A compatible tenant should be housed on the first floor. Police vehicles should be parked at the rear of the building. 2! There being no further questions or comments, the Mayor advised that without objection by Council, the briefing would be received and filed. There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. APPROVED ATTEST: Mary F. Parker City Clerk Ralph K. Smith Mayor REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ..... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL August 6, 2001 12:15 p.m. The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday, August 6, 2001, 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 White, Sr., Linda F. Wyatt, William D. Bestpitch, William H. Carder, W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., 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; Jesse A. Hall, Deputy Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. CITY ATTORNEY-COUNCIL: A report of the City Attorney requesting that Council convene in Closed Session to consult with legal counsel on a specific legal matter requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. (For full text, see report on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attorney to convene in Closed Session to consult with legal counsel on a specific legal matter requiring the provision of legal advice by such counsel, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Hudson and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. 6. NAYS: None ........................................................................................... -0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-COUNCIL: A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in Closed Session to discuss disposition of real property, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to convene in Closed Session to discuss disposition of real property, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. -6. NAYS: None ........................................................................................... -0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) CITY ATTORNEY-COUNCIL: A report of the City Attorney requesting that Council convene in Closed Session to consult with legal counsel on a matter of pending litigation, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. (For full text, see report on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attorney to convene in Closed Session to consult with legal counsel on a matter of pending litigation, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Hudson and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -6. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-COUNCIL: A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in Closed Session to discuss acquisition of real property for public purpose where discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to convene in Closed Session to discuss acquisition of real property for public purpose where discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) COMMITTEES-COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor Ralph K. Smith requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed bythe Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to convene in Closed Session to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed bythe Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Hudson and Mayor Smith ........................................................................................... 6. NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) At 12:20 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess to be reconvened at 12:25 p.m., in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, for a briefing with regard to amending the City's Fee Compendium to provide for revised fees for use of City park facilities and services. At 12:25 p.m., the Council reconvened in a work session in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room at which time the City Manager introduced a briefing on revised fees for use of the City's park facilities; whereupon, Wanda Reed, Acting Director, Parks and Recreation, presented proposed changes relating to various services and facilities that the City makes available to its residents on a daily basis. Ms. Reed advised that during the process of developing the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the citizens committee recommended that the Parks Department develop a creative pricing strategy to provide flexibility to keep up with market rates and to enhance overall revenues; it had been hoped to bring a complete proposal to Council atthe same time; however, Council's consideration is requested to increase fees for rentals when a user requests exclusive, or private, use of a facility; fees need to be adopted immediately; and in the fall, it is planned to ask Council to adopt a pricing strategy which will allow flexibility to set prices according to market condition. She stated that staff met with representatives of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee to discuss recommended changes and to receive input, and it is important to note that Neighborhood Partnership organizations will not be charged to hold their regular monthly meetings in Parks and Recreation facilities. She explained that the recommendation before Council at this time includes increasing rental fees for facilities and services already listed in the Fee Compendium; establishing formal rates for facilities not previously included in the Fee Compendium; establishing fees for two new facilities; Parks and Recreation provides an abundance of free programs and services to all residents, examples of which are the use of parks, playgrounds, shelters and athletic fields on a first come, first serve basis unless reserved; many free recreation programs to the public and other programs are offered at a nominal cost; in addition, a scholarship program is offered for families who cannot afford to pay for their children to attend special programs and the Parks Department supported 33 programs for children last year, working in conjunction with the Department of Social Services. Ms. Reed advised that a rental fee is charged only when someone requests exclusive use of a facility, which fees are charged to offset the cost of providing extra services for rentals, examples of which are weddings and receptions held at Mountain View, picnic shelter reservations and mobile stage rentals; in some instances, extra work is accomplished during normal work hours which takes away from other work, however, for most events, Parks and Recreation must pay overtime to employees. She advised that when a citizen pays a user fee for a facility, they expect and should receive a quality experience and current fees do not produce sufficient revenues to allow staff to appropriately maintain facilities in the manner that the facilities should be maintained. She presented a list of existing facilities that will be affected by increased rental fees and noted that the fees are imposed only for exclusive use by reservation. (See list of present and proposed fees on file in the City Clerk's Office.) 4 Ms. Reed stated that it is also requested that Council formally establish fees for use of the mobile stage, open space usage and for provision of trash receptacles. She explained that the previous City Manager authorized the Parks and Recreation Manager to handle these services administratively, however, today, it is requested to bring these items into compliance by having them formally included in the Fee Compendium. She stated that current practice has been to charge $600.00 for the mobile stage, however, the recommendation before Council provides flexibility for charging depending on the type of event and whether the user profits from use of the mobile stage; for open space rentals, the current charge has been $50.00 per day, but because these types of events remove a portion of the park for general public use, it is recommended that $150.00 per day be charged, with a damage deposit of $150.00, which will cover the cost of a special mowing and cleaning of the park and restrooms and also help the department to repair damage to the grass caused by the event. She stated that $2.50 is currently charged for trash containers which is the City's cost to purchase the containers, but because the City does not wish to be in competition with the private sector, it is recommended that a charge of $4.00 per container be charged. She advised that the City has built two new facilities this year: The Discovery Center and the new picnic shelter on Mill Mountain and both of these facilities will be extremely popular for private use; it is recommended that $175.00 be charged for The Discovery Center for the first two hours, plus $50.00 for each additional hour, with a $100.00 damage deposit, or $200.00 damage deposit if alcohol is permitted; fees for other shelters throughout the City are already included in the Fee Compendium; current rental fee for shelters is $25.00 for a half day and $35.00 for a full day, therefore, only a $5.00 increase is requested; and for the Mill Mountain Park picnic shelter, because of its premier location, it is requested that Council establish a fee of $45.00 for a half day and $60.00 for a full day. She explained that the demand for programs and services continues to grow; it is believed that the General Fund should support services available to the entire community and should not be used to support private functions; in addition, the cost of business has increased, along with personal services, custodial contracts and utility costs; rental fees have not increased in the past ten years; the request before Council is not an attempt to recover this deficit all at once, but a small increase is proposed to help cover some of the department's operational costs because Roanoke's Parks and Recreation Department needs to keep up with the market and stay within the going rate of other jurisdictions with similar facilities and services. It was noted that Parks and Recreation's annual budget is just under $6 million which includes both recreation and parks maintenance; seven per cent of the total operating budget is generated through recovered costs; and in comparison to other localities, Roanoke's total recovered costs are Iow, because across the country, other localities are collecting between 10 and 60 per cent, depending on pricing policy and demographics. Ms. Reed advised that currently, the City collected $47,000.00 in rental fees; and by allowing the Parks and Recreation Department to increase these fees as recommended should increase rental revenues by 28 per cent, or $18,000.00, thereby enhancing total rental fees to $65,000.00. Victor C. Garber, Recreation Superintendent, advised that the criteria used to review which facilities and services should be increased to establish the value of the private rental experience included: Size, location and condition or appearance of the facility, Demand for the service or facility: i.e.: tennis courts are rarely rented - no change, The going rate or price of similar facilities/services in other jurisdictions such as Montgomery County, Blacksburg, Bedford City, and Roanoke County, longevity rate of equipment, and Inflation and cost of providing the service. He reviewed increases proposed for the following facilities: Mountain View is the most heavily used rental facility, providing 88 rentals per year. A majority of the rentals are wedding receptions which demand considerable staff time to work out the arrangements with the wedding party. It is also the most expensive facility to operate, with utility costs last year totaling $23,400.00. A 30 per cent increase is proposed, or an increase from $115.00 to $150.00 for a two hour rental. The fee is requested due to the demand on this special historic home and the added maintenance cost. A refundable damage deposit, as well as a cancellation fee, will also be charged. Rose Garden located just below Mountain View. There are occasional special requests to rent the Rose Garden during wedding receptions at Mountain View Center. It is proposed that a $75.00 per day fee be imposed for City residents which will pay for special weeding, clippings of dead flowers and mowing. A $100.00 refundable damage deposit will be charged along with a cancellation fee. Athletic field dragging and marking - this fee was added to take care of special lining requests. Presently, no policy exists to line a football field, flag football, soccer field and complete lining for softball and baseball. The present $25.00 fee does not pay for the labor and supply cost of marking these fields. Mill Mountain Shelter - This fee will be somewhat higher than other facilities because of its premier location - $45.00 for a half day and $60.00 for a full day. Elmwood Park Amphitheater - The specially designed canopy for the amphitheater cost approximately $5,000.00. The canopy is presently stored, erected and taken down by a private company. The private company charges users to put up and take down the canopy; however, the problem has been that all renters request the canopy to remain up, therefore, the first renter pays the private company for set up and the remaining renters pay no additional costs. The fee will cover the cost of wear and tear on the canopy and provide a fair price for all users. Mobile Stage - the mobile stage was purchased in 1998 and cost the Parks and Recreation Department $600.00 to deliver, set up, supervise, breakdown and return for an eight hour period. It is requested to add this rate to the Fee Compendium, along with an additional price for organizations that make a profit from using City facilities: non-profit organization (charging a fee) $900.00 and private individual or corporate rental charging a fee -$900.00 + 15 per cent gross collected. A summary of questions and comments by Council Members is as follows: There have been audit and accountability issues relative to some of the rental programs. What accounting controls will be used to ensure that all funds are reported. There should be some flexibility in charging for commercial purposes, but the fee should not drop below the minimum. Fees should not be compared to the Jefferson Center which is exorbitantly priced to the extent that some persons cannot afford to use the facility. Staffwas requested to obtain information on rental charges at the Salem Civic Center and the Vinton War Memorial. A City of Roanoke elementary school recently held an outing in Longwood Park in Salem as opposed to using a City park. Was this due to the City's fee structure? There was discussion with regard to addressing City school activities in the Fee Compendium, i.e.: the school system should be encouraged to use City parks facilities for field trips and there should be special exceptions for City schools. As related to the Discovery Center, the City should not compete with private business. There is a demand to have weddings and wedding receptions at the Discovery Center which takes X number of dollars per year away from the private sector. The City should be careful to ensure that pricing for the Discovery Center is competitive with the private sector. Costs associated with maintaining the Rose Garden at Mountain View and whether the City should be in the wedding chapel business. The question of whether there are local groups/learning institutions that could maintain horticultural areas. The question of whether historic homes should be used for recreational purposes. How does increasing the City's fee structure for recreational facilities coordinate with the City's capital needs? Parks were established for the use and enjoyment of all citizens and if fees are charged that are too costly, citizens will not use the City's facilities. Non-City residents should be required to pay a fee. As the fee structure is reviewed, there should be consideration toward keeping fees and costs for children at a bare minimum. Charges for mobile stage rental for activities sponsored or co- sponsored by the City's Special Events Committee. It was the consensus of Council that questions, comments or concerns by the Members of Council with regard to the proposed increases would be provided to the City Manager within seven days. The City Manager pointed out that Council is scheduled to hold a joint meeting with the Roanoke City School Board on Monday, August 20, 2001, at 5:00 p.m., and a topic for discussion could be the fee schedule for City schools using Parks and Recreation facilities, as well as City activities conducted on School properties. There being no further discussion, and without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the briefing would be received and filed. At 2:00 p.m., on Monday, August 6, 2001, 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 White, Sr., Linda F. Wyatt, William D. Bestpitch, William H. Carder, C. Nelson Harris, W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ................................................................................................. -7. ABSENT: None ....................................................................................... -0. OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Deputy Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. The reconvened meeting was opened with a prayer by The Reverend William Joseph Greene, Pastor, Preston Oaks Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Smith. PRESENTATIONS: ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Mr. White offered the following resolution paying tribute to the National D-Day Memorial Foundation: (#35483-080601) A RESOLUTION paying tribute to the National D-Day Memorial Foundation, and expressing to it the appreciation of this City and its people for its outstanding endeavor to commemorate the importance and significance of June 6, 1944, and to honor those who fought for our country on the beaches of Normandy on that historic day. (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) Mr. White moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35483-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7. NAYS: None ......................................................................................... -0. The Mayor presented a ceremonial copy of the resolution to John R. (Bob) Slaughter, Chair, National D-Day Foundation. SCHOOLS: The Mayor introduced Dr. Robert Sandel, President, Virginia Western Community College. 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, August 6, 2001, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of Southside Development Company that a parcel of land containing 4.05 acres, more or less, situate at the southeast terminus of Bean Street, N. W., identified as Official Tax No. 2280601, be rezoned from C-1, Office District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times once on Friday, July 20, 2001, and once on Friday, July 27, 2001. (See publisher's affidavit on file in the City Clerk's Office.) A report of the City Planning Commission advising that the purpose of the request for rezoning is to allow the construction of mini-warehouses on the vacant property, was before Council. The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the request for rezoning. (For full text, see report on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Hudson offered the following ordinance: (#35484-080601) AN ORDINANCE to amend §36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 714, 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. 64.) Mr. Hudson moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35484-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris. ]0 The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to address Council in connection with the matter. Fredrick Williams, President, Williamson Road Action Forum, 3725 Sunrise Avenue, N. W., advised of concerns regarding the proposed rezoning, which is poor land use because a mini warehouse does not provide the best use of the property. He stated that the City has assumed the cost of supplying the site with water and sewer service and it would be preferable to establish a development on the site that will purchase these facilities from the City. He further stated that the proposed use will create few jobs in the City, and if the warehouse has as many as four employees, that would equal one job per acre which would make the warehouse ineligible in a site such as the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology. He added that the report of the City Planning Commission lists three recommendations from the Comprehensive Plan, however, public discussion of the proposed development did not focus on conserving and enhancing neighborhood quality or promoting quality development for good land use. Instead, he stated that the focus was on the fact that Hershberger Road has chaotic traffic patterns, with conflicts between commercial, retail and residential land uses, ad hoc rezonings have not been good for the City of Roanoke and Roanoke would be better off planning appropriate land uses; ad hoc rezonings deprive neighborhoods of the predictabilitythat is necessary to encourage investment. He advised that if Roanoke wants to provide high quality development in its neighborhoods, it should provide security for property value through careful land use planning and design control. He explained that the Edinburgh Drive elevation of the warehouse, with its metal fence which is at least 14 feet above street level and has four gazebos, resembles a minimum security prison. He stated that prior to the City Planning Commission's public hearing, the petitioner offered to improve the exterior of the facility to allay neighborhood concerns regarding building appearance, therefore, on the side of the building fronting on Edinburgh Drive, if the rezoning is approved, the petitioner should be held accountable to his proffer. He advised that a specific landscape plan should be proffered as a part of the rezoning, otherwise, there will be dead landscaping material and many disillusioned citizens. He stated that most residents of the area reluctantly accepted the development; however, it is unfortunate that citizens of the City of Roanoke resign themselves to something bad because they are fearful that they could get something worse, and that attitude should occasion serious soul searching by the City. Mr. Natt advised that the matter has gone through an extensive series of neighborhood meetings; his client met on a number of occasions with the Executive Committee of the Williamson Road Action Forum and with residents in the immediate area; the Executive Committee of the Williamson Road Action Forum took no position and after meeting with approximately 20 persons from the neighborhood, the majority of residents did not oppose the project. He stated that residents of the area have good reasons to accept the proposal, one of which deals with the issue ]! of accessibility, because the neighborhood was desirous of ensuring that there would be no other access to the property other than by way of Williamson Road; therefore, his client is willing to honor the request. He added that residents were concerned about traffic, noise, and lights and explained that the proposed use is a small traffic generator, lighting is reserved for the interior of the building, and there is no metal fence around the outside of the structure. He stated that the City Planning Commission recommended unanimously in favor of the proposal and asked that Council lend its support to the request. Upon question by a Member of Council, Mr. Natt advised that his client is willing to proffer a landscaping plan. Mr. Bestpitch inquired as to the total number of parcels of land in the City of Roanoke of approximately four acres that are currently zoned Light Manufacturing District that might be available for this type of development; whereupon, the City Manager advised that she could not provide an accurate number at this time. Mr. Bestpitch advised that there are properties currently zoned for this type of development throughout the City, therefore, there is no information before Council to suggest the need to rezone the property in question; or any other property in the City, in order to make four acres of light manufacturing land available for this type of development. He stated that he will continue to express his concern regarding these types of issues because there are properties that need to be developed in the City, yet, rather than encourage the properties to be developed, the City, in essence, is denying these property owners the opportunity to have their property developed because a petitioner can request that a different piece of property be rezoned for their intended purpose. In summary, he advised that there is no need for the City of Roanoke to rezone additional property to Light Manufacturing inasmuch as property that is already zoned LM currently exists in the City of Roanoke. Ordinance No. 35484-080601 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. -6. NAYS: Council Member Bestpitch ............................................................. 1. The Mayor declared the public hearing closed. CITY PROPERTY-LEASES-SCHOOLS: Pursuant to action of the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, August 6, 2001, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of the City of Roanoke to lease City-owned property consisting of a 7.2-acre portion of Official Tax No. 1570101, located at 3379 Colonial Avenue, S. W., to the New Vista Montessori School for an initial term of one year, with an option to extend the lease for up to four additional one-year terms, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Sunday, July 29, 2001. (See publisher's affidavit on file in the City Clerk's Office.) A communication from the City Manager advising that the New Vista Montessori School, a private not for profit 501 C(3) agency, has been established in Roanoke to provide quality education to pre-school and kindergarten age children using the Montessori philosophy; the previous Montessori School, the Specific Reading and Learning Difficulties Association, recently canceled its lease effective September 1, 2001, and the New Vista Montessori School has approached the City about leasing the property located at 3379 Colonial Avenue; the current assessed value of the property (7.2 acres, 8,000 sq. ft. building) is approximately $860,000.00; and a 2001 Roanoke Office Market Report indicates the lease rates for office buildings in the Colonial Avenue area currently range from $7.00 to $17.00 per square foot. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute a lease between the City of Roanoke and the New Vista Montessori School for a one year term, in the amount of $6,000.00, with the right of the New Vista Montessori School to renew, with concurrence of the City, for up to four additional one-year terms at an annual rental rate to be agreed upon at the time of renewal. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Hudson offered the following ordinance: (#35485-080601) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the proper City officials to enter into an Agreement of Lease between the City and New Vista Montessori School, for use of a 7.2 acre portion of Official Tax No. 1570101, at 3379 Colonial Avenue, S. W., in the City, for operation of an educational facility for children, upon certain terms and conditions; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Hudson moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35485-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder. The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to address Council in connection with the matter. Elizabeth Cranwell, 1911 Mountain View Road, Vinton, Virginia, representing the Parents Association of the New Vista Montessori School, advised that her child was a student at the former Montessori School on Colonial Avenue, and since its ]3 abrupt closing, a group of parents and faculty formed a new Montessori School which is proposed to open this fall. She requested that Council authorize a lease agreement with the New Vista Montessori School for the Colonial Avenue property that housed the former Montessori School. She stated that Council has shown its commitment to providing early childhood educational options for children at all development levels, and the New Vista Montessori School will help to fulfill a portion of that commitment. Jeffrey Krantz, Director, the New Vista Montessori School, advised that the school will serve as a private, not for profit 501(C)(3) school to serve educational needs of children in the greater Roanoke area. He stated that using the proven success of Dr. Marie Montessori's methods that allows the child to progress at his or her own pace or functioning level, with a hands on approach, allows a child to develop a solid and positive first school experience. He advised that the Roanoke Valley currently has three Montessori schools in operation and according to regional statistics, the Roanoke area has recently experienced tremendous growth in population, which is expected to continue and in order to meet the diverse educational needs of newcomers and native Roanokers, educational programs must be in place such as that which is offered by the New Vista Montessori School. He stated that the long termadvantages of the program allows the child to have a solid, positive, first school experience with a strong foundation in academic skills as an added benefit. He explained that the NeWVista Montessori School will initially serve ages three through six and plans are underway to add an elementary program over the course of two years. Mr. James Garris, 3108D Honeywood Lane, advised that he lives in close proximity to the New Vista Montessori School, and spoke in support of the education that children receive through solid educational teaching methods by teachers who are dedicated to their profession and parents who are involved in the education of their child. He stated that over the long term, the City is looking to commercial uses and the smooth transition of apartments, the New Vista Montessori School and property in the vicinit~y of Roanoke County. He requested that Council consider the needs of Roanoke County residents along Colonial Avenue in conjunction with the needs of City residents just behind this particular area. Ordinance No. 35485-080601 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7. NAYS: None .................................................................................... -0. The Mayor declared the public hearing closed. 14 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, July 2, 2001, and the Third Leadership Summit held on Thursday, July 12, 2001, were before the body. (For full text, see Minutes on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder moved that the reading of the Minutes be dispensed with and that the Minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None ........................................................................................... -0. CITY PROPERTY-LEASES-HOSPITALS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that on June 18, 2001, the City of Roanoke received an offer from Carilion Health Systems, Inc., to purchase 2.8 acres of City property located on Colonial Avenue, which is part of an unsubdivided parcel on Official Tax No.1570101; current appraised value of the 2.8 acre property is $365,000.00; and in order to consider the sale of such property, Council must hold a public hearing. The City Manager recommended that Council authorize the City Clerk to advertise a public hearing for Monday, August 20, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to consider entering into a sale agreement for real estate in the amount of $375,000.00. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City Manager. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0. ANIMALS/INSECTS-CITY CODE-COMPLAINTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Section 6-7 of the City Code permits the keeping of cattle, sheep, goats, or swine in areas zoned for agricultural use when pens are at least 300 feet from residential property lines or on farms that are a minimum of five acres in size; in addition, the City Code allows a person to keep one sheep or goat as a household pet in residential areas; recently, residents of Old Southwest reported problems with a goat and complained that conditions were poor and the smell was a nuisance; a petition was submitted to the City Manager on July 9, 2001, complaining about the noise, smell, and flies in the neighborhood, and requested that the outdated ordinance be revised; and in the interim, the property owner has been cited by Animal Control and was convicted in court of a public nuisance and fined. The City Manager recommended that Council authorize a public hearing to amend the City Code to prohibit goats and sheep as household pets in residential areas. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City Manager. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0. HOUSING/AUTHORITY: A communication from Bruce L. Robinson tendering his resignation as a member of the Fair Housing Board, was before Council. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder moved that the communication be received and filed and that the resignation be accepted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7. NAYS: None ............................................................................................ 0. ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION-OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES: A report of qualification of Will Trinkle as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission for a term ending June 30, 2004, was before Council. (See Oath or Affirmation of Office on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None ............................................................................................ -0. REGULAR AGENDA HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: COMPLAINTS-WATER RESOURCES-EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES: Mr. Herbert Considder, 4334 Camille Avenue, N. W., appeared before Council and complained about a late charge that was imposed by the City on his water bill, in addition to a disconnect fee. He advised that his wife was ill and they frequently had to call 9-1-1 for ambulance service. In addition, he stated that water service should be provided free of charge due to the taxes he pays to the City of Roanoke. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: B U DG ET-COM MO NWEALTH'S ATTORN EY-G RANTS-VlCTI M/WITN ESS/J U ROR PROGRAM: A communication from the Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney, advising that the Victim/Witness Assistance Program has been awarded a 12 month $100,679.00 grant (#02-H8554VW01) for the period July 2001 through June 2002; the grant from the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) will allow the Victim/Witness Assistance Program to continue to provide comprehensive information and direct services to crime victims and witnesses in accordance with the Virginia Crime Victim and Witness Rights Act; the Program continues to operate with a full-time coordinator for the Circuit Court, as well as one full-time assistant for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court and one full-time assistant for the General District Court; the Program is coordinated by the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney; and the cost to the Citywould be $25,671.00 as a local cash match, for a total grant budget of $126,350.00. The Commonwealth's Attorney recommended that Council accept Victim/Witness Grant No. 02-H8554VW01 for $100,679.00, with the City to provide $25,671.00 as a local cash match from funds provided in the Transfer to Grant Fund Account in the fiscal year 2001-02 budget, for a total grant of $126,350.00; and authorize the City Manager to execute all appropriate documents to obtain Grant No. 02-H8554VW01, appropriate $126,350.00 in revenue accounts to be established in the ]7 Grant Fund by the Director of Finance, and appropriate $126,350.00 to certain expenditure accounts. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) The City Manager submitted a communication concurring in the recommendation of the Commonwealth's Attorney. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. White offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35486-080601) 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. 64.) Mr. White moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35486-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0. Mr. White offered the following resolution: (#35487-080601) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of Grant No. 02-H8554VW01 made to the City of Roanoke by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services for a Victim/Witness Assistance Program and authorizing the execution and filing by the City Manager of the conditions of the grant and other grant documents. (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) Mr. White moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35487-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None ........................................................................................... -0. BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board requesting that Council appropriate the following funds, was before the body: $245,000.00 for the Reading Excellence Act grant for Hurt Park Elementary School to provide children with the readiness skills they need to learn to read during the early childhood years. This new program has been funded by Federal funds in the amount of $245,000.00. $200,000.00 for the Reading Excellence Act grant for Fallon Park Elementary School to provide children with the readiness skills they need to learn to read during the early childhood years. This new program has been funded by Federal funds in the amount of $200,000.00. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) The Director of Finance submitted a written report recommending that Council concur in the request of the School Board. (For full text, see report on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35488-080601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 School Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35488-080601. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None ........................................................................................... -0. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: None. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: BONDS/BOND ISSUES: A resolution authorizing the issuance of $31,245,000.00 of general obligation bonds, having previously been before the Council on Monday, July 16, 2001, and defeated by a 3-3-1 vote of the Council (two Council Members were absent), Ms. Wyatt moved for a reconsideration of the resolution. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted, Mr. Hudson voted no. The City Manager and the Director of Finance submitted a joint communication advising that on June 18, 2001, Council endorsed and concurred in the recommendations contained in an update to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2002-2006, which included a list of new capital improvement projects and funding scenarios; and consistent with recommendations in the ClP update, the following capital projects contained in the updated plan need to be funded by the next issuance of bonds, pursuant to the Public Finance Act of 1991 (Code of Virginia): Crystal Spring Water Filtration Plant Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Program Schools Stadium/Amphitheater 5,445,000.00 5,000,000.00 4,600,000.00 16,200,000.00 Total $ 31,245,000.00 The City Manager and the Director of Finance recommended that Council adopt a resolution authorizing issuance of $31,245,000.00 general obligation bonds, pursuant to the Public Finance Act of 1991 (Code of Virginia). (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution: (#35489-080601) A RESOLUTION authorizing the issuance of thirty-one million two hundred forty-five thousand dollars ($31,245,000) 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 the costs of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement, extension, enlargement and equipping of various public improvement projects of and for such City; 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; and otherwise providing with respect to the issuance, sale and delivery of such bonds and notes. (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35489-080601. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt. Mr. Hudson advised that the question is not whether he is for or against those items included in the $31 million bond issue, but the fact that the citizens of Roanoke are not being offered an opportunity to vote on the question through a bond referendum. He stated that Council previously voted for $25 million worth of bonds that have not been issued, and another $31 million in bonds are now proposed, which means that this fall, the City will go to the bond market with over $56 million in outstanding bonds which will not be presented to the voters in the form of a bond referendum. He called attention to approximately $250 million worth of City projects that are unfunded which need to be addressed between the years 2002 and 2006 according to information provided by the City Manager. Mr. Carder advised that from 1992 to 1999, there have been times when the City did not go to bond referendum and in those instances when a bond referendum was held, it was associated with a tax increase. He called attention to a policy established by Council which provides that debt limit cannot exceed ten per cent of the assessed value of real estate in the City of Roanoke and inquired as to the City's current debt limit; whereupon, the Deputy Director of Finance advised that the debt policy that was adopted by Council provides that the general obligation bonded debt will be a percentage of the value of real estate, and, if one makes the assumption that the City will issue $56 million of bonds, the City's debt would be a little over four per cent. Vice-Mayor Carder advised that net debt per capita is currently set at $2000.00 and with the proposed $31 million bond issue, the City's debt per capita would be approximately $1885.00. In an effort to clarify questions, Mr. White suggested that the City Manager provide information to the public by highlighting portions of a communication from the Director of Finance dated July 30, 2001, regarding the City's debt service and its history on bond referenda versus no bond referenda. Mr. Bestpitch advised that the projects contained in the proposed $31 million bond issue are important if the City is to maintain a growing economy, and progress is needed that provides additional jobs, opportunity and prosperity for all citizens. He stated that to suggest that Council has too many big spenders who agree with every request for funding demeans the hard work of the Council in several work sessions and planning meetings. He added that the City's "wish list" is much longer than this bond issue can support, and Council worked as a group to narrow the list to those projects that it considered to be the most important at this time. The Mayor raised questions in regard to when the debt limit was set at $2,000.00 per capita, compared with previous years, and advised that the City's debt is growing at a much faster rate than inflation. He stated that the City of Roanoke does not have to be in debt in order to be a functional government. He added that his concern did not center around any specific item in the proposed $31 million bond issue, but its cumulative effect on the City of Roanoke. He inquired as to annual debt service on the $31 million bond issue, to which the Deputy Director of Finance responded that it would be in the range of approximately $3 million; whereupon, the Mayor stated that Council has the option of either raising taxes to generate $3 million in debt service or take $3 million out of an item that is currently funded by the City. He advised that he would vote in favor of the $31 million bond issue to go along with what appears to be the majority wishes of Council. The City Manager advised that there is no intent to raise taxes as a result of the $31 million general obligation bond issue. She stated that approximately one year ago, Council reviewed a five year expenditure that included the first of the two high school replacements/renovations at which time City staff was instructed to begin to build debt service so that the City could fund the additional debt, along with other debt that was being issued, and staff was also instructed to recommend a budget to Council for fiscal year 2001-02 that funded additional debt service, a compensation package for City employees and certain new initiatives for the general operation of the City, all without a tax increase. She explained that the proposed $31 million bond issue does not require the raising of taxes, nor is it intended that staff look at raising taxes as a way to fund capital improvements. She stated that the City organization is committed to "tightening our belts" as an organization, and reducing expenditures in order to make funds available for the additional debt that Council identifies as needed. Mr. Harris advised that his support is based on three tests that this or any other bond issue must pass in order to receive his vote, i.e.: (1) are the projects worthwhile, in the best interest of the community, progressive, fiscally responsible, and are they items worthy of doing sometimes ahead of other worthwhile projects; (2) have the items been thoroughly reviewed within the concept of the Capital Improvement Program by Council and the City administration; and (3) does the additional debt fall within the parameters of the City's fiscal policy as established by the Council in 1999 regarding the issuance of bonds and the retirement of debt. He stated that the $31 million in general obligation bonds pass the abovedescribed criteria, therefore, he will vote in favor of adoption of the resolution. Mr. Bob Zimmerman, 1501 Langhorne Avenue, S. E., advised that he could remember a time when the Commonwealth of Virginia was a pay as you go state, the state did not have a debt and he spoke in support of going back to those days. He suggested that the $31 million general obligation bond issue be postponed for a period of time until the City's debt is to the point where it will not incur millions of dollars a year in interest. He expressed concern with regard to the declining population of the City of Roanoke. Ms. Wyatt advised that projects listed in the $31 million bond issue pertain to the City's infrastructure needs and economic development efforts, school improvements and other positive actions all depend on infrastructure improvements/maintenance that provide the skeleton for the City's future. Therefore, she stated that the overriding issue is to provide the type of infrastructure that the City of Roanoke needs to promote quality of life for its citizens. Resolution No. 35489-080601 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -6. NAYS: Council Member Hudson ................................................................ 1. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT-LEASES: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City's Long-Range Facilities Master Plan, completed in February 1997, recommended that additional space be secured for Health and Human Services activities which include Social Services, Juvenile Justice Administration, Office on Youth, Homeless Program, and the Health Department; a lease is recommended rather than purchase because the State reimbursement for Health and Social Services Departments will provide partial funding for lease payments, but will not provide funding for purchase; consolidation of services in one location would allow a more efficient delivery of services to customers; the project was reviewed in detail with Council during the March Financial Planning Session; three proposals were received in response to the City's request for proposals in October 2000, which included the Sears Building, the Heironimus Building, and the Cotton Mill Building on Sixth Street; a team composed of representatives of the affected departments and other City staff reviewed the proposals; and the team agreed that the proposal for the Sears Building best met the requirements; and negotiations with Sawyer Properties, Inc., agent for the owner, Blue Eagle Partnership, have been completed. It was further advised that the proposed lease is for a 20 year term ending June 30, 2022, for approximately 83,236 square feet, with an annual lease payment of $1,104,541.00, which includes janitorial service and routine maintenance; the lease also provides that each party will indemnify and hold harmless the other from and against any and all suits, actions, loss, damage, liability, and expense occasioned by or resulting from any default hereunder or any negligent act on its part, its agents, employees or invitees; the State Departments of Health and Social Services will participate in the lease payment by contributing 59.4% and 80%, respectively, of their prorated lease expense, based on the percentage of space utilized, including common areas; the City's share will be funded in the annual operating budget beginning with the 2002-03 fiscal year; the State Department of Health and Social Services will fund approximately $802,000.00; and both annual lease payments are subject to annual appropriations. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute a lease agreement with Blue Eagle Partnership, in a form to be approved by the City Attorney. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Harris offered the following ordinance: (#35490-080601) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Blue Eagle Partnership for the lease of office space at the Civic Mall, located at 1502 Williamson Road, for use by the Roanoke City Department of Social Services, upon certain terms and conditions, and dispensing with the second reading of the title of this ordinance. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35490-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder. Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., requested clarification as to whether the Human Service Department will occupy space in the Roanoke Neighborhood Development Corporation's Crewe Suites building; whereupon, the City Manager responded that the City's commitment to lease approximately 15,000 square feet in the Crewe Suites building to be developed by RNDC remains unaffected by this action. Ms. Bethel inquired as to when RNDC will hold a community-wide meeting to inform citizens as to the status of its activities and objectives; whereupon, Ms. Wyatt, Council's liaison to the Roanoke Neighborhood Development Corporation, advised that RNDC holds an annual meeting to which the public is invited and, in addition, monthly meetings are held at the Southwest Virginia Community Development Center on the third Thursday of each month at 6:00 p.m. As Council's liaison to RNDC, Ms. Wyatt advised that she would be pleased to present questions and/or concerns to the Board of Directors. Ordinance No. 35490-080601 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0. (Council Member Hudson abstained from voting.) NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS-HOUSINGIAUTHORITY-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that historically the Northwest Neighborhood Environmental Organization (NNEO) has received Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the City to conduct housing and other community development projects in the Gilmer neighborhood; the original agreement for the NNEO "McCray Court Senior Living" project was executed on September 26, 2000, and provided $300,000.00 in CDBG funds; on May 7, 2001, Council authorized funding for continued architectural, engineering and construction costs associated with the "McCray Court Senior Living" project, pursuant to Resolution No. 35319-050701, which approved the submission of the City's Annual Update to the Consolidated Plan to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); an amendment to the Agreement with NNEO is necessary in order to provide additional funding for NNEO to continue to develop the McCray Court Senior Living project; and funding is available in Account No. 035- G02-0237-5297, in the amount of $277,750.00. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute Amendment No. 1 to the "McCray Court Senior Living" Subgrant Agreement with the Northwest Neighborhood Environmental Organization. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Harris offered the following resolution: (#35491-080601) A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of Amendment No. 1 to a Subgrant Agreement between the City and Northwest Neighborhood Environmental Organization, dated September 26, 2000, for funding to develop the McCray Court Senior Living Project. (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35491-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. -7. NAYS: None ......................................................................................... -0. PUBLIC WORKS-SNOW REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that highway deicing salt is used for snow and ice removal on City streets; and the Streets and Traffic Division, through its Snow and Ice Removal account, will purchase the necessary deicing salt to have on hand and available for use as needed to address inclement weather problems. The City Manager recommended that Council authorize issuance of a purchase order for 2,700 tons of highway deicing salt from Cargill, Inc., Salt Division, at a cost of $37.75 per ton, or total cost of $101,925.00. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder offered the following resolution: (#35492-080601) A RESOLUTION accepting the bid of Cargill, Inc., Salt Division, for deicing salt, upon certain terms and conditions, and awarding a contract therefore; authorizing the proper City officials to issue the requisite purchase order; and rejecting all other bids made to the City for the work. (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35492-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch. Ms. Wyatt advised that because weather conditions were mild last winter, the City did not exhaust its supply of deicing salt, and inquired as to the amount of funds the City will spend on deicing salt for the year 2001, compared with 2000; whereupon, the Assistant City Manager for Operations advised that last year, approximately 1600 tons of deicing salt were used, the supply is currently at approximately 3000 tons, therefore, there will be less expense incurred this year, and he would provide Council with the dollar amount following the Council meeting. Resolution No. 35492-080601 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None ........................................................................................... -0. CITY MARKET-DOWNTOWN ROANOKE, INCORPORATED: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City Market continues to be an asset to the City of Roanoke; for several years the City of Roanoke has contracted with Downtown Roanoke, Inc., (DRI) to manage curbage spaces, in the City Market; a new Agreement has been drafted to allow DRI to continue to manage those spaces, but allows DRI to retain the monies collected from vendors as compensation for DRI's services, and to provide for marketing, advertising and coordination with the market association; Council will continue to approve any license fee modifications established in the Fee Compendium; and fees are under review and may need to be modified in the future to address increased expenditures in operation of the spaces. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute an Agreement for the above services between the City of Roanoke and Downtown Roanoke, Inc., for a period of one year, from September 1,2001, through August 31, 2002, with up to four one year extensions, upon mutual agreement of the parties, such Agreement to be approved as to form by the City Attorney; to confirm current rates for use of such spaces; to amend the Fee Compendium; to periodically designate a portion of the curbage fees to be used for promotion of the City Market and to take such further action as is necessary to implement the Agreement; and that Council adopt a budget ordinance to eliminate the City Market Cost Center, reduce the revenue estimate related to market rents; and transfer remaining utility expenses to other operating budgets. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Hudson offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35493-080601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 General Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Hudson moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35493-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0. Mr. Carder offered the following resolution: (#35494-080601) A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of a Management Agreement between the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and Downtown Roanoke, Inc., (DRI) that will authorize DRI to act as the City's agent to manage and license curbage spaces in the Roanoke City Market; confirming the current rates for the use of such curbage spaces; directing an amendment of the Fee Compendium; and authorizing the City Manager to designate a portion of the curbage fees to be used for promotion of the City Market and to take such further action as is necessary to implement and administer the terms of such Agreement. (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35494-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote: 27 AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. 7. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0. BUDGET-EMERGENCY SERVICES: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that since July 1, 1986, the City has been under contract with the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) to respond to Level III hazardous materials incidents in a regional concept involving firefighters/emts from the Cities of Roanoke and Salem; on July 19, 2000, Council authorized the City Manager to renew the agreement to participate in a Level III Regional Response Team; and the agreement is renegotiated bi-annually in order to keep funding and reimbursement needs current. It was further advised that the present VDEM hazardous materials team contract expires on June 30, 2002; VDEM agreed to furnish $15,000.00 per year in "pass-through" funds in order to assist with the purchase of equipment, physicals, and to attend training programs needed to comply with Federal and State response criteria mandates; and pass through funding totaling $15,000.00 has been received from VDEM and deposited in Revenue Account No. 035-520-3224-3224. The City Manager recommended that Council accept "pass-through" funding which honors renewal of the two-year Virginia Department of Emergency Management hazardous materials team contract for the period July 1, 2000 until June 30, 2002; and appropriate $15,000.00 as follows: $11,300.00 to Employee Physicals and $3,700.00 to Training andDevelopmentunderthe Hazardous Materials Response Team Grant (Account Nos. 035-520-3224-2110 and 035-520-3224-2044) and establish a revenue estimate of $15,000.00. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35495-080601) 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. 64.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35495-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None ........................................................................................ --0. Mr. White offered the following resolution: (#35496-080601) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to accept, on behalf of the City of Roanoke, "pass-though" funding from a two-year contract with the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Emergency Management, with appropriations, to participate in a Regional Hazardous Materials Response Team. (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) Mr. White moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35496-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7. NAYS: None ....................................................................................... -0. HOUSING/AUTHORITY-COMMUNITY PLANNING-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that historically, the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) has administered numerous CDBG-funded activities for the City, including housing rehabilitation and economic development activities; on May 7, 2001, Council authorized the Housing Authority's 2001-02 CDBG activities and funding pursuant to Resolution No. 35319-050701, which approved submission of the City's Consolidated Plan to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Council accepted 2000-01 CDBG funds on June 18, 2001, pursuant to Resolution No. 35407-061801 and Budget Ordinance No. 35406-070201, pending receipt of an approval letter from the U. S. DePartment of Housing and Urban Development which is completing the routine Congressional release process; and in order for the Housing Authority to provide eligible City homeowners and buyers with housing activities approved in the Consolidated Plan, Council's authorization to execute an agreement with the Housing Authority is necessary. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute a CDBG Agreement with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Hudson offered the following resolution: (#35497-080601) A RESOLUTION authorizing the appropriate City officials to enter into the 2001-2002 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Administration Agreement with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, upon certain terms and conditions. (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) Mr. Hudson moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35497-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0. PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-GRANTS-FLOOD REDUCTION/CONTROL: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that in 1998, the City of Roanoke was awarded a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through its Hazard Mitigation Grant Program which allowed the City to acquire and demolish 34 homes located in the floodplain; the program is voluntary and some homeowners in the Garden City area, whose homes are located in the floodplain, have chosen not to participate in the project; funds remaining in the account ($140,440.00 in Account No. 008-052-9696) are available to acquire another home which is located in the floodplain of Mud Lick Creek located at 2565 Beverly Boulevard, S. W., owned by Mr. and Mrs. Mark Reynolds, who have appeared at City Council meetings on numerous occasions in the past few years to discuss the flooding of their home; the Reynolds are willing to sell their home to the City for its removal from the floodplain, said property having been appraised twice at $113,000.00 and $105,000.00; and Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds have signed a purchase agreement for $109,000.00 which is the average of the appraisals. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute the necessary documents, in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, to purchase real property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Mark Reynolds located at 2565 Beverly Boulevard, S. W., Official Tax No. 1630614; and that Council authorize demolition of the structure and close the Garden City Hazard Mitigation Grant Program grant, in accordance with requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder offered the following ordinance: (#35498-080601) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the acquisition and demolition of certain property located in the floodplain of Mud Lick Creek under the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, upon certain terms and conditions; authorizing the closing of the Garden City Hazard Mitigation Grant Program grant; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35498-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: 3O AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None ............................................................................................ -0. PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-WATER RESOURCES: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that a study of the Forest Park watershed completed by Anderson & Associates identified over $11 million in drainage problems in the area; the first project selected to correct problems for construction is located on Barnhart Street; homeowners at 1320 Aspen Street, and 2830 and 2836 Barnhart Street have had their basements flooded due to drainage problems; construction of the Barnhart Street Drainage Improvement Project will address drainage problems; authorization is needed to move forward with procurement of title work, appraisals, and document preparation related to acquisition of the necessary property rights-of-way; and estimated expenses related to acquisition of the property should not exceed $2,000.00, which is available in Capital Project Account No. 008-052-9688-9050, Miscellaneous Storm Drains. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to acquire all necessary property rights, noting that said property rights may be acquired following a satisfactory environmental site inspection by negotiation or eminent domain, and include fee simple, permanent easements, temporary construction easements, rights-of-way, licenses or permits, etc. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder offered the following ordinance: (#35499-080601) AN ORDINANCE providing for the acquisition of certain property rights needed by the City for the Barnhart Street Drainage Improvement Project; setting a limit on the consideration to be offered by the City; providing for the City's acquisition of such property rights by condemnation, under certain circumstances; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35499-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None ........................................................................................... -0. BUDGET-GRANTS-JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Aggression Replacement Training and Education Program (ARTEP) is an anger control program for assaultive youth 3] operated by Sanctuary Crisis Intervention staff; the program is designed to increase public safety and encourage participating youth to take responsibility for their behaviors, which is accomplished through court-ordered participation in a ten-week program that includes bi-weekly group sessions and periodic contacts at home and school; ARTEP provides Juvenile Court Judges with a less costly alternative to incarceration of juvenile offenders; and the pilot for this program had a 94% success rate and continues to be a valuable addition to the continuum of services available for the treatment of youth offenders. The City Manager recommended that Council take the following actions: Adopt a resolution accepting the $52,714.00 in 2001-02 funding from the Department of Criminal Justice Services, Grant No. 02-C3256JJ01, for Sanctuary's Aggression Replacement Training and Education Program; Authorize the City Manager to execute the required Grant Acceptance, Request for Funds and any other forms required by the Department of Criminal Justice Services, in order to accept funds and transfer $7,554.00 from Account No. 001-630-5330-2010, State and Local Hospitalization; and $10,018.00 from Account No. 001-121-2130-2008, Residential Detention Services, to an account to be established by the Director of Finance for the ARTEP Program; and Appropriate $70,286.00 in State and local funds to revenue and expenditure accounts in the Grant Fund to be established by the Director of Finance. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35500-080601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 General and Grant Funds Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35500-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None ........................................................................................... -0. Mr. Carder offered the following resolution: (#35501-080601) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of funding from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for Sanctuary's Aggression Replacement Training and Education Program; authorizing the City Manager to execute the necessary documents in order to accept these funds, u pon certain terms and conditions. (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35501-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0. BUDGET-CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU-TOURISM: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City of Roanoke has annually entered into an Agreement with the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau (RVCVB) to provide funding for marketing the Roanoke Valley as a convention and destination tourism site; as part of the fiscal year 2001-02 Annual Operating budget adopted by Council, the Memberships and Affiliations budget included funding of $541,440.00 specifically designated for the RVCVB; an additional $287,500.00 was designated for marketing efforts and the availability of the $287,500.00 equates to revenue increases expected from a corresponding increase in the transient room tax; the City has negotiated a one year agreement commencing July 1, 2001 with the RVCVB detailing the use of the funds; and the RVCVB submitted a detailed budget and work plan to the City Manager for review and approval. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute an Agreement, in the amount of $828,940.00, with the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors' Bureau, upon form approved by the City Attorney, for the express purpose of marketing the Roanoke Valley as a regional destination for convention and destination tourism, and that Council authorize transfer of funding in the amount of $287,500.00 from Account No. 001-300-7220-3689, Marketing, to Account No. 001- 300-7220-3702, Convention Bureau. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Hudson offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35502-080601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 General Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. 33 (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Hudson moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35502-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris. Matthew R. Kennell, President, Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau, expressed appreciation for Council's support. He commended the City of Roanoke on its action to increase the transient occupancy tax and earmarking the additional funds, totalling more than one quarter of a million dollars, for marketing the Roanoke Valley. He requested that Council support the agreement with the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau. The City Manager presented copy of a marketing plan which was developed by the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau. Ordinance No. 35502-080601 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0. Mr. Hudson offered the following resolution: (#35503-080601) A RESOLUTION authorizing an agreement with the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau for the purpose of increasing tourism in the Roanoke Valley. (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) Mr. Hudson moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35503-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None ........................................................................................... -0. BUDGET-PUBLIC WORKS-STREETS AND ALLEYS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Adams Construction Company was awarded a contract, in the amount of $1,969,602.91, on a unit price basis at the May 21, 2001 meeting of City Council to repave various streets within the City of Roanoke; a review of the Paving Program budget, Account No. 001-530-4120-2010, has shown that $150,685.00 is available for additional street resurfacing; contract provisions allow the City to add streets to the contract, with unit prices and completion dates to be unchanged; and approval of the contract change order will enable the paving of five additional lane miles, bringing the paving program cumulative total to 57 lane miles. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $150,685.00 with Adams Construction Company to repave additional streets within the City of Roanoke. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Harris offered the following emergency ordinance: (#35504-080601) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager's issuance of Change Order No. 1 to the City's contract with Adams Construction Company to repave additional streets within City of Roanoke; and providing for an emergency. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35504-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder. Vice-Mayor Carder expressed concern with regard to disrepair of certain City streets as the result of utility cuts for underground utility lines, fiber optics etc. He advised that the streets are patched up with asphalt which, within a short period of time turns into potholes, and inquired if the responsible party can be required to make street repairs that are more durable. The City Manager advised that there is a form of repair that is more durable and expensive and the City's Utility Lines Department is testing the procedure through a pilot project involving City utility cuts. She advised that a report will be submitted to Council in the near future. Ordinance No. 35504-080601 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... --0. CITY CODE-EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL: The City Manager submitted a written communication advising that the General Assembly recently amended Section 10.1-563 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Law, Section 10.1-560, et seq; effective July 1, 2001, the amendment requires that all land disturbing projects which require approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and issuance of a Land Disturbing Permit to name an individual who will be responsible 35 for the land disturbing activities for the project; and the individual will be required to hold a Responsible Land Disturber (RLD) certificate. It was further advised that the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) has developed course material for individuals to become certified; individuals currently certified by the Department of Conservation as contractors, inspectors, plan reviewers, administrators or combined administrators will be considered a Responsible Land Disturber without further training; and persons holding a valid Virginia Professional Engineer, Land Surveyor, Landscape Architect, or Architect license will also be considered a Responsible Land Disturber without further training, certification or fees. It was explained that for all land disturbing activities, the landowner will remain ultimately responsible for compliance with all erosion and sediment control regulations; the individual named as the Responsible Land Disturber will be responsible for, and in charge of, carrying out the land disturbing activities for the project; and persons and entities submitting erosion and sediment control plans for approval after July 1, 2001, will be required to identify on the plans submitted for approval the individual named as the Responsible Land Disturber, which information will also be shown on the Land Disturbing Permit. The City Manager recommended that Council approve an amendment to the Erosion and Sediment Control ordinance which is consistent with the State Code and will enhance and clarify the City's existing Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Carder offered the following emergency ordinance: (#35505-080601) AN ORDINANCE amending Section 11.1-6, Erosion and sediment control plan, of Chapter 11.1, Erosion and Sediment Control, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by adding new subsection (i) to require the identification of the person responsible for carrying out a land disturbing activity; and providing for an emergency. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35505-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None ....................................................................................... -0. PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY PROPERTY-INDUSTRIES- NEWSPAPERS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City of Roanoke has been working with the Times-World Corporation ("Roanoke Times") to undertake a $31 million expansion project in downtown Roanoke, which would provide for the retention of existing jobs and advance economic and urban development; and on May 21, 2001, a public hearing was held to consider authorizing an assignable Option Agreement to convey two parcels of City-owned real estate (identified as Official Tax Nos. 1010402 and 1010403) to Roanoke Downtown Properties, LLC, or its assigns, as set forth in a communication from the City Manager under date of May 21, 2001. It was further advised that the property, deemed critical to the project, would be transferred for consideration of $100.00 and other good and valuable consideration; no comments were received at the public hearing and the Option Agreement now needs to be executed; the City will appropriate up to $500,000.00 to the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke (IDA) which, in turn, will provide an economic development grant to the Roanoke Times, upon certain terms and conditions as more fully set forth in the Performance Agreement; the grant will be made after The Roanoke Times project has been completed and is operational, after which time, the Authority will provide grant funds in the following increments: $250,000.00 in the first year; $150,000.00 in the second year; and $100,000.00 in the third year, in accordance with the Performance Agreement. The City Manager recommended that Council take the following actions: Approve the Option Agreement and subsequent conveyance of the real estate as described above to Roanoke Downtown Properties, LLC, or its assigns. Authorize the City Manager to execute an Option Agreement and deeds or any documents as may be necessary to accomplish the transfer of real estate. Approve the terms of the Performance Agreement between the City of Roanoke, the IDA and The Roanoke Times that will provide for a grant up to $500,000.00. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Performance Agreement among the City, The Roanoke Times, and the IDA, and execute such other documents and take such further action as may be necessary to implement the Performance Agreement, with the form of such Agreement to be approved by the City Attorney. Appropriate $500,000.00 from undesignated capital funds to an account to be established by the Director of Finance in the capital projects fund. 37 (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Harris offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35506-080601) 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. 64.) Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35506-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0. Mr. Harris offered the following emergency ordinance: (#35507-080601) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the proper City officials to execute a Performance Agreement among the City of Roanoke (City), the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia (IDA), and The Times-World Corporation (Roanoke Times.), that provides for The Roanoke Times to make an investment in the construction and development of certain property in the City; that the City will comply with the terms of a separate option contract to transfer two parcels of real property owned by the City in accordance with the terms of the Performance Agreement; that the City will make an appropriation of up to $500,000.00 to the IDA, all for the purpose of promoting economic development in order to fund the grant that the IDA intends to make to The Roanoke Times; authorizing the City Manager to execute such other documents and take such further action as may be necessary to implement the Performance Agreement; and providing for an emergency. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35507-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7. NAYS: None ........................................................................................... -0. Mr. Harris offered the following ordinance: (#35508-080601) AN ORDINANCE authorizing execution of an Option Agreement by which the City of Roanoke grants an option to Roanoke Downtown Properties, LLC, or its assigns, to purchase certain City-owned property known as Tax Parcels Nos. 1010402 and 1010403, located at 143 Salem Avenue, S. W., and, upon exercise of the option, the execution of an appropriate deed conveying the property; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35508-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7. NAYS: None ........................................................................................... -0. REAL ESTATE VALUATION-EQUIPMENT: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City's current appraisal software (CARAT) was purchased and installed in 1981; the system lacks many features and capabilities found in modern computer assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) systems; advances in technology offer the City the opportunity to employ advance state of the art appraisal software and computer hardware that increase Real Estate Valuation accuracy and efficiency; in addition, capture, storage and retrieval of real estate data critical to the successful deployment of the City's Geographical Information System will be enhanced with a new appraisal system; and five proposal responses were received and evaluated, with Manatron, Inc., ProVal System offering the best software solution for the City's real estate mass appraisal and assessment needs. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to enter into a contract with Manatron, Inc., to be approved as to form by the City Attorney, for the ProVal Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal System, in the amount of $119,635.00, including software and training for the system; and funds are available from a prior year CMERP appropriation in the Department of Technology Project Account No. 013-052- 9838, "Real Estate Project". (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Harris offered the following resolution: (#35509-080601) A RESOLUTION accepting the proposal of Manatron, Inc., and authorizing execution by the City Manager of a contract providing for the purchase of a ProVal Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal System for the Office of Real Estate Valuation, upon certain terms and conditions; and rejecting all other proposals made for such items. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35509-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None ...................................................................................... -0. BUDGET-CIVIC CENTER-EQUIPMENT: The City Manager submitted a written communication advising that the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) representatives recently inspected the fall protection system in the Roanoke Civic Center Coliseum; some components of the fall protection system were found to be of uncertain capacity; at the time of inspection, an engineering consultant had already been retained to design a new fall protection system; and the City's consultant reviewed the OSHA findings and recommended that the existing fall protection system not be used. It was further advised that until a new fall protection system can be installed, all rigging work has to be done from a portable man lift which is expensive and cumbersome to operate and has resulted in safety concerns and an unreasonable burden on continuing use of the Civic Center Coliseum; and after receiving notice of the situation on July 17, 2001, based on facts presented to the City Manager, the City Manager declared an emergency, pursuant to Section 41 of the City Charter, and authorized immediate procurement of a contractor to correct fall protection system problems in the facility. It was explained that on an emergency basis, the City of Roanoke, through the Engineering Department, agreed to and entered into a contract with Evan Corporation to correct the current system and/or furnish and install a new fall protection system in the Civic Center Coliseum, at a contract amount not to exceed $140,000.00. The City Manager recommended that Council affirm and ratify the above described action; that the City Manager be authorized to execute a contract with Evan Corporation for the abovereferenced work, in an amount not to exceed $140,000.00 and that the City Manager be authorized to take such further action as may be necessary to correct fall protection system problems in the Civic Center Coliseum; and appropriate $140,000.00 from Civic Center Prior Year Retained Earnings to a new project account entitled, Civic Center Fall Protection. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) 4O Mr. Carder offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35510-080601) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 Civic Center Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35510-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0. Mr. Carder offered the following emergency ordinance: (#35511-080601) AN ORDINANCE ratifying the emergency action taken by the City Manager in connection with emergency improvements to correct the fall protection system problems in the Roanoke Civic Center Coliseum; ratifying a contract between the City and Evan Corporation for such emergency work and authorizing the City Manager to execute such contract; and providing for an emergency. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35511-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7. NAYS: None ...................................................................................... -0. CITY CLERK: CITY CLERK-CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Clerk submitted a written report advising that at the regular meeting of Council on Monday, May 7, 2001, Council adopted Ordinance No. 35345-050701 authorizing and approving the establishment of a new position entitled Assistant Deputy City Clerk; Section 24 of the Roanoke City Charter requires the concurrence of Council in the appointment of a Deputy City Clerk and such number of assistants; whereupon, the City Clerk respectfully requested that Council concur in the appointment of Sheila N. Hartman as Assistant Deputy City Clerk, effective August 7, 2001. 4] (For full text, see report on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Hudson offered the following resolution: (#35512-080601) A RESOLUTION confirming the appointment of Sheila N. Hartman as the Assistant Deputy City Clerk, effective August 7, 2001. (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) Mr. Hudson moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35512-080601. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None ............................................................................................. 0. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: WORKERS COMPENSATION-CITY EMPLOYEES: Council at its meeting on Monday, July 16, 2001, having tabled a communication from the City Manager in connection with performing Third Party Administrator functions by Landin, Inc., for Workers' Compensation for the City of Roanoke, in the amount of $40,000.00 per annum, the matter was before the body. Mr. Carder moved that the matter be removed from the table. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and unanimously adopted. The City Manager submitted a communication advising that all employees of the City of Roanoke are covered byWorkers' Compensation as required by State law and the City of Roanoke is self-administered and self-insured for Workers' Compensation; currently, the City experiences approximately 400 new Workers' Compensation claims annually and continues to administer active claims from previous years; claims involve significant amounts of paperwork and can be handled more efficiently by a company that deals with Workers' Compensation issues exclusively; therefore, the Office of Risk Management initiated an evaluation process to determine the logic of employing a Workers' Compensation Third Party Administrator. It was further advised that after submission of request for proposals, non- binding on the part of the City, four Third Party Administrators were interviewed, with Landin, Inc., being the clear choice of all persons serving on the panel; Landin, 42 Inc., proposes to administer all Workers' Compensation claims for the City at a fee comparable to that of hiring a Workers' Compensation specialist to replace a City employee who recently retired; Landin, Inc., offers assurances that all of the City's injured employees will receive quality service to speed their recoveries; the use of a Third Party Administrator should enable the Office of Risk Management to spend more time administering general liability and automobile liability claims; and these classes of claims have the greatest potential financial impact to have their outcomes affected by extra time and effort devoted to their investigation and administration. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to enter into a one year contract, with an option to renew for two additional one year periods by mutual agreement with Landin, Inc., to perform Third Party Administrator functions for Workers' Compensation for the City of Roanoke, in an amount not to exceed $40,000.00 per annum. (For full text, see communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Mr. Harris offered the following resolution: (#35513-080601) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a bid and execution of a contract with Landin, Inc., for the provision of services as a third party administrator for Workers' Compensation claims for the City, upon certain terms and conditions, and rejecting all other bids received. (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 64.) Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35513-080601. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Harris, Hudson and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7. NAYS: None ............................................................................................ -0. INTRODUCTION RESOLUTIONS: None. AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: NONE. PARKS AND RECREATION-DOWNTOWN ROANOKE, INCORPORATED: Vice- Mayor Carder suggested that the matter of outside dining in the Century Plaza area; i. e.: street side vendors/dining, be referred to the City Manager for report to Council. 43 REGIONAL IDENTITY: Vice-Mayor Carder addressed the need to establish the City of Roanoke/Roanoke Valley region in terms of identity; i. e.: what is the perception of the City of Roanoke/Roanoke Valley by non-Roanoke Valley citizens. He suggested that the services of a public relations firm be engaged to help establish city/regional identity, and requested that the matter be referred to the City Manager for report to Council. The Mayor called attention to discussions with representatives of other municipalities in the Roanoke Valley Leadership Summit that might be interested in participating in the study. REFUSE COLLECTION-COMPLAINTS: Council Member Hudson called attention to numerous telephone calls he has received from citizens complaining about curbside refuse collection, and spoke in support of returning to alley collection. OTHER HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Mayor advised that Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to speak and a time for Council to listen; and matters requiring referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for appropriate response COMPLAINTS-REFUSE COLLECTION: Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., spoke against curbside refuse collection. She expressed concern regarding the policy of the City which requires physically challenged citizens who are unable to roll their containers to the curb to obtain a certificate from their physician. She requested that the City return to the pre July 1 policy for refuse collection. At 4:45 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for three Closed Sessions. At 5:55 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, who left the meeting during the Closed Session. 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: 44 AYES: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Hudson and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -6. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-SPECIAL EVENTS COMMITTEE: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the Special Events Committee created by the resignation of Catherine Fox, and called for nominations to fill the vacancy. Mr. Carder placed in nomination the name of William X Parsons. There being no further nominations, Mr. Parsons was appointed as a member of the Special Events Committee, for a term ending June 30, 2002, by the following vote: FOR MR. PARSONS: Council Members White, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Carder, Hudson and Mayor Smith ................................................................................... 6. NAYS: None ........................................................................................... 0. (Council Member Harris was absent.) There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. APPROVED ATTEST: Mary F. Parker City Clerk Ralph K. Smith Mayor 45 August 20, 2001 Annual Report of the Municipal Auditor June 30, 2001 Honorable Mayor and City Council: The goal of Municipal Auditing is to provide City Council and City administration with analyses, appraisals, recommendations, counsel, and information concerning financial related activities of the City. The office performs its audit work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards promulgated by the Comptroller General of the United States. During the year ended June 30, 2001, we provided audit coverage of the City's financial activities by monitoring external audit activities. We also evaluated systems of internal controls to determine whether they are designed to meet management's needs and are functioning as planned. We performed substantive testing to determine whether procedures produced reasonable results or additional work was necessary. Recommendations were made to correct any deficiencies encountered in internal controls and technical assistance was provided to implement these recommendations. Each audit was reported in writing to the City Council Audit Committee. Significant audit activity completed during fiscal year 2001 includes: Financial Audits - To maintain the City's excellent financial reporting credibility and ensure compliance with statutory audit requirements, we: Coordinated the independent public accountant's audits of the financial statements of the Greater Roanoke Transit Company, the City Pension Plan, and the City, including the Single Audit; Assisted the Commonwealth Auditor of Public Accounts in the audits of the local courts' financial activities; Performed an annual financial audit of the Sheriff's Jail Inmate Fund and Canteen Fund. Annual Report of the Municipal Auditor August 20, 2001 Page 2 Financial Related Audits - To provide reasonable assurance that internal controls are functioning effectively to prevent inaccuracies, irregularities, or willful manipulations, we performed controls evaluations or substantive testing in the following areas: · · · · · · · · · Police Department Cash Funds City Payroll Processing Fixed Assets Comprehensive Services Act Civic Center Concessions Records Management Economic Development Human Resources Miscellaneous Taxes Substantive testing was in process at year end in the Water Meter Shop. Substantive testing in Fleet Management was postponed to allow the Department of Technology to make requested changes. Long-term systems development audit participation in the building inspection, zoning, planning, and housing areas was coming to a conclusion at year-end with implementation of the Accela System in July, 2001. Technical Assistance - We promoted improvements to the City's manual and computer-based financial accountability systems by answering control related questions and by maintaining communications with all City officials. We spent significant management assistance time on Personal Property, Recreation, Fleet Management, and City Manager committees. School Board - In addition to the "city" work described above, we provided internal auditing services to the School Board. This work was done according to the plan presented to the School Board Audit Committee. Results of each audit were reported in writing to the School Board Audit Committee in a public meeting. In submitting this report, I would like to express my appreciation of the Council and all affected City employees for their continued cooperation in maintaining and improving the financial integrity of the City of Roanoke. Respectfully, Robert H. Bird, CIA, CISA Municipal Auditor August 20, 2001 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia SUBJECT: Roanoke City Council Audit Committee Annual Report - June 30, 2001 Dear Members of City Council: The purpose and function of the Audit Committee as stated in the City Code at Chapter 2-298(b) is: 'q'he audit committee shall act in an advisory capacity to the council, the municipal auditor, the director of finance and the city manager in matters relating to the city's financial records and to that end shall have the right to have immediate access to all records and reports relating to financial matters and transactions of the city or of matters and things affecting such financial records. The council, any member thereof, the municipal auditor, the director of finance and the city manager shall have the right to consult with and seek the advice of the audit committee on matters relating to the city's financial records, but neither the committee nor any member shall have authority to act for or to bind the city council, unless expressly authorized so to do by ordinance or resolution of the council." During the year ended June 30, 2001, the committee held four regular meetings. Each member's attendance was: Member William H. Carder C. Nelson Harris W. Alvin Hudson Mayor Ralph K. Smith William White, Sr. Linda F. Wyatt Meetin.qs Attended Meetin.qs Absent 4 0 0 4 4 0 2 2 4 0 3 1 Roanoke City Council Audit Committee Annual Report August 20, 2001 Page 2 The following is a summary of the committee's activity during the year: · Reviewed and concurred with the annual plan presented by KPMG Peat Marwick. Reviewed and concurred with the Municipal Auditor's annual audit plan. Reviewed the independent accountant's report with representatives from KPMG Peat Marwick and City officials. Reviewed the internal audit reports with the Municipal Auditor and City officials. Reviewed an external quality control review prepared by the Virginia Local Government Auditors Association peer review team. Furnished a copy of the minutes of each committee meeting to City Council and City officials. I ask that this report be made a part of the Council's consent agenda for August 20, 2001. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best personal regards to each of you. Sincerely, William White, Sr. Chairman, Audit Committee Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, Sheila N. Hartman, 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 the Assistant Deputy City Clerk of the City of Roanoke, effective August 7, 2001, according to the best of my ability. I swear or affirm. Subscribed and sworn to before me this r~ day of ~ 2001. ARTHUR B. CRUSH, III, CLERK BY DEPUTY CLERK N:\CKMHlXAgenda.01XJuly 2, 2001 correspondenc.wpd CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #15-38-72-110-202 Teresa I. McDaniel, Secretary Advisory Board of Human Development Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. McDaniel: This is to advise you that Gail Burruss has qualified as a member of the Advisory Board of Human Development for a term ending November 30, 2004. Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh H:kAgenda.01kAugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, Gail Burruss, 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 Advisory Board of Human ~3~evelopment for a term ending November 30, 2004, according to the best of my a~'y. I swear or affirm. Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of~L,..o~2001. 0 ARTHUR B. CRUSH, III, CLERK BY "~.~_~ ~ , DEPUTY CLERK N:~CKSHl~Agendas 2001~April 2 correspondence.wpd CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #15-38-72-110-202 Kenneth S. Cronin, Secretary Personnel and Employment Practices Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Cronin: This is to advise you that William C. Holland has qualified as a member of the Personnel and Employment Practices Commission for a term ending June 30, 2004. Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh H:~Agenda.0 l~August 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, William C. Holland, 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 Personnel and Employment Practices Commission for a term ending June 30, 2004, according to the best of my ability. I swear or affirm. Subscribed and sworn to before me this~:>//day of ~--~~ 2001. ARTHUR B. CRUSH, III, CLERK N:\CKMHIXAgenda.0IXJuly 2, 2001 correspondenc.wpd CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #15-38-72-110-202 Teresa I. McDaniel, Secretary Human Services Committee Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. McDaniel: This is to advise you that Evelyn F. Board has qualified as a member of the Human Services Committee for a term ending June 30, 2002. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh H:XA. genda.01XAugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, Evelyn F. Board, 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 Human Services Committee for a term ending June 30, 2002, according to the best of my ability. I swear or affirm. Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ day of 2001. ARTHUR B. CRUSId, III, CLERK , DEPUTY CLERK H:~genda.0DJuly 2, 2001 correspondenc.wpd CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 31,2001 File #230 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001, Mark C. McConnel, Chair, Roanoke Arts Commission, presented information on the Per Cent for Arts Program and Municipal Art in the City of Roanoke. He requested that the City participate in the program and advised that the Per Cent for Art Committee has been staffed by the City Manager and will submit a recommendation to the City Manager within one month. Mr. McConnel also requested that the City reinstitute its practice of purchasing art from the Roanoke City Art Show in order to support local artists, economic development, quality of life and to provide a record of artistic achievements in the Roanoke Valley. The remarks of Mr. McConnel were referred to the City Manager for response. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh pc: Mark C. McConnel, Chair, Roanoke Arts Commission, 546 Camilla Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Judith M. St. Clair, Secretary, Roanoke Arts Commission H:~Agenda.01 ~August 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd Roanoke lrts Commission 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Room 456 Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011 540-853-2541 August 20, 2001 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council: This is to request time on the City Council agenda on Monday, August 20, 2001, to give a presentation on the Percent for Arts Program and Municipal Art in the City. Sincerely, Mark C. McConnel Chair MCM:sm AMERICANS zo ARTS December 2000 PUBLIC ART FUNDING Developing Percent-for-Art Programs Brenda Brown and Mary Rubin, City of San Jose Office of Cultural Affairs Stair#1 (1995) Arquitectonica International Corporation Downtown Bus Terminal Fort Lauderda/e, FL ln the late 1950s, a small group 'of Philadelphia citizens unintentional- ly started a revolution. Their idea was a simple one: set aside a small portion of the construction costs of public projects for the inclusion of artworks which would enhance what they considered to be the stark modernist architecture of the time. From this little-heralded beginning was born a movement that has overtaken the country and become the primary method by which public art is funded in the United States. After the Philadelphia Redevelopment Agency and City Council both passed percent-for-art mandates in 1959, a number of other cities followed suit- most notably Baltimore in 1964 and San Francisco in 1967. The move- merit gained momentum in the 1970s and swept across America. Today, 300 cities, counties, states, federal agencies, and other govern- ment bodies have adopted percent-for-art programs, generating more than $200 million annually in public art support. This has resulted in the commissioning of thousands of public artworks. AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS SERVING COMMUNITIES. ENRICHING LIVES. December 2000 · Contributes to the enhancement of a cityscape, creates a sense of place, or improves the design qualities of public infrastructure. · Fosters collective memory and gives meaning to place by recalling local and regional history. · Enlivens public space by creating a sense of serendipity and discovery. · Promotes local urban and economic development by creating opportunities for local artists. · Makes sense of communities by creating landmarks, directional elements, and defining neighborhoods and districts. · Gives visual expression to local cultural diversity. · Creates a sense of community identity through unique functional elements such as bus shelters, tree grates, seating elements, paving patterns, parking garages, etc. What is Public Art? Public art is different from studio art or art exhibited in museums and galleries. Public art is accessible to the public, it typically reflects an awareness of its site, both physically and socially, and, most importantly, public art involves community process in its creation. A wide variety of approaches to public art are possible. Some approaches emphasize integrating artwork into the built environment, others emphasize placing artwork in a plaza or on a wall, and still others involve the creation of temporary works in community settings. Depending on the needs of a community, one or a combination of the following approaches may be taken: · Discrete object: The traditional approach of placing stand-alone sculptures, murals, or other artworks in public buildings, plazas, parks, etc., as a means to beautify and humanize the environment. · Integration of public art and architecture: A multi-disciplinary design team approach wherein artists work on project teams with architects, engineers, landscape architects and other design professionals to design and create public projects, such as transit systems or waste water treatment facilities to achieve the highest aesthetic innovation. This approach may also result in artist-designed functional elements that are integrated into the project such as flooring, furniture, light fixtures, fencing, tree grates, etc. · Master planning: Artists working with other design professionals, policy makers and community groups to identify specific opportunities for the integration of various forms of art within a specific project or urban context, such as transit systems, neighbor- hood redevelopment districts, airports, parks, and civic plazas. Urban design/place-making: Artwork projects that contribute to the enhancement of a cityscape, create a sense of place, or improve the design qualities of public infra- structure. Artist-designed freeway enhancements, bridges or parks are examples of such projects. Temporary installations/sculpture: Non-permanent artworks that respond to a specific physical or social environment. Temporary projects can involve a single artist working with the community or hundreds of artists responding to the same subject matter. Arts and community development program: Artists working in communities to create public art projects that respond to the reality and integrity of those communities (e.g., artists working in social institutions, prisons, homeless shelters, with the elderly, youths). AMEKICANS FOR THE ARTS M~nograph AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS Five Skaters (1996) Artists: Larry Sultan, Mike Mandel A commemoration of figure skating champions from the San Francisco Bay Area: Brian Boitano, Peggy Flemming-Jenkins, Rudy Galindo, Debi Thomas and Kristi Yamaguchi. Five Skaters honors the art of figure skating, the local champions and others who have contributed to its vitality, tradition and popularity. San Jose, CA Public Art Selection Process The goal and the process of artist and artwork selections make public art unique in the art world. With some notable exceptions, the goal of the selection process is to identify an artist who will be commissioned to create an artwork, not to choose or purchase an existing artwork. This approach allows the commissioned artist and the commissioning agency to engage in an outreach process with the community early in the development of the artwork project. The artist can then design an artwork that responds to the specific physical and social context of the project. The process of selection is a democratic one. That is, rather than making unilateral decisions on the appropriate artists for a commission, it is the responsibility of staff to curate professional selection panels to review artist qualifications, interview artists and make final recommenda- tions on the most qualified candidate. A selection panel should include artists, arts professionals, design professionals and community representatives. The following are examples of typical selection processes: Open Call for Entries/Request for Qualifications (RFQ): The most commonly employed method of artist selection. Detailed informa- tion describing the project and how to apply are distributed and publicized through an RFQ. Artists submit a package that includes a resume and slides of their work by a specified deadline. A selection panel reviews submissions and finalists are determined for interviews. The panel makes its decision based on the following: (1) aesthetic quality of artists' past work, (2) artists' demonstrated ability to respond to project site and context, and (3) the specific criteria for the given project. Limited Invitational Process/Curated Pool of Artists: In contrast to an open call or RFQ, staff develops a short list or pool of artists December 2000 who are qualified to accomplish a commission, and invites these artists to apply. These artists are presented to the panel, along with artists who the panelists themselves suggest are appropriate to consider. The panel uses the same criteria in making their recommendations as in an open-call process, and finalists are invited for interviews. A limited.invitational process or curated pool is used when the project schedule does not allow for an open call or when a specific set of skills is required. Blind Competitions - A Request for Proposals (RFP): a detailed package of information, often including site plans, photos and competition guidelines is issued. Artists design a proposal based on the guidelines in the RFP. Each proposal is given an identifica- tion number used by the selection panel during the review and selection process. The selection panel considers the project criteria outlined in the RFP when reviewing submitted proposals. This method of selection is most often used for high profile projects of regional or national interest with ample budgets to support the process. One advantage to blind competition is that the process allows everyone an even playing field on which to compete. Once the selection panel makes its recommendation of an artist or proposal for the artwork commission, their recommendation is often reviewed for approval by an arts commission or other reviewing body as designated by the governing ordinance. (safety mats) (1999) Artist: Jean Lowe San Diego, CA Artist Jean Lowe designed rugs for the North Operations Building and Administration Building at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant. These rugs are if the same type as the "Kex Mats" usually deployed throughout such a facility, but feature artist-designed imagery instead of ubiquitous safety slogans. Lowe's rugs combine a straightforward use of decoration common to sources (Poseidon), transport (aqueduct, water bearer), utilization, disposal, cleansing and undersea life. How is Public Art Funded? Public art programs can be funded by both the public and private sector. The majority of public art programs at the state, county, and city level are funded through a law or ordi- nance that sets aside a percentage of funds from the construction budget of what is known as an eligible capital improvement project. These "percent-f0r-a .rt" mandates generally provide a percentage of total eligible capital improvement project costs for the acquisition and commissioning of artworks. While the details of individual funding ordinances vary, three common elements include: 1. Definitions of eligible capital improvement projects (CIP) Since public art program funds are made available through CIPs, defining the eligibility of such projects is a critical consideration, as it will have a large influence on the scope of the artwork project that can be accomplished. Think about the wide variety of building projects a city, county or state undertakes, and you will soon have an impressive list of potential CIPs to consider: office buildings, transit projects, libraries, schools, parks, airports, hospitals, street/sidewalk improvements, fire stations, county/state buildings, freeways and bridges. The type of project, identified as an eligible CIP, will also have a significant influence over the approach of the public art program it funds. That is, the broader the definition of eligible CIPs, the broader the scope of the public art program. Minimum project value may be a defining AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS 4 Monograph AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS constraint (e.g., only projects with budgets greater than $300,000 are eligible). The flexibility to pool public art funds from multiple smaller projects to create fewer, larger- budgeted projects should be considered as well. It should be noted that every public art project, no matter how small, takes signifi- cant staff resources to accomplish. 2. Percentage identified for public art projects The percentage allocated for public art projects typically ranges between 0.5 percent and 2 percent, which may also include project administra- tion and maintenance costs if these are not to be funded from the municipality's general fund or another source. In recent years, most new programs have allocated at least 1.5 percent of capital costs, which ensures sufficient funding to provide for both artwork and program administration. 3. Guidelines for expenditure of percent-for-art After defining what type of CIP is eligible and what percentage of that CIP budget provides funding for public art, guidelines regarding the specific use of those funds are the next consideration. To begin, the total pool of percent-for-art funds must be appropriately divided into two funds: (1) administrative funds and (2) artwork project funds. Public art program administrative costs run between 15 percent and 20 percent of total percent-for-art funds, leaving a balance of between 80 to 85 percent to fund artwork projects. Administrative costs are the costs associated with running a program (e.g., staff salaries, overhead, public relations) and the costs of managing a project from beginning to end (project development, artist selection, community outreach, artwork dedication and maintenance). Artwork project funds are often divided into design vs. fabrication and installation costs-typically at a rate of 15 percent for design and 85 percent for fabrication and installation. In addition, most art budgets factor a contingency of approximately 10 percent from the fabrication and installation budget for unknown or unforeseen project costs. Artwork project costs are any and all costs associated with the artist's responsibility to design, fabricate and install the artwork project, and are typically facilitated through a contract directly with the artist. Artwork project design costs include, but are not limited to, the artist's design fee, research, travel, project proposal, engineering and construction documents. Artwork fabrication and installation costs include artist's travel, materials, studio overhead, subcontractors, fabricators, installers, site preparation, insurance and bonding. Advantages of the Percent-for-Art Funding Model There are distinct advantages to funding public art through the percent-for-art mechanism. · It ensures that the level of artwork funding is cc~mmensurate with the size of the funding capital improvement project. · It protects the artwork funds from budget cuts which can occur when public art funds are borne by a municipality's general fund. 51 December 2000 · Since artwork funds are determined in advance, early selection of artists and their involvement on project design teams can be achieved, and the artwork can become part of the fabric of the overall project, rather than an afterthought. · This approach is flexible enough to be adapted to the needs of a given community. The model allows for small scale, discrete objects in neighborhood parks as well as architect/artist collaborations on large municipal buildings. Man of Fire (1998) Artist: Klm Yasuda The a~twork commemorates Dr. Ernesto Galarza (1905-1984), scholar, poet, labor organizer, community leader and civil rights activist. San Jose, CA How to Get Percent-for-Art Funding in Your Community · Investigate whether a percent-for-art legislation already exists in your city, county or state (contact your city, county or state arts agency). Note that some municipalities have multiple overlapping public art programs. One city, for example, could have an active state, city, transit, and redevelopment public art program. (Contact Americans for the Arts for the Guide to Public Arts Programs in the U.S.) · Create a working group of volunteers with community-wide participation to investigate and pursue a percent-for-art funding ordinance. · Contact public art coordinators in your region. Note that coordina- tors may be employed by agencies other than an arts program (parks, planning, redevelopment, etc.). · Attend a regional or national public art conference to further educate yourself about current public art issues. (Contact Americans for the Arts for information about upcoming conferences.) · Consider epgaging an experienced public art consultant to develop a public art master plan for your community. Critical Issues to Consider When Crafting a Percent-for-Art Ordinance Try to include the broadest definition possible of an eligible capital improvement project in the percent-for-art ordinance. Making amendments to the legislation at a later time can be difficult; this will help avoid the need to do so. Specificity is critical when defining which elements of the CIP are included in the public art calcu- lation (architectural costs, engineering costs, construction costs, etc.) and which elements are excluded, such as land acquisition. Define the applicability of the ordinance: public projects only, public-private projects (such as those of a redevelopment agency), and/or private developments. AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS 6 Monograph AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS Program Profiles The following profiles illustrate the diversity of percent-for-art funded programs. Seattle Art Commission, Seattle, Washington In 1973, the city of Seattle took a pro-active approach to including public artworks in its cityscape. According to its public art ordinance, which specified a 1-percent set-aside for artworks, the mission of the pro- gram is "to integrate artworks and the ideas of artists into a variety of public settings" with the objective of contributing to a sense of the city's identity. One of the unique features of the Seattle model is that eligible CIPs included utility plants in addition to the construction or remodeling of any building, structure, park, street, sidewalk, or parking facility. At the time, the inclusion of utility plants within the parameters of eligible CIPs was unusual for a public art program. Seattle's Viewland- Hoffman electrical substation is a pioneer project that set the precedent for the now widely adopted "design team" approach to public art. In a design team project, artists are commissioned to work in collaboration with architects, engi- neers and other professionals to approach a project as a whole, and in which the artwork is integrated into the fabric of a CIP. In 1976, three artists, Andy Keating, Sherry Markowitz and Buster Simpson were commissioned to work Origin {1999) Artists: Brad Goldberg, Beliz Brother, Joe McShane San Jose, CA Origin explores the relationship between art and technology, and celebrates the earth's basic natural resources as the foundation of technological innovation. with the engineers for the Viewland-Hoffman project. It was the first time Seattle (or any public art program in the country) had involved artists in the conceptual design phase of a project. The artists' role was expanded beyond that of designing artworks for pre-selected locations to having an effect on the overall design and aesthetic of a project. The result was a whimsical integration of the artists' sensibility into every aspect of the substation-from security signage, to color-coding the pathways of electricity as a visual guide, to a series of whirligigs-throughout the entire sub- station. What might have been a case of NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) in response to a large, unattractive electrical substation in a suburban residential community instead became (and con- tinues to be) a popular neighborhood attraction and playground. Public Art and Design Program, Broward County, Florida In 1995, the Art in Public Places Program of the Broward County Cultural Affairs Council went through a master planning process 7 December 2000 which examined the existing art-in-public-places program and made recommendations for its future direction. The result was a shift of the program focus away from the more traditional place- ment of paintings and sculptures in public spaces toward the enhancement of urban design through artist participation on design teams. A direct result of the Design Broward master planning process is that artists are now brought into the CIP process at the same time as architects, and work with the archi- tects as collaborators. Artists are also encouraged to reach out into the community in the early stages of the design process to ensure that the resulting art- works respond to community needs and perceptions. The county's revised public art and design ordinance allocates 2 percent of the budgets of eligible CIPs for public art; broadens the definition of an eligible CIP to include the construction or renovation of any building (except detention facilities), park, highway or arterial, bridge or causeway, sidewalk, bikeway or above grade utility; and it also includes road beautifi- cation and beach restoration projects. The expansion of the program to include a variety of CIPs in addition to buildings is perhaps the most significant revision to the Broward County Public Art and Design Program. By applying the public art and design efforts to CIPs beyond buildings, the oppor- tunity has been created to effect, over time, the whole look of urban design in Broward. San Jose Public Art Program, San Jose, California The San Jose Public Art Program, funded by a two-percent mandate, emphasizes community input through an extensive public process. While developing a series of commemorative art projects in the early 1990s, staff determined that a public process was critical to realizing meaningful projects, and that outreach to the public had a direct bearing on the rele- vance of those projects to the community. Beyond commemorative projects, the San Jose Public Art Program is currently focused on the continuing development of the city's downtown, an airport expansion program, and a new emphasis on neighborhoods. All of these projects and programs include a public outreach process. Years of refining community process are culminating in the development of public art for a new main library-one that will be the first large-scale combined university-municipal library in the country. The artwork, by artist Mel Chin, is a series of sculptural insertions that pay homage to the book collection and the world of ideas that the library makes available. The insertions will be scattered throughout Viewland/Hoffman Substation (1979) Artists: Andrew Keating, Sherry Markovitz, Lewis "Buster" Simpson (whirlgigs by Emil & Veva Gehrke Architect: Richard Hobbs (principal), David Rutherford (project manager), Hobbs/Fukui This was the first major capital improvement project in Seattle that actively included the artists in the design phase. The purpose of the artists' inclusion was to the humanize and soften the substation's.impact on the surround- ing residential neighborhood. Hailed as a landmark project in the public art community, the Viewland/Hoffman Substation continues to generate interest. Seattle, WA AMERiCANS FOR THE ARTS Monograph AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS the library, provoking curiosity and initiating further exploration of the book collection. The goal of the art- work is to explore where culture and ideas come from through an exten- sive and collaborative dialogue with the community. Working with a multi-disciplinary team of scholars, students and community members, Chin is facilitating discussions on a range of personal and civic issues that help define how the community sees itself. These forums are a catalyst to inspire ideas behind the artworks themselves. Samples of the concepts developed to date include the following: True and Through: A 130-foot-tall Dawn Redwood tree, currently existing on the site, will have to be cut down to accommodate the building. Responding to the community's distress over losing the tree, the artist will mill the tree and clad a series of columns within the building from the lower level through the eight stories of the building, essentially creating an eight story interior tree. Roundup: Referencing the history of San Jose, 81 leather chairs will be branded with the 27 historical cattle brands from the original San Jose rancherias. The chairs will 'wander freely' on the second floor of the Library. City of San Diego Commission for Arts and Culture, San Diego, California A few innovative approaches to funding public art through municipal CIPs are being explored across the country as the value of artists' design Artwork for Mexican Heritage Plaza (1999) San Jose, CA Artists: Ann Chamberlain and Victor Marlo Zaballa contributions are gaining recognition and acceptance. The City of San Diego Commission for Arts and Culture is an example of a public art program whose funding is not governed by a percent-for-art ordinance. While the city council policy, Artists Involvement in Selected Capital Improvement Projects, adopted in 1992, legislates artist involvement at the inception of CIPs, the artist's involvement and fees are negotiated on a project-by-project basis. Artists are typically under contract to the project's prime design consultant (the project architect, engineer, landscape architect, etc.), although in some cases the artist is the lead consultant, hiring designers as sub-consultants. This procedure encourages a comprehensive approach to design aesthetics by including the artist's involvement on the design team. Fabrication and installation costs of the artist-designed elements are drawn from the construction budget and are fabricated by the building contractor, or a separate agreement is negotiated with the appropriate fabricator (artist or other). The City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department (MWWD), in partnership with the commission, committed to hiring an artist as the lead consultant to develop a comprehensive plan to mitigate the visual impact of an existing wastewater treatment plant. Lead artist Mathieu Gregoire selected a team of sub-consultants that included artists (painter, colorist, sculptor, poet and composer) and designers (architect, engineer, landscape architect). In 1996, the team published a precedent-setting com- prehensive plan for the aesthetic development of the 30-year-old December 2000 plant, including design recommendations and proposals for public artworks for the existing structures and for the new multi-million dollar upgrade and expansion. It is important to note that by January 2000, through the commitment of MWWD and the commission and with support from the National Endowment for the Arts, all the recommendations made by Gregoire and his team have been realized or are in-prOgress. The comprehensive plan contains a broad range of recommendations, including: a color scheme for repainting the plant that harmonizes it with the natural landscape; terrazzo floor designs, floor mats, and sandblasted walkways using imagery related to nature and the function of the facility; poetry about the site etched into handrails, concrete walkways, walls, and glass throughout the site; a series of nighttime construction photographs that reveal an aspect of the site that is not seen by the general public; a landscape plan that includes a new entrance, parking areas, and pedestrian circulation; and architectural guidelines for building types. Resources Allen, Jerry and Murphy, Jennifer, Design Broward: Public Art and Design Master Plan, Broward Cultural Affairs Council, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 1995. Allen, Jerry and Gustin, Mickey, Visual Dallas, Office of Cultural Affairs, Dallas, TX, 1987. Americans for the Arts, The Public Art Directory: Your Guide to Programs Across the United States, Washington, D.C., 1996. Bach, Penny Balkin, Public Art in Philadelphia, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1992. Bonton, Richard, Culture Wars: Documents from the Recent Controversies in the Arts, New Press, New York, 1992. Cleveland, William, Art in Other Places: Artists at Work in America's Community and Social Institutions, Praeger, Westport, CT, 1992. Cruikshank, Jeffrey L. and Korza, Para, Going Public A Field Guide to Developments in Art in Public Places, Arts Extension Service, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 1988. Doss, Erika, Spirit Poles and Flying Pigs: Public Art and Cultural Democracy in American Communities, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1995. Dubin, Steven C., Arresting Images: Impolitic Art and Uncivil Actions, Routledge Publishers, London, 1992. Deutsche, Rosalyn, Evictions Felshin, Nina, Ed., But Is It Art? The Spirit of Art as Activism, Bay Press, Seattle, 1995. Kramer, Jane, Whose Art is It? Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1994. Lacy, Suzanne, Ed., Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art, Bay Press, Seattle, 1995. Lippard, Lucy, Mixed Blessings: New Art in a Multicultural America, Pantheon Books, New York, 1990. Lippard, Lucy, Overlay: Contemporary Art and the Art of Prehistory, Pantheon Books, New York, 1983. Mitchell, W. J. T., Ed., Art and the Public Sphere, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1992. Peter, Jennifer A. and Crosier, Louis M., The Cultural Battlefield: Art Censorship & Public Funding, Avocus Publishing, Inc., Gilsum, NH, 1995. Public Art RevieW,~ Published semi-annually by FORECAST, St. Paul, MN. Raven, Arlene, Ed., Art in the Public Interest, UMI Research Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 1989. Senie, Harriet F. and Webster, Sally, Critical Issues in Public Art: Content, Context and Controversy, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 1992. People for the American Way, Artistic Freedom Under Attack, Washington, DC, 1994. Public Art Reference Manual, California Arts Council, Sacramento, CA, 1995. AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS Monograph AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS About Americans for the Arts BOARD OF DIRECTORS William Lehr, Jr. Governing Board Chairman Retired, Hershey Foods Corporation Jerry Allen Office of Cultural Affairs, City of San Jose Dean Amhaus Forward Wisconsin Ramona Baker Arts Council of Indianapolis, Inc. Buzz Bartlett Lockheed Martin Madeleine Berman President's Committee on the Arts & Humanities Caroline Bock BRAVO, Film & Arts Network Raymond A. Boyce Retired, Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. John Brademas New York University Carol Brown Pittsburgh Cultural Trust Kathryn Murphy Burke Milwaukee, WI Robert Bush Arts & Science Council Charlotte/ Mecklenburg, Inc. Peter F. Donnelly Corporate Council for the Arts Ken Fergeson National Bank of Commerce Gretchen Freeman Freeman/Whitehurst Group Stephanie French Philip Morris Companies Inc. Susan 5. Goode Norfolk, VA Mrs. John R. Hall Lexington, KY John Haworth National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution Betty Jo Hays Southwest Arkansas Arts Council Eleanor Holtzman National Executive Service Corps Ken Kahn Greater Hartford Arts Council Adrian King The Coca-Cola Foundation Fred Lazarus IV The Maryland Institute, College of Art Nancy Matheny Binney & Smith, Inc. Mrs. Michael A. Miles Women's Board, Art Institute ..of Chicago Margie Reese City of Dallas Office of Cultural Affairs Dr. James M. Rosser California State University, Los Angeles Mrs. LeRoy Rubin Stamford, CT Harriet Sanford Arts & Science Council Charlotte/ Mecklenburg County Janet Sarbaugh Heinz Endowments Joan F. Small Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs Steven D. Spiess Cravath, Swaine & Moore Michael Spring Miami-Dade County Cultural Affairs Council Patricia Holihan Steinhardt Binfield, Berks, England John Straus New York, NY Shirley Trusty Corey Arts Council of New Orleans Michael Verruto HPI Capital LLC STAFF Executive Office Robert L. Lynch President and CEO rlynch@artsusa.org Melissa Palar&a Manager, Office of the President mpalarea@artsusa.org Devin Cogswell Assistant~ Office of the President dcogswell@artsusa.org Public and Private Sector Affairs Nina Ozlu Vice President nozlu@artsusa.org Miriam Rosen* Director of Institutional Support mrosen@artsusa.org Lisa Marie Michener* Director, Public Awareness Campaigns Imichener~a rtsusa.org Lilian von Rago Government Affairs Coordinator Ivonrago@artsusa.org Satwain Braddock* New York Office Manager sbraddock@artsusa.org Ann Faith* Grants Coordinator afaith@artsusa.org Maria Braverman* Development Assistant mbraverman@artsusa.org Finance and Administration R. Brent Stanley Vice President bstanley@artsusa.org Daniel M. Andrejco Technology Coordinator dandrejco@artsusa.org Millie Lee Administrative Assistant mlee@artsusa.org Research and Information Randy I. Cohen Vice President rcohen@artsusa.org Mark A. Hager, Ph.D. Director of Research mhager@artsusa.org Lori Robishaw Director, National Arts Information Clearinghouse Irobishaw@artsusa.org Michelle Brown Research Coordinator mbrown@artsusa.org Rebecca Costanzo Research & information Assistant rcostanzo@artsusa.org Business Development -Joy Batashoff Thaler* Vice President jthaler@artsusa.org Education Howard Spector Vice President hspector~artsusa.org Programs and Sen~ices Mara Walker Vice President mwalker~artsusa.org Marc lan Tobias Director, Meetings & Events rntobias@artsusa.org Heather Rowe Membership/Marketing Coordinator hrowe@artsusa.org Jamie Ward Program Assistant jward@artsusa.org Animating Democracy Initiative Contractors Barbara Schaffer Bacon Project Director Phone: 413-253-1711 Fax: 413-253~4144 bsbacon@artsusa.org Pam Korza Associate Project Director Phone: 413-256-1260 Fax: 413-256-4648 pkorza@artsusa.org Public Art Network Facilitator Jennifer McGregor mcgregorCe~fcc.net * New York office Mbnograph AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS Monograph To order additional copies of this and past editions of Monograph, call 800-321-4510. Americans for the Arts Washington Office 1000 Vermont Avenue, NW 12th Floor Washington DC 20005 T 202 371 2830 F 202 371 0424 New York Office One East 53rd Street 2nd Floor New York NY 10022 T 212 223 2787 F 212 980 4857 Visit our website www.artsusa.org Design Design Alliance Editor Randy Cohen, Americans for the Arts © Copyright 2000, Americans for the Arts. Printed in the United States IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 19thday'of August, 1996. No. 33077-081996. A RESOLUTION endorsing a Percent-for-the-Arts-Program. WHEREAS, the inclusion of works of ar~ and. artistry in certain Capital Improvement Projects in the City will enhance the aesthetic quality of public places and stimulate the vitality and economy of the City~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows= 1. The guidelines for a Percent-for-the-Arts-Program, dated August 19, 1996, and attached to the City Manager's report of the same date, are hereby approved. 2. The City Manager is regulations, not inconsistent hereby authorized to promulgate with such guidelines, for the implementation of the Percent-for-the-Arts-Program. 3. Any procurement of art or artistry in connection with the Percent-for-the-Arts-Program shall be pursuant to the Virginia Public Procurement Act and Chapter 23.1, Procurement, Code of the City of RoanOke (1979), as amended. ATTEST: City Clerk. City of Roanoke Percent-for-the-Arts Program Guidelines August 19, 1996 Intent To recognize the inclusion of works of art and artistry in certain capitaI improvement projects to enhance the aesthetic quality of public places and stimulate the vitality and economy of the City of Roanoke Proqram Advisory Committee The City Manager and the Chairperson of the Roanoke Arts Commission shall appoint a committee who will advise the City Manager on implementation of this program. The City Manager shall appoint four (4) representatives and the Chairperson of the Arts Commission shall appoint three (3) representatives, who shall serve for staggered 3-year terms to ensure continuity among the membership. The committee will annually review upcoming capital improvement projects, select one or more considered appropriate for the inclusion of works of art or artistry, develop an appropriate cost estimate, and make recommendations to the City Manager. Upon request of the City Manager, the committee may assist in consultant selection and monitor the design and implementation of the recommended enhancement to the basic capital project. Typical Projects The program extends to new construction or major renovation of public buildings, decorative or commemorative structures, parks and recreation facilities, and parking facilities. Generally, the program is not intended to apply to street and sidewalk construction or utility installations; exceptions to the latter may occur. . Works of art, such as sculpture and paintings, are certainly included. Other aesthetic enhancements as fountains, landscaping, textured walls, mosaics, tiled columns, patterned pavement, grillwork, and other ornamentation are equally appropriate design considerations. The intent is to provide a more visually pleasing public facility than that which would be required to fulfill the basic utilitarian function.. - 9_ - Cost and Funding TYpically one-percent (1%) of the construction cost of designated capital improvement projects will be a goal for this program. Very small projects likely will not be appropriate candidates for inclusion in the program. Conversely, very large capital improvement projects will have some limit set for works of art and artistry. Initially, capital improvement projects under $50,000 will not be included, and a maximum expenditure of $100,000 for any single project in any calendar year are considered appropriate limits. Acquisitlon~of any works of art or.artistry will occur as part of the City's normal procurement process from funds included in the original capital improvement'bonds or the annual operating.= budget. VIRGINIA AMATEUR SPORTS, INC. PRESENTING SPONSORS CMT Sporting Goods Kroger July 26, 2001 Mamsi Sheetz Virginia's 13 ABC PREMIER SPONSORS Clear Channel Communications, Inc. Valleydale Foods GOLD MEDAL SPONSORS Adelphia Business Solutions BB&T Carillon Coca Cola Holiday Inn - Tanglewood K92 Radio Ragazzi's Sprint PCS Verizon Wireless SILVER MEDAL SPONSORS AEP Blue Ridge Copier First Team Auto Mall Lanford Brothers Lewis Gale Clinic Metro Information Services BRONZE MEDAL SPONSORS Advance Auto Parts Delta Dental KMC Telecom Mountain Springs Water PaineWebber Roanoke Electric Steel Roanoke Fruit & Produce Waldvogel, Poe & Cronk PATRON SPONSORS Burgess-DeMarco Member One Credit Union NBC Bank Sir Speedy '0 'i 711 C 5th Street, NE Roanoke, Virginia 24016 (540) 343-0987 FAX (540) 343-7407 www. commonwealthgames.org Ms. Mary Parker City Clerk 215 Church Ave. Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Ms. Parker, Virginia Amateur Sports would like to have the opportunity to say thank you to the City of Roanoke for their outstanding support of the 2001 Commonwealth Games of Virginia at your city council meeting scheduled for Monday, August 20, 2001 at 2:00 pm. I would also like to present a plaque to the Honorable Mayor Ralph Smith at this time. My presentation will take approximately 5 - 10 minutes. Please accept my thank you in advance for giving me this opportunity. I am looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Virginia Amateur Sports President Sponsor of Promoting Spotls In The Olympic Ideal Sanctioned by the National Congress of State Games and recognized by the United States Olympic Committee ~ Recycled Paper CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #548 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia William M. Hackworth City Attorney Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham and Mr. Hackworth: At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001, William N. Gordge, Member, Alliance Preservation of Read Mountain, addressed Council with regard to efforts to preserve Read Mountain and a request for adoption of a resolution of support from the City of Roanoke. The City Manager was requested to informally contact as many property owners as possible in the Read Mountain Area, and the City Attorney was requested to prepare the proper measure for consideration by Council at its regular meeting on Tuesday, September 4, 2001. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh pc: William N. Gordge, 3130 Evergreen Lane, S. W., RoanOke, Virginia 24015 H:Latgcnda.01~August 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd THE PRESERVATION OF READ MOUNTAIN TO: Roanoke City Council FROM: William N. Gordge Member, Citizen's Alliance for the Preservation of Read Mountain SUBJECT: Request for a resolution of support for the preservation of Read Mountain, and the efforts of the Alliance. DATE: August 20,2001 motorized recreation OUTLINE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF READ MOUNTAIN A prominent local landmark - see photographs Location, dimensions Unusual feature - undeveloped upper elevations steep unstable slopes, stunted timber - see photographs currently, not cost effective to develop Rapid urbanization of lower slopes and valley floor - see demographic data A window of opportunity - once gone, gone forever! The opportunity - to preserve 400-800 acres of pristine forestland for non- Ridge line and mountain top protection is an area-wide issue Classic upland Appalachian forest with rich diversity of species IT IS IN THE' CITY'S BEST INTEREST TO PRESERVE READ MOUNTAIN BECAUSE - (1) It will help preserve the impressive natural beauty of the City's northem viewshed, and also will help protect the delightful view to the east for travelers entering the Roanoke Valley from the north - see photograph from the I-81 track inspection station. (2) An intact upland forest is vital to the City's subdivisions and other properties in the shadow oftbe mountain for protection from storm water nm offand flooding. (3) Almost the emire city lies within 5 miles of the proposed preserve, offering citizens easy access to future recreational benefits. (4) The City's proposed Tinker Creek Greenway will pass nearby. Studies show a side trail to Read Mountain is very feasible, greatly enriching the Greenway's recreational potential. (5) Read Mountain's proximity to the City's new industrial park will be good for business. It will preserve the natural beauty of the area, and offer recreational opportunities close by to employees. · THE ALLIANCE A petition drive has begun. Goal - 2000+ supporters - see copy in packet Opportunities for volunteer duties Extensive grass roots support essential for local fund raising and grant money Outreach to businesses near the mountain and other organizations. Will be dependant on agency partners to seek capital from both the private and public sectors. Land owner contacts have been initiated In-kind donations - 85 volunteer/days in trail construction Trail to ridge top - an excellent way to showcase the mountain "If you ask me why I support the preservation of Read Mountain, I will show you Read Mountain" AN INVITATION - JOIN THE CELEBRITY OUTING TO THE MOUNTAIN - SATURDAY - OCTOBER 22~. 2001 CALL RON CRAWFORD OR LIZ BELCHER FOR DETAILS RESOLUTION OF THE WESTERN VIRGINIA LAND TRUST'S SUPPORT FOR THE PRESERVATION OF READ MOUNTAIN AND THE EFFORTS OF THE READ MOUNTAIN ALLIANCE WHEREAS, the misgion statement and goals of the Western Virginia Land Trust include preserving the natural and cultural resources of Western Virginia; and, WHEREAS, a group of property owners and interested citizens have identified Read Mountain in Roanoke and Botetourt Counties, as an important and regionally significant natural resource and have initiated efforts to enhance and preserve Read Mountain; and, WHEREAS, the Western Virginia Land Trust plays a critical role in facilitating preservation efforts initiated by private citizens and provides a voluntary means to preserve Western Virginia's natural and cultural resources; and, WHEREAS, the Western Virginia Land Trust encourages and supports the use of conservation easements and fee simple ownership to achieve the goal of preserving the natural and cultural resources of Read Mountain; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Western Virginia Land Trust has a vital interest in preserving the higher elevations of Read Mountain; agrees to work in concert with property owners, citizens and the Read Mountain Alliance to achieve these goals; and agrees to assist the Read Mountain Alliance by providing technical and administrative support, as necessary and appropriate. APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON ~,,UGUST 1, 2001 Barbara Lemon, President, Western Virgihia Land Trust Read Mountain Alliance W'6rkin.2 t~ether to preserve a landmark September 7, 2001 To all residents that live near Read Mountain Advocates Re: Preserving "Our" Mountain Ron CE Betty Crawford Bill CE Buz Gordge George cE Louise Kegley Tom CE Kim Roe Troy CE Lori Kincer Mark CE Ann Hatcher Ken CE Debbie Lane J. D. & Frankie Seneff Barry Bowman Greg & Paula Jones C. M. & Jenny Holland Waller & Connie Caldwell Jay Finch Harold & Sylvia Dill John Garrett Eric & Patti Mills Lori Sibley Matt & Heidi Korhonen Ed & Klm Cornwell Ron & Valeri Lucas Joe & Ann Murray Frank & Judy Longaker Bob & Nancy Wingfield Botetourt County Roanoke County City of Roanoke Roanoke Valley Greenways Western Virginia Land Trust Like us, you live near Read Mountain -one of the few remaining pristine, undeveloped mountains in the Roanoke Valley. The land on this mountain is all privately owned and subject to development, similar to what has happened to many of the other mountains in our valley. However, the owners of most of the upper slopes have expressed a willingness to sell their land or they have an interest in preserving the steeper slopes and ridges of the mountain. The Read Mountain Alliance is launching a grass roots effort to preserve this mountain in its present undeveloped state. This effort will require substantial citizen and agency involvement. We have already obtained the support and assistance of Roanoke County, Botetourt County, City of Roanoke, Roanoke Valley Greenways and the Western Virginia Land Trust. These partners will provide us with technical assistance and help us obtain grants from public and private sources. We also anticipate seeking sponsorships from corporations, companies and individuals in a major fund raising and in-kind service campaign. These funds will allow us to purchase land, obtain conservation easements and turn the mountain into a park we can all enjoy. Prior to beginning our fund raising effort, we need to develop a strong advocacy base consisting of residents that live in the shadow of this "woodland island" we call Read Mountain. We hope you will join the Alliance by completing the attached Petition and Data Sheet and returning it to: Ron Crawford 607 Ray Street Roanoke, VA 24019 Del. Vic Thomas Del. Clifton Woodrum Sen. John Edwards Sen. Malfourd Trumbo Cong. Robert Goodlatte This special mountain is a part of our daily lives and as such merits protection for all time. Thank you for your support and we look forward to keeping you informed of our progress. Sincerely, Read Mountain Alliance Read Mountain Alliance Workin.~ to.~ether to preserve a landmark 607 Ray Street Roanoke, VA 24019 August 9, 2001 Mrs. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk 215 Church Avenue SW Room 456 Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear Mrs. Parker, The Read Mountain Alliance requests time on the agenda of the August 20th meeting of the City Council to brief Council on our efforts to preserve the mountain and to request a Resolution of Support from the city. Bill Gordge and Liz Belcher will attend the meeting to make a presentation and;answer any questions. Sincere?, ~/~..~~'~ _ Ronald O. Crawford Mission Statement Eariy Pioneers Origin of the Name The Gap Called "Creely's' "Early Travelers" The Challenge Read Mountain Alliance Workin,~ to~ether to preserve a landmark Read Mountain - ^ Description and Historical Narrative The Read Mountain Alliance is a citizen initiative interested in preserving the mountainsides and ridgelines of Read Mountain to provide wildlife habitat, create recreational opportunity and preserve the natural beauty of a Roanoke Valley Landmark. This woodland island is surrounded on all sides by development and road networks. Each year bdngs further encroachment toward the mountain summit. A few years from now it is likely the opportunity to save this natural resource will be gone forever. Read Mountain, with an elevation of 2,353 feet, was known as Mills Mountain on early nineteenth century maps. It was named for William Mills, an early settler who lived on the western side of the mountain, between Glade Creek and Buffalo (an early name for Tinker) Creek. Colonel William Fleming, one of the prominent pioneers in the Roanoke Valley, lived along Buffalo or Tinker Creek and owned a 2,000 acre tract extending up the southern slopes of Mills Mountain in the late 1700's. Fleming, a surgeon, Regimental Commander at the battle of Point Pleasant in 1774, Justice for Botetourt County and State Senator, was senior member of the Virginia Council. In this capacity he was acting Governor of Virginia for a bdef period in June 1781, between the resignation of Thomas Jefferson and the election of Thomas Nelson. Fleming was the first doctor to serve in the Roanoke Valley. When General Andrew Lewis became ill and died in Bedford County on his way home from Richmond in 1781, his friend, Fleming, was at his side. Fleming died in 1795. When the family of Mrs. Betsy Read moved from Hendco County to the newly formed Roanoke County in the 1840's, they lived along Tinker Creek and owned some of the Fleming land, extending to Mills Mountain. After they had lived in the community for some time, the Read family name became widely accepted as the name for the mountain. The Read family lived for more than a century in the historic home, Monterey, constructed in 1845 about a mile and a half south of Read Mountain. The gap in Botetourt County, between Read Mountain and Coyners Mountain, has been known as Creely's Gap for two and a half centuries. The gap traversed by Alternate U.S. 220 running from Interstate 81 to U.S. 460 today, draws its name from Daniel Creely, who lived between Glade and Tinker Creeks in 1744. Read Mountain has also been called Dead Man Mountain because of the resemblance of its profile to a recumbent corpse. The carolina Road ran along the western edge of Read Mountain. On this road in 1782 the Black Horse Tavern, a hostelry and stagecoach stop, was established. John Madison, a cousin of President James Madison, was the original owner of the Black Horse Tavern land. It is said that Andrew Jackson visited the Black Horse before and while he was president. Next to the tavem, William Kyle built Kyle's Hotel in 1854. It was also know as Bellevue and is now a pdvate residence on Old Mountain Road. Just as the upper slopes and ridgelines of Read mountain appeared to travelers and the early residents of the Roanoke Valley, it appears to us today. This mountain is unique in that there are no buildings, roads, power lines, communication towers or any other man made structures on the higher elevations of this special mountain and prominent landmark. With your help the Alliance will work to keep it that way. Sources: Kegley's Virginia Frontier by F. B. Kegley Read Mountain - A Bdef History by George Kegley Places Near the Mountains by Helen Prillaman A History of Roanoke County by Deedie Kagey August 7, 2001 Read Mountain Alliance Workin~ to. oether to preserve a landmark Re: Read Mountain Preservation PETITION AND DATA SHEET I join the Read Mountain Alliance in their effort to save Read Mountain from further development. Unless extraordinary efforts are made to save it, this prominent landmark will ultimately succumb to urbanization and development. I therefore support the efforts to see that the mountainsides and ridgelines of Read Mountain are preserved in their natural state, providing wildlife habitat and recreational opportunity. Printed name Address City State Zip Phone No. E-mail address Signed Date Other adults at this address that support this effort Your phone and e-mail addresses will allow us to keep you informed of our progress and events. The following volunteer opportunities are available. Please check those items where you could assist us: [] Distributing petitions [] Maintaining website [] Maintaining database of supporters, etc. [] Assisting with trail building/maintenance [] Recruiting other volunteers [] Being on a phone committee [] Other (please list). [] Assisting with newsletter (typing, etc.) [] Helping organize this effort .~ [] Participating in hikes [] Writing a letter of support [] Distributing flyers / newsletters [] Considering a financial contribution Please indicate any special skills or resources you may have that would be useful to this effort. I believe the following companies / corporations / individuals might be interested in this effort and be willing to be a sponsor or supporter of this project. My first class stamp on the reverse side of this petition will help the Alliance keep its cost to a minimum. I know my time and effort to complete it is appreciated. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: CITY OF ROANOKE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Donald S. Caldwe11, Commonwealth's Attorney Cost Collection Unit August 8, 2001 Please reserve approximately ten minutes at the August 20, 2001 Council meeting for a short presentation of the Cost Collection Department's results for the 2000-2001 Fiscal Year. Please confirm with Beverly or Sandra at 853-2626, 853-1533. Thank you for your assistance. or Rita at CITY OF ROANOKE COST COLLECTIONS UNIT Fiscal Year 2000 - 2001 Page: INDEX I Summary of Cost Collection Effort for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 2 - Four-Year Comparison of Cost Collection Effort 3 - Chart: Four-Year Comparison of Cost Collection Results for Roanoke City 4 - Four-Year Comparison of General District Court Delinquent Collections 5 - Chart: General District Court 4-Year Comparison 6 - Four-Year Comparison of Circuit Court Delinquent Collections 7 - Chart: Circuit Court 4-Year Comparison 8 - Four-Year Comparison of Juvenile & Domestic Court Delinquent Collections 9 - Chart: Juvenile & Domestic Court 4oYear Comparison SUMMARY OF COST COLLECTION EFFORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 - 2001 Total Delinquent Referred Total Delinquent Collected % of Total Delinquent Referred State % of Total Delinquent Collected Local % of Total Delinquent Collected GENERAL JUVENILE DISTRICT CIRCUIT & DOMESTIC COURT COURT COURT $467,339.27 $454,322.90 $54,829.35 325,157.94 147,709.87 19,816.06 69.58% 32.51% 36.14% 35% from State 35% from city 35% to Cost Collections from Total Delinquent Collected BUDGET EXPENDITURE EXCESS REVENUE SPLIT 50150 WITH STATE 267,484.62 129,846.42 18,122.35 82.26% 87.91% 91.45% 57,673.32 17,863.45 1,693.71 17.74% 12.09% 8.55% COLLECTION FEE BREAKDOWN 92,149.52 43,697.66 6,635.04 20,294.28 8,047.01 687.04 112,443.80 51,744.67 7,322.08 37,284.00 17,157.45 2,427.85 75,159.80 34,587.22 4,894.23 37,579.90 17,293.61 2,447.12 TOTALS FOR ALL $976,491.52 492,683.87 50.45% 415,453.39 84.32% 77,230.48 15.68% YEAR-END RESULTS FOR ROANOKE CITY LOCAL DELINQUENT COLLECTED MINUS 35% COLLECTION FEE PLUS SPLIT TOTAL REVENUE TO LOCALITY 57,673.32 17,863.45 1,693.71 20,294.28 8,047.01 687.04 37,379.04 9,816.44 1,006.67 37.579.90 17,293.61 2,447.12 $74,958.94 $27,110.05 $3,453.79 ADDITIONAL INCOME TO CITY ($105,522.78 -77,230.48) The ACTUAL COST OF COLLECTION is the Budget Expenditure of $56,869.30 which results in a Collection Cost Percentage of 29,028.33 - 11.54% Page 1 FOUR-YEAR COMPARISON OF COST COLLECTION EFFORT Total Delinquent Referred Total Delinquent Collected % of Total Delinquent Referred State Delinquent Collected % of Total Delinquent Collected Local Delinquent Collected % of Total Delinquent Collected FY FY FY FY 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 945,642.44 878,853.44 789,240.01 976,491.52 485,486.61 489,761.64 523,726.92 492,683.87 51.34% 55.73% 66.36% 50.45% 405,211.82 408,912.46 437,019.82 415,453.39 83.47% 83.49% 83.44% 84.32% 80,274.79 80,849.18 86,707.10 77,230.48 16.53% 16.51% 16.56% 15.68% 35% from State 35% from City 35% to Cost Collections from Total Delinquent Collected BUDGET EXPENDITURE EXCESS REVENUE SPLIT 50150 WITH STATE COLLECTION FEE BREAKDOWN 130,086.25 139,438.09 150,259.92 142,482.22 25,860.93 27,565.14 29.795.63 29,028.33 155,947.18 167,003.23 180,055.55 171,510.55 59,832.84 64,446.46 56,814.19 56,869.30 96,114.34 102,556.77 123,241.36 114,641.25 48,057.17 51,278.39 61,620.68 57,320.63 YEAR-END LOCAL DELINQUENT COLLECTED MINUS 35% COLLECTION FEE PLUS SPLIT WITH STATE TOTAL REVENUE TO LOCALITY ADDITIONAL INCOME/LOSS TO CITY RESULTS FOR ROANOKE CITY 80,274.79 80,849.18 86,707.10 77,230.48 25,860.93 27,565.14 29,795.63 29,028.33 54,413.86 53,284.04 56,911.47 48,202.15 48,057.17 51,278.39 61,620.68 57,320.63 102,471.03 104,562.43 118,532.15 105,522.78 $22,196.24 $23,713.25 $31,825.05 $28,292.30 27.65% 29.33% 36.70% 36.63% Page 2 140 1(33 FOUR-YEAR COMPARISON Of COSt COLLECTION RESULTS FOR ROANOKE CITYI FISCAL YEAR e, GEOSS DELINQUENT COLLECTED ,~, COLLECTION FEE ,~, NET DELINQUENT COLLECTED o SPLIT OF EXCESS REVENUE · 1, TOTAL REVENUE TO LOCALITY 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 $80,274.79 $80,849.18 $86,707.10 $77,230.48 25.860.93 27.565.14 29.795.63 29,028.33 54,413.86 53,284.04 56,911.47 48,202.15 48.057.17 51.278.39 61,620.68 57.320.63 $102,471.03 $104,562.43 $118,532.15 $105,522.78 GROSS DELINQUENT COLLECTED MINUS COLLECTION FEE NET DELINQUENT COLLECTED PLUS SPLIT OF EXCESS REVENUE TOTAL REVENUE TO LOCALITY FOUR-YEAR COMPARISON OF DELINQUENT COLLECTIONS in ROANOKE CITY GENERAL DISTRICT COURT Total Delinquent Referred Total Delinquent Collected % of Total Delinquent Referred State Delinquent Collected % of Total Delinquent Collected Local Delinquent Collected % of Total Delinquent Collected FY FY FY FY 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 541,863.22 484,534.32 354,893.66 467,339.27 362,986.43 346,101.30 365,366.18 325,157.94 66.99% 71.43% 102.95% 69.58% 300,115.46 285,467.18 300,839.40 267,484.62 82.68% 82.48% 82.34% 82.26% 62,870.97 60,634.12 64,526.78 57,673.32 17.32% 17.52% 17.66% 17.74% 35% from State 35% from City 35% to Cost Collections from Total Delinquent Collected BUDGET EXPENDITURE EXCESS REVENUE SPLIT 50150 WITH STATE COLLECTION FEE BREAKDOWN 97,920.46 97,416.29 103,210.63 92,149.52 20,513.29 20,691.53 22,137.56 20,294.28 118,433.75 118,107.82 125,348.19 112,443.80 45,439.92 45,577.75 39,551.99 37,284.00 72,993.83 72,530.07 85,796.20 75,159.80 36,496.92 36,265.04 42,898.10 37,579.90 YEAR-END RESULTS FOR ROANOKE CITY LOCAL DELINQUENT COLLECTED MINUS 3,5% COLLECTION FEE PLUS SPLIT WITH STATE TOTAL REVENUE TO LOCALITY 62,870.97 60,634.12 64,526.78 57,673.32 20,513.29 20,691.53 22,137.56 20,294.28 42,357.68 39,942.59 42,389.22 37,379.04 36,496.92 36,265.04 42,898.10 37,579.90 78,854.60 76,207.63 85,287.32 74,958.94 Page 4 General District Court 4-Year Comparison State and Local Fines & Costs 1~97.98 le~-~ 1999-00 2000-01 Total Paid [] Total Timely Payments I Total Referred [] Total Collected 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2,606,864 2,222,953 2,259,586 2,169,675 2,243,877 1,876,852 1,894,220 1,844,517 541,863 464,534 354,894 467,339 362,986 346,101 365,366 325,158 66.99% 71.43% 102.95% 69.58% Total Paid Total Timely Payments Total Referred Total Collected % Collected FOUR-YEAR COMPARISON OF DELINQUENT COLLECTIONS in ROANOKE CITY CIRCUIT COURT Total Delinquent Referred Total Delinquent Collected % of Total Delinquent Referred State Delinquent Collected % of Total Delinquent Collected Local Delinquent Collected % of Total Delinquent Collected FY FY FY FY 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-0~ 371,431.06 347,258.70 380,567.31 454,322.90 105,025.51 128,386.99 139,585.91 147,709.87 28.28% 36.97% 36.68% 32.51% 89,384.73 109,275.46 119,023.89 129,846.42 85.11% 85.11% 85.27% 87.91% 15,640.78 19,111.53 20,562.02 17,863.45 14.89% 14.89% 14.73% 12.09% 35% from State 35% from City 35% to Cost Collections from Total Delinquent Collected BUDGET EXPENDITURE EXCESS REVENUE SPLIT 50/$0 WITH STATE COLLECTION FEE BREAKDOWN 27,692.13 37,118.29 41,057.38 43,697.66 4,845.64 6,491.73 7,092.89 8,047.01 32,537.77 43,610.02 48,150.27 51,744.67 12,483.89 16,829.08 15,193.19 17,157.45 20,053.88 26,780.94 32,957.08 34,587.22 10,026.94 13,390.47 16,478.54 17,293.61 YEAR-END RESULTS FOR ROANOKE CITY LOCAL DELINQUENT COLLECTED MINUS 35% COLLECTION FEE PLUS SPLIT WITH STATE TOTAL REVENUE TO LOCALITY 15,640.78 19,111.53 20,562.02 17,863.45 4,845.64 6,491.73 7,092.89 8,047.01 10,795.14 12,619.80 13,469.13 9,816.44 10,026.94 13,390.47 16,478.54 17,293.61 20,822.08 26,010.27 29,947.67 27,110.05 Page 6 4OO ICircuit Court 4-Year Com parisonl State and Local Fines & Costs i Total Paid r~ Total Timely Payments BI Total Referred [] Total Collected 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 719,054 753,999 734,237 738,153 614,028 625,612 594,652 590,443 371,431 347,259 380,567 454,323 105,026 128,387 139,586 147,710 28.28% 36.97% 36.68% 32.51% Total Paid Total Timely Payments Total Referred Total Collected % Collected FOUR-YEAR COMPARISON OF DELINQUENT COLLECTIONS in ROANOKE CITY JUVENILE & DOMESTIC COURT Total Delinquent Referred Total Delinquent Collected % of Total Delinquent Referred State Delinquent Collected % of Total Delinquent Collected Local Delinquent Collected % of Total Delinquent Collected FY FY FY 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 32,348.16 47,060.42 53,779.04 17,474.67 15,273.35 18,774.83 54.02% 32.45% 34.91% 15,711.63 14,169.82 17,156.53 89.91% 92.77% 91.38% 1,763.04 1,103.53 1,618.30 10.09% 7.23% 8.62% FY 54,829.35 19,816.06 36.14% 18,122.35 91.45% 1,693.71 8.55% 35% from State 35% from City 35% to Cost Collections from Total Delinquent Collected BUDGET EXPENDITURE EXCESS REVENUE SPLIT 50150 WITH STATE COLLECTION FEE BREAKDOWN 4,473.66 4,903.51 5,991.90 6,635.04 502.00 381.88 565.19 687.04 4,975.66 5,285.39 6,557.09 7,322.08 1,909.03 2,039.63 2,069.00 2,427.85 3,066.63 3,245.76 4,488.09 4,894.23 1,533.32 1,622.88 2,244.05 2,447.12 YEAR-END LOCAL DELINQUENT COLLECTED MINUS 35% COLLECTION FEE PLUS SPLIT WITH STATE TOTAL REVENUE TO LOCALITY RESULTS FOR ROANOKE CITY 1,763.04 1,103.53 1,61 8.30 1,693.71 502.00 381.88 565.19 687.04 1,261.04 721.65 1,053.11 1,006.67 1,533.32 1,622.88 2,244.05 2,447.12 2,794.35 2,344.53 3,297.16 3,453.79 Page 8 lOO IJuvenile & Domestic Relations District Court 4-Year ComparisonI State and Local Fines & Costs aa Total Paid ~ Total Timely Payments aa Total Referred E3 Total Collected 1~?-~8 199~-99 1~-00 200001 1997-96 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 84,807 72,121 78,169 63,676 67,332 56,848 59,394 43,860 32,348 47,060 53,779 54,829 17,475 15,273 18,775 19,816 54.02% 32.45% 34.91% 36.14% Total Paid Total Timely Payments Total Referred Total Collected % Collected CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #60-76-133 The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell Commonwealth's Attorney Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Caldwell: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 35516-082001 authorizing acceptance of funding from the Compensation Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia for the Drug Prosecutor's Office, for the period of July 1,2001 through June 30, 2002, in the amount of $91,615.00, with a $20,730.00 local cash match. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development H:XAgenda.01XAugust 20, 200i corresponden¢.wpd IN THECOUNCILOFTHECITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35516-082001. A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of funding for the regional drug prosecutor's office from the Compensation Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia and authorizing the acceptance, execution and filing of appropriate documents to obtain such funds. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City of Roanoke hereby accepts the funding for the regional drug prosecutor's office in the total amount of $91,615 from the Compensation Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia for the period of July l, 2001 through June 30, 2002. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to accept, execute and file on behalf of the City of Roanoke any and all documents required to obtain such funding. 3. The local cash match for Fiscal Year 2001-02 shall be in the amount of $20,730. 4. The City Manager is further directed to furnish such additional information as may be required in connection with the acceptance of the foregoing funding or with such project. ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #60-76-133 James D. Grisso Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Grisso: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35515-082001 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2001-2002 General and Grant Funds Appropriations, in connection with acceptance of funding from the Compensation Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia for the Drug Prosecutor's Office, for the period of July 1,2001 through June 30, 2002, in the amount of $91,615.00, with a local cash match of $20,730.00. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Barry L. Key, Director, Management and Budget H:\Agenda.01ka, ugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35515-082001. 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 Appropriations Nondepartmental $ 66,916,860 Transfers to Other Funds (1) ................................... 66,156,363 Contingency (2) ............................................. 491,830 Grant Fund Appropriations Judicial Administration $ 886,596 Regional Drug Prosecutor FY02 (3-18) ........................... 112,345 Revenues Juvenile Administration $ 886,596 Regional Drug Prosecutor FY02 (19-20) .......................... 112,345 1) Transfer to Grant Fund (001-250-9310-9535) 2) Contingency 3) Regular Salaries 4) City Retirement 5) ICMA-RC Match 6) FICA $ 8,170 (001-300-9410-2199) (8,170) ( 035-150-5134-1002) 74,300 (035-150-5134-1105) 4,725 (035-150-5134-1116) 1,300 (035-150-5134-1120) 5,783 7) Hospitalization Insurance (035-150-5134-1125) $ 5,040 8) Dental Insurance (035-150-5134-1126) 404 9) Life Insurance (035-150-5134-1130) 594 10) Disability Insurance(035-150-5134-1131) 267 11 ) Telephone (035-150-5134-2020) 2,000 12) Telephone-Cellular (035-150-5134-2021 ) 300 13) Administrative Supplies (035-150-5134-2030) 7,832 14) Publications and Subscriptions (035-150-5134-2040) 200 15) Dues and Memberships (035-150-5134-2042) 400 16) Printing (035-150-5134-2075) 300 17) Postage (035-150-5134-2160) 500 18) Other Rental (035-150-5134-3075) 8,400 19) State Grant Receipts(035-150-5134-5105) 91,615 20) Local Match (035-150-5134-5106) 20,730 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. DONALD S. CALDWELL COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY GOylyloNWEALTI+ OF CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY 315 CHURCH AVENUE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 2401 6 August 20, 2001 AREA CODE 540 TEL. NO. 853-2626 FAX 853-1201 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Honorable William Carder, Vice-Mayor Honorable William Bestpitch, Council Member Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Nelson Harris, Council Member Alvin Hudson, Council Member William White, Council Member Linda Wyatt, Council Member Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council: Subject: Acceptance of Funding for Drug Prosecutor Federal funding was made available to the State of Virginia to be used for the development of several Multi-Jurisdictional Special Drug Prosecutors statewide. The positions were developed to coordinate prosecutorial efforts among independent jurisdictions, reduce fractional and duplicate prosecutions, enhance the recovery of criminal assets, utilize federal, state and local resources to assure maximum prosecutorial effectiveness and to provide specialized prosecutorial resources to the regional drug enforcement effort. The Commonwealth's Attorneys of Craig County, Franklin County, Roanoke County, and the Cities of Roanoke and Salem applied on October 9, 1987, to the Commonwealth's Attorneys' Services Council, the State agency responsible for the administration of the grant money to fund a Multi-Jurisdictional Special Drug Prosecutor. City Council accepted the Multi-Jurisdictional Special Drug Prosecutor Grant in April, 1988, and a full-time Special Drug Prosecutor was hired in July, 1988. On April 15, 1994, funding for the Drug Prosecutor's Office was transferred from the Commonwealth's Attorneys' Services Council to the Compensation Board. The Compensation Board approved funding for the Drug Prosecutor in the amount of $91,615 on April 29, 2001, and funding will continue through June 30, 2002. The local share cost is $20,730, for a total of $112,345. Local share funding of $12,560 is budgeted in the General Fund -Transfer to Grant Fund account (001-250-9310-9535), and $8,170 is budgeted in the Contingency Account (001-300-9410-2199). Annual re-application for funding will be required. Honorable Mayor and Members of Council August 20, 2001 Page 2 Recommended Action(s): Accept funding from the Compensation Board in the amount of $91,615, with Roanoke providing local share funding in the amount of $20,730. Authorize the City Manager to execute the requisite documents to obtain the funding from the Compensation Board. Authorize the Director of Finance to establish revenue estimates in the amount of $112,345 in the Grant Fund and appropriate funding to the expenditure accounts listed in Attachment 1. Donald S. Caldwell Roanoke City Commonwealth's Attorney DSC:msh Attachment c: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance #CO01-00003 1002 1105 1116 1120 1125 1126 1131 1130 2020 2021 2030 2040 2042 2075 2160 3075 Account ATTACHMENT 1 Regular Salaries City Retirement ICMA-RC Match FICA Hospitalization Ins. Dental Insurance Disability Ins. Life Insurance Telephone Telephone-Cellular Administrative Supp. Public. & Subscr. Dues & Membership Printing Postage Other Rental Total Amount $74,300 4,725 1,300 5,783 5,040 404 267 594 2,000 300 7,832 200 400 300 500 8,400 $112,345 Office of the City Manager August 20, 2001 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Honorable William Carder, Vice-Mayor Honorable William Bestpitch, Council Member Honorable Nelson Harris, Council Member Honorable Alvin Hudson, Council Member Honorable William White, Council Member Honorable Linda Wyatt, Council Member Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City COuncil: Subject: Acceptance of Funding for Drug Prosecutor I concur with the recommendation from Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth'S Attorney, for the City of Roanoke, with respect to the subject referenced above and recommend that City Council accept the funding for the Drug Prosecutor. Sincerely, City Manager DLB:ca C: James D. Grisso, Director of Finance William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Mary F. Parker, City Clerk #CO01-00003 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 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #60-133 James D. Grisso Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Grisso: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35517-082001 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2001-2002 Grant Fund, in connection with cash assets forfeited to the Roanoke Commonwealth Attorney's Office. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Barry L. Key, Director, Management and Budget H:~.genda.01XAugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35517-082001. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of~he 2001-2002 Grant Fund, 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, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Appropriations Judicial Administration State Asset Forfeiture Proceeds (1-6) ........................... Revenues Judicial Administration State Asset Forfeiture Proceeds (7-8) ........................... 1 ) Telephone - Cellular 2) Administrative Supplies 3) Expendable Equipment <$5000 4) Training and Development 5) DOT-Personal Computer Rent/Maintenance 6) Expendable Equipment >$5000 7) State Grant Receipts 8) Interest (035-150-5140-2021) (035-150-5140-2030) (035-150-5140-2035) (035-150-5140-2044) (035-150-5140-7007) (035-150-5140-9005) (035-150-5140-7107) (035-150-5140-7275) $ 10,000 12,789 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 59,081 3,708 $ 837,040 139,152 $ 837,040 139,152 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. DONALD S. CALDWELL COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY GOb,IMoNWEALTI+ OF VIRoINi& CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY 315 CHURCH AVENUE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 2401 6 AREA CODE 540 TEL. NO. 853-2626 FAX 853-1201 August 20, 2001 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Honorable William Carder, Vice-Mayor Honorable William Bestpitch, Council Member Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Council Member Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member Honorable Linda Wyatt, Council Member Subject: Cash Assets Forfeited to the Roanoke Commonwealth Attorney's Office Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council: In an effort to better fund law enforcement efforts to fight crime, particularly drug crime, in 1986, the Federal government adopted a system of asset forfeiture whereby forfeited assets, under certain conditions, could be returned to local law enforcement agencies, police and prosecutors, for use in their fight against crime. In July, 1991, Virginia asset forfeiture statute, which generally is patterned after the Federal statute, took effect, providing that forfeited criminal assets may be returned to local police and prosecutors for use in the fight against crime. Periodically, assets seized as evidence are ordered forfeited by the local courts to the police or the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney to be used for criminal law enforcement efforts. In August, 1991, a grant fund account for cash assets forfeited to the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney was established with an appropriation of $25,000. Honorable Mayor and Members of Council August 20, 2001 Page 2 Considerations: Since August, 1991, the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney has expended the $25,000 originally appropriated, and periodically receives additional funds from the state's asset sharing program. Grant requirements include that these funds be placed in an interest bearing account and the interest earned be used in accordance with program guidelines. Revenues collected through June 30, 2001, for this grant are $126,676. The interest on this account collected through June 30, 2001, is $12,476. Funding received in excess of the revenue estimate totals $62,789, and needs to be appropriated. Funds must be appropriated before they can be expended for law enforcement. Recommended Action(s): Authorize the Director of Finance to increase the revenue estimate in the amount of $59,081 plus $3,708 interest and appropriate funding to the accounts listed in Attachment 1. Respectfully submitted, Donald S. Caldwell Commonwealth's Attorney DSC:mh Attachment C; Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance #CO01-00004 ATTACHMENT 1 2O30 2035 2044 7007 9OO5 2021 Account Administrative Supplies Expendable Equipment Training & Development CIS-Personal Computer Rent/ Maintenance Expendable Equipment>S500 Telephone-Cellular Total <$5O0 Amount 12,789 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 62,789 Office of the City Manager August 20, 2001 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Honorable William Carder, Vice-Mayor Honorable William Bestpitch, Council Member Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Council Member Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member Honorable Linda Wyatt, Council Member Subject: Cash Assets Forfeited to the Roanoke Commonwealth Attorney's Office Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council: I concur with the recommendation from Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney, for the City of Roanoke, with respect to the subject referenced above and recommend that City Council authorize the Director of Finance to increase the revenue estimate as noted and appropriate funding to the accounts listed in Attachment 1. Sincerely, Darlene L. City Manager DLB:ca C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance #CO01-00004 Room 364 Municipal South 215Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 (540) 853-2333 FAX (540) 853-1138 CityWeb:www. ci,roanoke.va.u$ 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 August 22, 2001 File #60-236-467 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk Sherman Lea, Chair Roanoke City School Board 1638 Lonna Drive, N. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Dear Mr. Lea: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 35518-082001 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2001-2002 School Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of $200,546.00 for Virginia Heights Elementary School and $252,555.0b for Westside Elementary School to be used for the Reading Excellence Act grant. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools Cindy H. Lee, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board H:Latgenda.01~ugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35518-082001. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 School 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 School Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Appropriations Education Reading Excellence Act - Virginia Heights 2001-02 (1-8) ............ Reading Excellence Act - Westside 2001-02 (9-23) ................ $140,025,007 200,546 252,555 Reven u es Education Reading Excellence Act - Reading Excellence Act - Virginia Heights 2001-02 (24) ............ Westside 2001-02 (25) ................. $140,025,007 200,546 252,555 1) Indirect Costs 2) Other Professional Services 3) Printing and Binding Services 4) Mileage 5) Testing/Evaluation/ Dissemination 6) Parent Involvement 7) Educational and Recreational Supplies 8) Additional Machinery and Equipment (030-061-6190-6000-0212) (030-061-6190-6000-0313) (030-061-6190-6000-0351) (030-061-6190-6000-0551) (030-061-6190-6000-0584) (030-061-6190-6000-0585) (030-061-6190-6000-0614) (030-061-6190-6000-0821) 2,230 32,140 2,000 12,000 2,800 3,000 135,876 10,500 9) Compensation of Substitute Teachers 10) Supplements 11) Compensation of Other Professionals 12) Compensation of Teacher Aides 13) Compensation of Technology Assistants 14) Social Security 15) Indirect Costs 16) Other Professional Services 17) Printing and Binding Services 18) Mileage 19) Field Trips 20) Parent Involvement 21) Books and Subscriptions 22) Educational and Recreational Supplies 23) Additional Machinery and Equipment 24) Federal Grant Receipts 25) Federal Grant (030-061-6191.6000.0021) (030-061-6191-6000-0129) (030-061-6191-6000-0138) (030-061-6191-6000-0141 ) 1,170 6,640 61,260 32,000 (030-061-6191.6000_0146) (030-061-6191-6000-0201 ) (030-061-6191-6000-0212) (030-061-6191-6000-0313) (030-061-6191-6000-0351) (030-061-6191-6000-0551) (030-061-6191-6000-0583) (030-061-6191-6000-0585) (030-061-6191-6000-0613) 2,640 7,940 2,975 32,000 2,000 13,000 2,000 10,400 13,000 ( 030-061-6191-6000-0614) (030-061-6191-6000.0821) (030-061-6190-1102) 63,780 1,750 200,546 Receipts (030-061-6191-1102) 252,555 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. ,.~l~l Sherman P. Lea, Chairman Ruth C. Willson, Vice Chairman ' Charles W. Day /.-Roanoke City School Board 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 P.O. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031 · 540-853-2381 · Fax: 540-85~2951~ August 15, 2001 The Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear Members of Council: The School Board at its August 14 meeting voted to request the Roanoke City Council to appropriate the following funds: $200,546.00 for the Reading Excellence Act grant for Virginia Heights Elementary School. The funds will provide for elementary reading instruction and intervention. A basic skills program which includes staff development and remedial skills instruction will be implemented. This new program is one hundred percent reimbursed by federal funds. $252,555.00 for the Reading Excellence Act grant for Westside School. The funds will provide for elementary reading instruction and intervention. A basic skills program which includes staff development and remedial skills instruction will be implemented. This new program is one hundred percent reimbursed by federal funds. The Board appreciates the approval of this request. Sincerely, re CC: 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..lames D. Grisso Mrs. Ann H. Shawver (with accounting details) Preparing Students for Success JA~£S ~. G~SSO Director of Finance August 20, 2001 CITY OF ROANOKE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 215 Church Avenue~ S.W., Room 461 Re. Box 1220 Roanoke, Virgin~?24006-1220 ~' :' :!i0 Telephone: (5~i 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: $200,546.00 for the Reading Excellence Act grant for Virginia Heights Elementary School. The funds will provide for elementary reading instruction and intervention. A basic skills program which includes staff development and remedial skills instruction will be implemented. This new program is one hundred percent reimbursed by federal funds. $252,555.00 for the Reading Excellence Act grant for Westside School. The funds will provide for elementary reading instruction and intervention. A basic skills program which includes staff development and remedial skills instruction will be implemented. This new program is one hundred percent reimbursed by federal funds. We recommend that you concur with this request of the School Board. Sincerely, Director of Finance J DG/J SY/pac Attachment C: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Mary F. Parker, City Clerk E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent of Schools 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: ¢lerk~¢i.roanoke.va. us August 22, 2001 File #53-467 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk Sherman Lea, Chair Roanoke City School Board 1638 Lonna Drive, N. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Dear Mr. Lea: I am enclosing copy'of Resolution No. 35520-082001 authorizing and directing the City Manager to file an application with the Virginia Public School Authority seeking bond financing, in an amount not to exceed $2,500,000.00, to finance certain capital improvements in connection with Fishburn Park Elementary School, previously approved pursuant to Resolution No. 34804-051500 and Resolution No. 34805-051500, adopted by the Council at its May 15, 2000 meeting. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools Cindy H. Lee, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board George J. A. Clemo, Attorney, Woods, Rogers, & Hazlegrove, P. O. Box 14125, Roanoke, Virginia 24038-4125 H:~S, genda.01~August 20, 2001 correspondcnc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 20t:h day of August:, 2001. No. 35520-082001. A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing the City Manager to file an application with the Virginia Public School Authority seeking bond financing in an amount not to exceed $2,500,000.00 to finance certain capital improvements in connection with Fishburn Park Elementary School, previously approved pursuant to Resolutions No. 34804-051500 and 34805-051500, adopted by the Council at its May 15, 2000, meeting. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to file an application with the Virginia Public School Authority for bond financing in an amount not to exceed $2,500,000.00 (the "Bonds") to finance certain capital improvements for Fishburn Park Elementary School. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish in accordance with applicable law a public notice of public hearing in connection with the proposed Bonds to be held on September 17, 2001. The undersigned Clerk of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the City Council held on August 20, 2001, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I hereby further certify (a) that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that, during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present, and (b) that the attendance of the members and voting on the foregoing resolution was as follows: RKE# 0711249.WI=D- 077826-00000-01 Ralph K. Smith, Mayor William H. Carder, Vice Mayor William D. Bestpitch C. Nelson Harris W. Alvin Hudson, Jr. William White, Sr. Lynda F. Wyatt Present Absent Aye Nay Abstain WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this__ 2001. day of August, Clerk, City of Roanoke, Virginia RKE# 0711249.WPD- C/M: 077826-00000-01 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 August22,2001 File #53-467 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk Sherman Lea, Chair Roanoke City School Board 1638 Lbnna Drive, N. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Dear Mr. Lea: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 35519-082001 authorizing and directing the City Manager to file an application with the Virginia Public School Authority seeking bond financing, in an amount not to exceed $2,750,000.00, to finance certain capital improvements in connection with Fairview Elementary School, previously approved pursuant to Resolution No. 35094-101600 and Resolution No. 35095-101600, adopted by the Council at its October 16, 2000 meeting. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure pc~ Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools Cindy H. Lee, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board George J. A. Clemo, Attorney, Woods, Rogers, & Hazlegrove, P. O. Box 14125, Roanoke, Virginia 240384125 H:~Agenda.01~ugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THECOUNCILOFTHECITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Th~ 20ch day o~ August, 200~. ~o. 355~9-08200~. A RESOLUTION aut.horizing and directing the City Manager to file an application with the Virginia Public School Authority seeking bond financing in an amoum not to exceed $2,750,000.00 to finance certain capital improvements in connection with Fairview Elememary School, previously approved pursuant to Resolutions No. 35094-101600 and 35095-101600, adopted by the Council at its October 16, 2000, meeting. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to file an application with the Virginia Public School Authority for bond financing in an amount not to exceed $2,750,000.00 (the "Bonds") to finance certain capital improvemems for Fairview Elementary School. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish in accordance with applicable law a public notice of public hearing in connection with the proposed Bonds to be held on September 17, 2001. The undersigned Clerk of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a tree and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the City Council held on August 20, 2001, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I hereby further certify (a) that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that, during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present, and Co) that the attendance of the members and voting on the foregoing resolution was as follows: RKE~ 0707709.WPD C~: 07782~-00000-01 Ralph K. Smith, Mayor William H. Carder, Vice Mayor William D. Bestpitch C. Nelson Harris W. Alvin Hudson, Jr. William White, Sr. Lynda F. Wyatt Present Absem Aye Nay Abstain WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this 2001. day of August, Clerk, City of Roanoke, Virginia RKE# 070770~.WPD C/M: 07782~-00000.01 j Sherman P. Lea, Chairman Ruth C. Willson, Vice Chairman Charles W. Day fRoanoke City School Board 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 P.O. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031 · 540-853-2381 · Fax: 540-853-2951 August 15, 2001 The Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council Roanoke, VA 240:[1 Dear Members of Council: As the result of official School Board action at its meeting on August 14, the Board approved the attached resolutions to participate in the 200:[ l~nterest Rate Subsidy Program Bond Sale - VPSA School financing Bonds (1997 Resolution) Series 200:[B. The proceeds of the bond issue will be used in lieu of the Literary Fund loans approved by the State for Fairview Elementary School and Fishburn Park Elementary School. The School Board will pay the debt service on the VPSA ~[nterest Rate Subsidy Bond ]:ssues. The use of the bond issue provides: · An interest rate of 4% --the same as the Literary Fund loan rate. · The debt will not count against the $20 million Literary Fund loan debt ceiling for the locality. · The first debt service payment will not be due until the 2002-03 fiscal year. Roanoke City Council is requested to approve resolutions indicating that Roanoke City desires to participate in the VPSA bond issue. No further action is required of the City at this time. ]:f the applications are approved by the VPSA board, Council will be requested to conduct public hearings and perform any other procedural matters that may be required for participation in the VPSA bond issue. Preparing Students for Success Members of Council Page 2 August 15, 2001 The Roanoke City School Board appreciates the assistance of the City Administration in preparing the necessary resolutions and documents required for participation in the VPSA bond issue. Sincerely, Cindy H. Lee Clerk of the Board re Enc. CC: Mr. Sherman P. Lea Dr. E. Wayne Harris Mr. Richard Li Kelley Mr. William L. Murray Mr. Ken Fi Mundy Mrs. Darlene L. Burcham Mr. William M. Hackworth Mr. James D. Grisso ..~~ 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 August 14, 2001 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES AND CONSENTING TO THE ISSUANCE THEREOF BE IT 1) 2) RESOLVED, The School Board of the City of Roanoke, Virginia hereby (i) approves certain capital improvements and additions to the Fairview Elementary School including constructing additional classrooms, installing air conditioning, replacing windows, and constructing a gymnasium at an estimated cost of $2,750,000 (the "Project"), (ii) authorizes and approves the filing of an application to the Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA") seeking interest rate subsidy bond financing in an amount not to exceed $2,750,000, and (iii) requests that the City Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, (the "City") authorize the City to issue its general obligation school bonds to be sold to VPSA in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $2,750,000, for the purpose of financing a portion of the cost of the Project. This resolution shall take effect immediately by the following recorded vote: Yea Nay Sherman P. Lea, Chairman Ruth C. Willson, Vice-Chairman Charles W. Day Marsha W. Ellison Gloria P. Manns Melinda .1. Payne Brian .1. Wishneff The undersigned Clerk of the School Board of the City of Roanoke, Virginia hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the School Board held the 14th day of August, 2001. WITNESS, my signature and seal of the School Board of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this day of August, 2001. (SEAL) Clerk, School Board of City of Roanoke, Virginia Preparing Students for Success '~1~ Sherman P. Lea, Chairman Ruth C. Willson, Vice Chairman Charles W. Day /.Roanoke City School Board P.O. Box 13145, Ronnoke, Virginia 24031 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 August 14, 2001 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA TO ISSUE GENERAL OBI_ZGATION SCHOOL BONDS FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES AND CONSENTING TO THE ISSUANCE THEREOF BE IT 1) 2) RESOLVED, The School Board of the City of Roanoke, Virginia hereby (i) approves certain capital improvements and additions to the Fishburn Park Elementary School including constructing additional classrooms, installing air conditioning, replacing windows, and constructing a gymnasium at an estimated cost of $2,500,000 (the "Project"), (ii) authorizes and approves the filing of an application to the Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA") seeking interest rate subsidy bond financing in an amount not to exceed $2,500,000, and (iii) requests that the City Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, (the "City") authorize the City to issue its general obligation school bonds to be sold to VPSA in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $2,500,000, for the purpose of financing a portion of the cost of the Project. This resolution shall take effect immediately by the following recorded vote: Yea Nay Sherman P. Lea, Chairman Ruth C. Willson, Vice-Chairman Charles W. Day Marsha W. Ellison Gloria P. Manns Melinda ]. Payne Brian ]. Wishneff The undersigned Clerk of the School Board of the City of Roanoke, Virginia hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the School Board held the 14th day of August, 2001. WITNESS, my signature and seal of the School Board of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this day of August, 2001. (SEAL) Clerk, School Board of City of Roanoke, Virginia Preparing Students for Success GEORGE J. A. CLEMO 540 983-7728 INTERNET: clemo(~,woodsrogers.com WOODS, ROGERS & HAZI ,EGROVE [ Attorneys at Law Augustl4,2001 Elizabeth K. Dillon, Esq. Office of the City Attorney 464 Municipal Bldg. 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011-1595 Re: City of Roanoke, Virginia $2,500,000 General Obligation School Bond Financing for Fishburn Park Elementary School Dear Elizabeth: I enclose a form of resolution, for consideration by Council at its meeting on August 20, 2001, authorizing an application to the Virginia Public School Authority for interest rate subsidy bond financing in an amount not to exceed $2,500,000. The bond proceeds will be used to finance certain capital improvements for Fishbum Park Elementary School. The proposed financing covered by this resolution will substitute for Literary Fund financing for this project in the amount of $3,000,000 previously approved by Council at a meeting on May 15, 2000. The proposed VPSA interest rate subsidy bond financing will permit the City to obtain the financing for the Fishburn Park Elementary School project sooner than monies from the Literary Fund loan would otherwise be available, at no additional interest cost. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards. ~O GJAC:sg Encl. cc: Richard L. Kelley, Assistant Superintendent for Operations Roanoke City Schools (w/encl.) RKE# 0711380.WPD C/M: 077826-00035-01 E O. Box 14125 / Roanoke, Virginia 24038 -4125 10 South Jefferson Street, Suite 1400 / Roanoke, Virginia 24011 540 983-7600 / Fax 540 983-7711 Internet -- mail~vvoodsrogers.com Offices also in Charlottesville, Danville and Richmond,Virginia GEORGE J. A. CLEMO 540 983-7728 INTEKNET: clemo~woodsrogers.com WOODS, ROGERS & HAZI ,EGROVE Attorneys at Law August 9, 2001 Elizabeth K. Dillon, Esq. Office of the City Attorney 464 Municipal Bldg. 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011-1595 Re: City of Roanoke, Virginia $2,750,000 General Obligation School Bonds (Fairview Elementary School Project), Series 2001 - A Dear Elizabeth: As discussed, I have prepared and attach the form of a resolution for consideration by City Council at its August 20, 2001, meeting, authorizing and directing the City Manager to seek bond financing from the Virginia Public School Authority in an amount not to exceed $2,750,000 to finance certain capital improvements to Fairview Elementary School. The proposed VPSA bond financing will substitute for Literary Fund financing for this project, previously approved by Council at its October 16, 2000, meeting. In accordance with the action take by Council at its October 16, 2000, meeting, the City applied to the Virginia Department of Education and received approval for a $2,750,000 loan from the State Literary Fund for the project. Because Literary Fund monies are not currently available, the City's Literary Fund loan for this project has been placed on a waiting list, until Literary Fund monies become available to fund the loan. In recognition of the need to speed up the funding of loans for localities with approved Literary Fund loans on the waiting list, the Virginia Public School Authority provides its interest rate subsidy bond financing program. By means of an interest rate subsidy from the Literary Fund, localities participating in the interest rate subsidy program are able to obtain financing through VPSA at the same effective cost as if they had borrowed from the Literary Fund. Accordingly, the VPSA interest rate subsidy bonds authorized by the attached resolution provide a more timely substitute for the previously approved Literary Fund financing, at no additional cost to the City. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Best regards. GJAC:sg Encl. cc: Richard L. Kelley, Assistant Superintendent for Operations Roanoke City Schools P. O. Box 14125 / Roanoke, Virginia 24038 -4125 RKE# 0/1083O.W PO 10 South Jefferson Street, Suite 1400 / Roanoke, Virginia 24011 G/M: 077826-00038-01 540 983-7600 / Fax 540 983-7711 Internet -- mail o~woodsrogers.com Offices also in Charlottesville, Danville and Richmond,Virginia CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #2-227 William M. Hackworth City Attorney Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Hackworth: I am attaching copy of a communication from David A. Bowers, Attorney, representing Roger Roberts of Diamond Point, Inc., requesting certain information with regard to the proposed expansion of The Roanoke Times manufacturing plant which is proposed for development behind his client's property located at 121 West Campbell Avenue, which communication was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 20, 2001. On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the communication was referred to you for response. Sincerely, Ma~~ F. pa~rker,~C'MC City Clerk MFP:mh pc: David A. Bowers, Attorney, 335 W. Church Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia 24016 H:katgenda.01LAugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd DAVID A. BOWERS Attorney at Law ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24~!6-5007 · ~". ';-!~, August 15, 2001 TEI..E~:~dONE 34.5-6622 FAX: (540} :345-0216 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 W. Church Avenue Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council: Please be advised that John H. Kennett Jr. and I represent Roger Roberts of Diamond Point Inc., the owner of real estate at 121 West Campbell Avenue in downtown Roanoke. Mr. Roberts is aggrieved by the proposed expansion of The Roanoke Times manufacturing plant which is proposed for development behind his luxury apartments/townhouse. It has been reported that the City of Roanoke has arranged special economic development funding for this expansion. Our client would like to have more information regarding those arrangements. Accordingly, I would respectfully request that this letter be placed under "Petitions and Communications" for the City Council agenda scheduled for August 20, 2001 and thereafter be referred to the City Manager for report back to Council and to the public. Mr. Roberts, and perhaps others, might want to address Council on the financial support from the City to the newspaper before such arrangements are finalized. I am unable to appear at the Council on Monday, August 20, 2001, as I am due in court in Franklin County at that time. However, this letter should serve only as a request for information to be provided to us, so that we might be able to appear before the Council, if necessary, at your next meeting on Tuesday, September 4. Thank you for the courtesy of responding to this citizen inquiry. DAB/ss cc: John H. Kennett Jr., Attorney Roger Roberts WILLIAM M. HACKWORTH CITY .~ T~ORNEY CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY 464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 215 CHURCH AVENUE, SW ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24011-1595 FACSIMILE: 540-853-1221 E-MAIL: cityatty Oci.roanoke.va.us August 23, 2001 ELIZABETH K. DILLON STEVEN J. TALEVI GARY E. TEGENKAMP ALLEN T. WILSON DAVID L. COLLINS ASSISTANT CrT¥ ATTORNEYS David A. Bowers, Esquire 335 West Church Avenue Roanol~e, Virginia 24016 Dear Mr. Bowers: During its meeting on August 20, 2001, City Council asked that I respond to your letter of August 15, 2001, to City Council requesting information on the economic development incentives the City is providing the Times-World Corporation for its printing plant expansion project in the downtown area of the City. I am pleased to respond by enclosing a copy of the City Manager's report to Council of August 6, 2001, which outlines these incentives, and the two ordinances adopted in response thereto, the Performance Agreement dated August 7, 2001, and the deed by which the two parcels were conveyed to Crystal Tower Building Corporation in connection with this project. Please let me know if I can provide any further information with regards to this exciting project. Sincerely yours, William M. Hackworth City Attorney WMH:f Enclosures cc: The/Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council w/o/att. ~arlene L. Burcham, City Manager v/Mary F. Parker, City Clerk WILLIAM M. HACKWORTH CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY ~ A64 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 215 CHURCH AVENUE, SW ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 2401 1-1595 ~ i TELEPHONE: ~40'-g5~,2431 FAX: 540-853-1221 E-MAIL: cityatty@ci.roanoke .va.us August 27, 2001 ELIZABETH K. DILLON STEVEN J. TALEVI GARY E. TEGENKAMP DAVID L. COLLINS CAROLYN H. FURROW ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS David A. Bowers, Esquire 335 West Church Avenue Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Dear Mr. Bowers: In accordance with your request of August 27, 2001, I am enclosing a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing along with the City Manager's letter to City Council of May 21, 2001, relating to the conveyance of two City-owned parcels on Salem Avenue. Sincerely yours, William M. Hackworth City Attorney WMH:f Enclosures cc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council w/o/att. Da~e Li Burcham, City Manager ~Mary F. Parker, City Clerk H:~LETTER~I-bo werstim¢$proj ec~. 1 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 . File #178-236 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms; Burcham: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 35521-082001 authorizing the appropriate City officials to enter into the 2001-2002 HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program Agreement with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 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 Monday, August 20, 2001. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: John P. Baker, Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 2624 Salem Turnpike, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Frank E. Baratta, Budget Team Leader H:kAgenda.01 k4ugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35521-082001. A RESOLUTION authorizing the appropriate City officials to enter into the 2001-2002 HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program Agreement with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, upon certain terms and conditions. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the City Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the City, the 2001-2002 HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program Agreement with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, approved as to form by the City Attorney, within the limits of funds and for the purposes as are more particularly set forth in the City Manager's letter dated August 20, 2001. ATTEST: City Clerk. H:~RES\R-Home (RRHA 2001-2002) (8-20.-01) Office of the City Manager August 20, 2001 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 Council: Subject: 2001-2002 HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Agreement with Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) Background: Historically, the RRHA has administered a variety of HOME-funded housing programs for the City. On May 7, 2001, City Council authorized the RRHA's 2001-2002 HOME activities and funding by Resolution No. 35319-050701, which approved submission of the City's 2001-2002 Consolidated Plan Annual Update to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. City Council accepted the 2001-2002 HOME funds on June 18, 2001, by Budget Ordinance No. 35404-061801 and Resolution No. 35405-061801, contingent upon receipt of HUD's approval letter. The letter will be issued when Congress completes its routine release process, which is now underway. Considerations: In order for the RRHA to provide eligible City homeowners and buyers the housing activities approved in the Consolidated Plan, City Council's authorization to execute an agreement with the RRHA is needed. Necessary HOME funding is available in the accounts listed in Attachment A. 1. of the Agreement, a draft of which is included with this report. A total of $1,063,756 is being provided to the RRHA, of which $521,500 is to complete projects which were in progress on June 30, 2001. The Agreement contains a mutual indemnification clause in which both parties agree to indemnify the other for 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 August 20, 2001 Page 2 damages and expenses incurred as a result of the other party's conduct. The effect of the clause is that, in certain circumstances, the City would be waiving its defense of sovereign immunity. Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute the 2001-2002 HOME Agreement with the RRHA, similar in form and content to the draft attached to this report. Respectfully submitted, City Manager DLB:FB Attachments c: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Frank E. Baratta, Budget Team Leader #CM01-00175 AGREEMENT Attachment 1 This Agreement is made and entered into this first day of July 2001, by and between the following parties: The Grantee City of Roanoke, Virginia 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 The Subgrantee City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority 2624 Salem Turnpike, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 35405-061801 the Roanoke City Council approved the 2001-2002 HOME program and by Ordinance No. 35404-061801 appropriated funds therefor; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. -082001 the Roanoke City Council approved the execution of this subgrant agreement between the Grantee and the Subgrantee; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. ~ the Subgrantee's Board of Commissioners approved the execution of this subgrant agreement between the Grantee and the Subgrantee; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. USE OF HOME FUNDS: All program activities under this Agreement shall be operated in accordance with guidelines developed by the Subgrantee in consultation with and acceptable to the Grantee and incorporated herein by reference. These guidelines may be modified with the approval of the Grantee's City Manager or Assistant City Manager and the Subgrantee's Executive Director or his or her designee. (Note: Guidelines shall not be modified administratively when the result would be to add or delete program activities or otherwise fundamentally alter the nature or intent of any program activity.) Responsibilities of the Subgrantee shall include marketing and outreach, receiving and processing applications, including packaging loan applications for supplemental funding sources under part 1 .c., overseeing rehabilitation, holding deeds of trust and/or homeowner grant agreements (specific to this Agreement) for the Grantee's HOME funds, and monitoring the projects after rehabilitation, in accordance with federal HOME regulations. The Subgrantee shall, in addition, be responsible for performing such duties as above as may be necessary to complete or continue progress on projects it set up in the Integrated Disbursement Page 1 of 14 and Information System (IDIS) that remained open as of June 30, 2001. Funding for such "carry-over" projects shall be made available from accounts designated under part 1.g. of, and Attachments A. 1. and A.2. to, this Agreement. ao do Consolidated Loan Program -- The Subgrantee shall conduct a Consolidated Loan Program to make housing rehabilitation funding available to HOME-eligible homeowners and homebuyers and to owners of substandard rental properties. HOME funds will provide the public portion of affordable public/private combination loans to eligible applicants. The Subgrantee's line of credit with a local lender provides the private portion of the funding for the Consolidated Loan Program. Using HOME funds provided by the Grantee, the Subgrantee shall offer the following types of assistance in accordance with guidelines incorporated by reference into this Agreement. (1) Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation -- financial assistance for the rehabilitation of substandard homes owned and occupied by eligible families. (2) Purchase/Rehabilitation -- financial assistance for the purchase, rehabilitation, and occupancy of vacant substandard houses by eligible families. (3) Rental Rehabilitation -- financial assistance for the rehabilitation of small rental properties. Washington Park Housing Enhancement Program -- In coordination with its Lincoln 2000- HOPE VI project, the Subgrantee shall conduct a Washington Park Housing Enhancement Program in this neighborhood of the City. The program shall make housing rehabilitation funding available to HOME-eligible homeowners or offer HOME-eligible homebuyer opportunities through the construction of new or rehabilitated housing. HOME funds may be offered in the form of grants, active or deferred loans, or other allowable forms of assistance, and may be combined with financing provided by other public or private agencies or institutions. All units assisted under this program shall conform to same, standard HOME project set-up procedures as under the Consolidated Loan Program. In addition, any funds budgeted for this program which are not committed by September 30, 2001, to specific units through submission of an approved HOME project set-up report form may be made available to applicants for assistance under the Consolidated Loan Program. Supplementation of Local HOME Funds with Other Funds -- In order to increase the number of housing units assisted, the HOME funds provided under this Agreement by the Grantee may be supplemented by funding obtained through the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) or other sources. The Grantee and Subgrantee shall coordinate any actions taken to obtain supplemental funding. Where permitted, HOME funds under this Agreement may be used to meet any matching requirements of the supplemental funding source. Revisions to activity guidelines, such as, but not necessarily limited to, changes in financing options, required to accommodate any supplemental funding shall be considered administrative in nature and shall not require amendment of this Agreement. Period of this Agreement: -- Unless amended, and except as provided elsewhere herein, this Agreement shall be for the period beginning July 1,2001, and ending June 30, 2002. Page 2 of 14 Schedule - The Subgrantee shall implement each program described above on July 1,2001, or as soon thereafter as practicable, in accordance with the guidelines incorporated by reference, and shall set up individual projects utilizing all the HOME funds identified in Attachment A. 1. by June 30, 2002 At the sole discretion of the Grantee, any project funds remaining uncommitted or administrative funds remaining unexpended at the end of this period may be carded over to the subsequent year or deobligated from the Agreement and used for other HOME purposes. Match - Funds drawn from the Grantee's HOME Investment Trust Fund must be matched in accordance with the requirements contained in 24 CFR 92.218 through 92.222. It shall be the Grantee's responsibility to determine the amount and ensure crediting of matching funds required pursuant to this Agreement. The Subgrantee shall report regularly to the Grantee all activities which may be credited against the HOME match requirement. Budget - HOME funds, as provided in Attachment A. 1., shall be made available to the Subgrantee for the respective program activities. Funding to complete projects initiated on or before June 30, 2001 listed on Attachment A.2. shall be made available from accounts designated in Attachment A. 1. At the sole discretion of the Grantee, any funds remaining unexpended upon completion of any 2000/2001 carry-over project may be used for other carry-over or new projects or deobligated from the Agreement and used for other HOME purposes. AFFORDABILITY: The Subgrantee shall ensure that all housing units assisted with HOME funds through any program under this Agreement will adhere to the affordability requirements of 24 CFR 92.252 and 92.254, as applicable. The Subgrantee shall require repayment of the HOME funds if the housing does not meet the affordability requirements for the specified time period. bo The Subgrantee shall monitor all HOME-assisted properties to ensure maintenance of their affordability for the minimum period. Monitoring procedures of the Subgrantee must be in accordance with HUD regulations. PROGRAM INCOME AND REPAYMENTS: All repayments, interest and other return on the investment of HOME funds shall be returned to the Grantee within 15 days of receipt by the Subgrantee. UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS: The Subgrantee agrees to abide by the HUD conditions for HOME programs as set forth in 24 CFR part 92, the requirements of OMB Circular No. A-87 and the following requirements of 24 CFR part 85: 85.6, 85.12, 85.20, 85.22, 85.26, 85.32 - 85.34, 85.36, 85.44, 85.51, and 85.52. 5. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS: Page 3 of 14 The Subgrantee shall comply with project requirements detailed in Subpart F of 24 CFR part 92, as applicable, in accordance with the type of project assisted. 6. HOUSING QUALITY STANDARDS: The Subgrantee shall include in all agreements with owners of rental housing assisted under this Agreement the provision that such units shall be maintained in compliance with applicable HUD Housing Quality Standards (HQS), Virginia Property Maintenance Code and the Grantee's Rental Certificate of Compliance program for the duration of the affordability period. The form of such Agreements between the Subgrantee and property owners shall be subject to approval by the Grantee. 7. OTHER PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS: The Subgrantee shall carry out each activity in compliance with all federal laws and regulations described in subpart H of 24 CFR 92, except that the Subgrantee does not assume the Grantee's responsibilities for environmental review in 24 CFR 92.352 or the intergovernmental review process in 24 CFR 92.357. bo All proposals for HOME-assisted rehabilitation in the City shall be submitted to the Grantee's Department of Management and Budget for determination of the structure's eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. If property is historically eligible, all project plans and specifications will be submitted to the Grantee's Department of Management and Budget for review as to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 8. AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING: As applicable, and in accordance with 24 CFR 92.351, the Subgrantee shall include in all agreements with the owners of rental housing the provision that the owners shall comply with the Grantee's Affirmative Marketing Procedures. 9. CONDITIONS FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. The Subgrantee shall not grant or loan any HOME funds to primarily religious organizations for any activity, including secular activities. In addition, HOME funds may not be used to rehabilitate or construct housing owned by primarily religious organizations or to assist primarily religious organizations in acquiring housing. In particular, there shall be no religious or membership criteria for tenants of any HOME-assisted properties. 10. REQUESTS FOR DISBURSEMENTS OF FUNDS: ao Disbursement of funds under this Agreement shall not be requested until the funds are needed for payment of eligible costs. The amount of each request must be limited to the amount needed for reimbursement of costs incurred. b. Requests for funds shall be submitted to the Grantee's Department of Management and Page 4 of 14 Budget and shall include copies of the HOME Payment Certification Form(s) for the project and/or administrative costs to be reimbursed. As requested by the Department of Management and Budget, the Subgrantee shall furnish copies of invoices or other documentation of the project and/or the administrative costs incurred. Upon approval of the request by the Grantee's Project Manager and/or Department of Management and Budget, the Grantee shall disburse the funds to the Subgrantee. Co All requests for disbursements with respect to costs incurred during the period of this Agreement, as set forth in part 1.f., must be received by the Grantee within 30 calendar days of the ending date of this Agreement. The Grantee shall not be bound to honor requests for disbursements received after this 30-day period has elapsed. 11. REVERSION OF ASSETS: Upon expiration of this Agreement, the Subgrantee must transfer to the Grantee any HOME funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts receivable attributable to the use of HOME funds. 12. RECORDS AND REPORTS: The Subgrantee agrees to submit such reports as may be requested by the Grantee concerning the activities conducted under this Agreement. Further, the following shall apply to financial and project records pertaining to this Agreement: ao Records to be maintained -- At a minimum, the Subgrantee shall maintain financial and project documents and records which comply with the applicable requirements of 24 CFR 92.508. (Note: See also part 4 above, including reference to 24 CFR 85.20 regarding standards for financial systems.) bo Period of record retention -- The Subgrantee shall retain financial and project documents and records pertaining to this Agreement in compliance with the applicable requirements of 24 CFR 92.508(c). Access to records -- The Grantee and other entities shall have access to financial and project documents and records pertaining to this Agreement in compliance with the applicable requirements of 24 CFR 92.508(d). 13. ENFORCEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT: ao In accordance with 24 CFR 85.43, the Grantee may suspend or terminate this Agreement if the Subgrantee materially fails to comply with any term of the Agreement. This Agreement may also be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44. DJ The Subgrantee shall be liable for repayment of HOME funds expended on any project or activity which the Subgrantee terminates prior to completion without the prior written approval of the Grantee's Department of Management and Budget. c. The affordability provisions referenced in part 2 of this Agreement shall be enforced by Page 5 of 14 written covenant between the Subgrantee and all rental property owners or homebuyers as a condition of sale or participation in the HOME program. Covenants shall be recorded with the property deeds and deeds of trust. The form and content of such covenants are subject to approval by the Grantee. If affordability provisions are not met, the HOME subsidy shall be repaid to the Grantee in accordance with part 3 of this Agreement. In all cases where the Subgrantee provides HOME funds to for-profit owners or developers, nonprofit owners or developers, subrecipients, homeowners, homebuyers, tenants receiving tenant-based rental assistance, or contractors, the Subgrantee shall have a written agreement which meets the applicable requirements of 24 CFR 92.504. 14. DURATION OF THE AGREEMENT: For the purposes of monitoring affordability by the Subgrantee, this Agreement shall be in effect through the latest date on which any HOME-assisted unit under this Agreement is subject to the affordability requirements of 24 CFR 92.252 or 92.254, as applicable. However, should the Grantee not provide the Subgrantee administrative funding for such monitoring pursuant to this or any other agreement with the Subgrantee, the monitoring and record keeping requirements of this Agreement shall revert to the Grantee. In the event of such reversion, the Subgrantee shall promptly provide the Grantee all records and documents in the Subgrantee's possession pertinent to such monitoring. 15. MONITORING: ao At least annually, the Grantee shall review the Subgrantee's performance and f'mancial and other records for compliance with the terms, conditions and expectations of this Agreement, and with applicable local, state and federal statutes, regulations, policies and procedures. b. The Subgrantee shall make on-site reviews of the activities of owners of rental housing which conform to the requirements of 24 CFR part 92.504(d)(1) COn-site inspections"). 16. ANNUAL AUDIT: The Subgrantee shall provide for an independent, annual audit of all HOME expenditures under this Agreement, in accordance with OMB Circular A-133. Two copies of the audit report shall be furnished to the Grantee within 30 days after completion of the audit. 17. THIRD-PARTY CONTRACTS: The Grantee shall not be obligated or liable hereunder to any party other than the Subgrantee. 18. INDEMNITY: Each party to this Agreement shall indemnify and hold harmless the other, its officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, liability, causes of actions, suits of any nature, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting from or arising out of the party's intentional or negligent acts or omissions with respect to the duties, rights and privileges Page 6 of 14 granted in or arising under this Agreement, including without limitation, fines and penalties, violation of federal, state or local laws, or regulations promulgated thereunder, personal injury, wrongful death or property damage claims. In the event that the parties are jointly or concurrently negligent, each shall indemnify and hold harmless the other party to the extent of its own negligence. 19. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: No employee, agent, consultant, officer or appointed official of the Subgrantee, who is in a position to participate in a decision-making process or gain inside information with regard to any HOME activities, may obtain a personal or financial interest in or benefit from any of the activities, or have an interest in any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or in the proceeds thereunder, either for themselves, their family or business associates, during their tenure or for one (1) year thereafter. 20. SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon each of the parties, and their assigns, purchasers, trustees, and successors. 21. AMENDMENTS: This Agreement, including any Attachments and Exhibits, represents the entire agreement between the parties, which shall not be modified, amended, altered or changed, except by written agreement executed by the parties. 22. GOVERNING LAW: This Agreement shall be governed by laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 23. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funding to be made available by the Grantee under this Agreement is contingent upon necessary appropriations by the U.S. Congress. In the event that sufficient funds are not appropriated, at the sole discretion of the Grantee, this Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part. 24. ANTI-LOBBYING: To the best of the Subgrantee's knowledge and belief, no federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any persons for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an Page 7 of 14 officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Agreement, the Subgrantee will complete and submit Standard Form-LL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year hereinabove written: ATTEST: FOR THE GRANTEE: By By Mary F. Parker, City Clerk City Manager/Assistant City Manager ATTEST: FOR THE SUBGRANTEE: By By John P. Baker, Executive Director APPROVED AS TO HOME ELIGIBILITY APPROVED AS TO FORM Department of Management and Budget Assistant City Attorney APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION APPROPRIATION AND FUNDS REQUIRED FOR THIS CONTRACT CERTIFIED Assistant City Attorney Date Director of Finance Account # (See Attachment A. 1.) Page 8 of 14 2001/2002 RRHA HOME Contract Financial Accounts Attachment A.1. Account # Project (035-090-) Description Admin Total For Carry- For New Total Over Proj. Proj. 5309-5239 General Admin 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 5305-5333 Consolidated Loan Program 1,499 2,737 4,236 4,236 5306-5333 Consolidated Loan Program 0 4,000 4,000 4,000 5307-5333 Consolidated Loan Program 0 14,826 14,826 14,826 5308-5333 Consolidated Loan Program 100,025 0 100,025 100,025 5309-5333 Consolidated Loan Program 0 302,358 302,358 302,358 5322-5333 Consolidated Loan Program 159,976 18,335 178,311 178,311 Subtotals 261,500 342,256 603,756 603,756 5307-5283 Washington Park Housing Enhancement 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 5308-5283 Washington Park Housing Enhancement 259,000 0 259,000 259,000 5309-5283 Washington Park Housing Enhancement 0 150,000 150,000 150,000 Subtotals 260,000 150,000 410,000 410,000 TOTALS 521,500 492,256 1,013,756 50,000 1,063,756 * Note: The amounts shown for carry-over projects are as of 6/30/01 and do not reflect payments made on 00/01 carry-over projects since that date. See Attachment A.2. for a listing of the 00/01 carry-over projects. Page 9 of 14 Proj # Type 2001/2002 RRHA HOME Contract Carry-Over Projects Balance to Pay as of 6/30/01 Consolidated Loan Program: 256 CRR 8,250.00 258 CPR 40,150.00 259 COOR 25,600.00 260 CPR 34,000.00 261 CPR 39,000.00 262 COOR 38,500.00 263 COOR 42,000.00 264 COOR 34,000.00 Subtotal 261,500.00 Comments Attachment A.2. Washington Park Housing Enhancement Program: 265 WOOR 46,500.00 266 WOOR 40,000.00 267 WOOR 20,000.00 268 WOOR 19,000.00 269 WOOR 42,500.00 270 WOOR 44,000.00 271 WOOR 48,000.00 Subtotal 260,000.00 TOTAL 521,500.00 Page 10 of 14 Attachment A.3. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS (Agreements $10,000 or Over) "Section 3" Compliance in the Provision of Trainino.~ Employment and Business Opportunities: The work to be performed under this contract is on a project assisted under a program providing direct Federal financial assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and is subject to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 170. Section 3 requires that to the greatest extent feasible opportunities for training and employment be given lower income residents of the project area and contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the area of the project. The parties to this contract will comply with the provisions of said Section 3 and the regulations issued pursuant thereto by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development set forth in 24 CFR 135, and all applicable rules and orders of the Department issued thereunder prior to the execution of this contract. The parties to this contract certify and agree that they are under no contractual or other disability which would prevent them from complying with these requirements. The Subgrantee will send to each labor organization or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, if any, a notice advising the said labor organization or workers' representative of his commitments under this Section 3 clause and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment or training. The Subgrantee will include this Section 3 clause in every subcontract for work in connection with the project and will, at the direction of the applicant for or recipient of Federal financial assistance, take appropriate action pursuant to the subcontract upon a finding that the contractor is in violation of regulations issued by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 24 CFR Part 135. The Subgrantee will not subcontract with any contractor where it has notice or knowledge that the latter has been found in violation of regulations under 24 CFR part 135 and will not let any subcontract unless the contractor has first provided it with a preliminary statement of ability to comply with the requirements of these regulations. Compliance with the provisions of Section 3, the regulations set forth in 24 CFR Part 135, and all applicable rules and orders of the Department issued hereunder prior to the execution of the contract, shall be a condition of the federal financial assistance provided to the project, binding upon the applicant or recipient for such assistance, its successor and assigns. Failure to fulfill these requirements shall subject the applicant or recipient, its Subgrantees and contractors, its successors and assigns to those sanctions specified by the grant or loan agreement or contract through which Federal assistance is provided, and to such sanctions as are specified by 24 CFR Part 135. Page 11 of 14 Equal Employment Opportunity: Contracts subiect to Executive Order 11246, ax amended: Such contracts shall be subject to HUD Equal Employment Opportunity regulations at 24 CFR Pm't 130 applicable to HUD-assisted construction contracts. The Subgrantee shall cause or require to be inserted in full in any non-exempt contract and subcontract for construction work, or modification thereof as defined in said regulations, which is paid for in whole or in part with assistance provided under this Agreement, the following equal opportunity clause: "During the performance of this contract, the Subgrantee agrees as follows: Bo Do The Subgrantee will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The Subgrantee will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The Subgrantee agrees to post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. The Subgrantee will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the Subgrantee, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The Subgrantee will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice to be provided by the Contract Compliance Officer advising the said labor union or workers' representatives of the Subgrantee's commitment under this section and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment. The Subgrantee will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and of the rules, regulations and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor. The Subgrantee will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by the rules, regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his books, records and accounts by the Department and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations and orders. In the event of the Subgrantee's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination clauses of this contract or with any of such rules, regulations or orders, this contract may be canceled, terminated or suspended in whole or in part, and the Subgrantee may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts or Federally-assisted construction contract procedures authorized in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulation or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law. The Subgrantee will include the portion of the sentence immediately preceding paragraph (A) and the provisions of paragraphs (A) through (G) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regulations or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Page 12 of 14 Section 204 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each contractor or vendor. The Subgrantee will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the Department may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance; provided, however, that in the event a Subgrantee becomes involved in or is threatened with litigation with a contractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the Department, the Subgrantee may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interest of the United States." The Subgrantee further agrees that it will be bound by the above equal opportunity clause with respect to its own employment practices when it participates in Federally-assisted construction work; provided, that if the Subgrantee so participating is a State or local government, the above equal opportunity clause is not applicable to any agency, instrumentality or subdivision of such government which does not participate in work on or under the contract. The Subgrantee agrees that it will assist and cooperate actively with the Department and the Secretary of Labor in obtaining the compliance of Subgrantees and contractors with the equal opportunity clause and the rules, regulations and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor; that it will furnish the Department and the Secretary of Labor such compliance; and that it will otherwise assist the Department in the discharge of its primary responsibility for securing compliance. The Subgrantee further agrees that it will refrain from entering into any contract or contract modification subject to Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, with a Subgrantee debarred from, or who has not demonstrated eligibility for Govermnent contracts and Federally-assisted construction contracts pursuant to the Executive Order and will carry out such sanctions and penalties for violation of the equal opportunity clause as may be imposed upon Subgrantees and contractors by the Department or the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Part II, Subpart D, of the Executive Order. In addition, the Subgrantee agrees that if it fails or refuses to comply with these undertakings, the Department may take any or all of the following actions: cancel, terminate or suspend in whole or in part the grant or loan guarantee; refrain from extending any further assistance to the Subgrantee under the Program with respect to which the failure or refusal occurred until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been received from such Subgrantee; and refer the cause to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal proceedings. o Nondiscrimination Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This Agreement is subject to the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) and HUD regulations with respect thereto, including the regulations under 24 CFR Part 1. In the sale, lease or other transfer of land acquired, cleared or improved with assistance provided under this Agreement, the Subgrantee shall cause or require a covenant running with the land to be inserted in the deed or lease for such transfer, prohibiting discrimination upon the basis or race, color, religion, sex or national origin, in the sale, lease or rental, or in the use of occupancy of such land or any improvements erected or to be erected thereon, and providing that the Subgrantee and the United States are beneficiaries of and entitled to enforce such covenant. The Subgrantee, in undertaking its obligation in carrying out the program assisted hereunder, agrees to take such measures as are necessary to enforce such covenant and will not itself so discriminate. 4. Section 504 and Americans with Disabilities Act: The Subgrantee agrees to comply with any federal regulation issued pursuant to compliance with the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibit discrimination against the disabled in any federal assisted program. Page 13 of 14 Obligations of Subgrantee with Respect to Certain Third-party Relationships: The Subgrantee shall remain fully obligated under thc provisions of the Agreement, notwithstanding its designation of any third party or parties for the undertaking of ail or any part of thc program with respect to which assistance is being provided under this Agreement to the Subgrantee. Any Subgrantee which is not the Applicant shall comply with all lawful requirements of the Applicant necessary to insure that the program, with respect to which assistance is being provided under this Agreement to the Subgrantee is carried out in accordance with the Applicant's Assurances and certifications, including those with respect to the assumption of environmental responsibilities of the Applicant under Section 104(h) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Interest of Certain Federal Officials: No member of or delegate to the Congress of the United States, and no Resident Commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement or to any benefit to arise from the same. Prohibition Against Payments of Bonus or Commission: The assistance provided under this Agreement shall not be used in the payment of any bonus or commission for the purpose of obtaining HUD approval of the application for such assistance, or HUD approval or applications for additional assistance, or any other approval or concurrence of HUD required under this Agreement, Title ! of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, or HUD regulations with respect thereto; provided, however, that reasonable fees or bona fide technical, consultant, managerial or other such services, other than actual solicitation, are not hereby prohibited if otherwise eligible as program costs. "Section 109": This Agreement is subject to the requirements of Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d). No person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color, religion, sex or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds available under this title. Access to Records and Site of Employment: This agreement is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 11246, Executive Order 1375, Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Access shall be permitted during normal business hours to the premises for the purpose of conducting on-site compliance reviews and inspecting and copying such books, records, accounts, and other material as may be relevant tot he matter under investigation and pertinent to compliance with the Order, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto by the Subgrantee. Information obtained in this manner shall be used only in connection with the administration of the Order, the administration of the Civil Rights At of 1964 (as amended) and in furtherance of the purpose of the Order and that Act. 10. Legal Remedies for Contract Violation: If the Subgrantee materially fails to comply with any term of this Agreement, whether stated in a Federal statute or regulation, an assurance, in a State plan or application, a notice of award, or elsewhere, the Grantee may take one or more of the following actions, as appropriate in the circumstances: 1) 2) 3) 4) Temporarily withhold cash payments pending correction of the deficiency by the Subgrantee, Disallow all or part of the cost of the activity or action not in compliance, Wholly or partly suspend or terminate the current Agreement, or Take other remedies that may be legally available. Page 14 of 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) 853-1145 E-mail: clerk®ci.roanoke.va.us August 22, 2001 File #27 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk Ronald M. Lavendar, Sr., Division Manager Heitkamp, Inc. c/o TRB Specialty Rehabilitation 777 Annapolis Road Gambrills, Maryland 21054 Dear Mr. Lavendar: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 35523-082001 accepting the bid of Heitkamp, Inc., and its Division TRB Specialty Rehabilitation, to provide for inspection of the old sewer by remote television cameras, cleaning of the sewer, and identification and location of unknown active sewer service connections to the Roanoke River Interceptor Sewer, upon certain terms and conditions; at a total cost of $576,745.00; and rejecting all other bids made to the City for the work. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager James D. Grisso, Director of Finance George C. Snead, Jr., Assistant City Manager for Operations Barry L. Key, Director, Management and Budget Robert K. Bengtson, Director, Public Works Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing Michael T. McEvoy, Director of Utilities H:~genda.0lXAugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.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 August 22, 2001 File #27 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk William A. Burchell, Executive Vice-President Robinson Pipe Cleaning P. O. Box 396 Eighty Four, Pennsylvania 15330 Dear Mr. Burchell: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 35523-082001 accepting the bid of Heitkamp, Inc., and its Division TRB Specialty Rehabilitation, to provide for inspection of the old sewer by remote television cameras, cleaning of the sewer, and identification and location of unknown active sewer service connections to the Roanoke River Interceptor Sewer, upon certain terms and conditions, at a total cost of $576,745.00; and rejecting all other bids made to the City for the work. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. 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:~genda.01~August 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 20t:h day of August:, 2001. bio. 35523-082001. AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of Heitkamp, Inc., and its Division TRB Specialty Rehabilitation, to provide fo(the inspection of the old sewer by remote television cameras, cleaning of the sewer, and the identification and location of unknown active sewer service connections to the Roanoke River Interceptor Sewer, 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 providing for an emergency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The bid of Heitkamp, Inc., and its Division TRB Specialty Rehabilitation, in the amount of $576,745 to provide for the inspection of the old sewer by remote television cameras, cleaning of the sewer, and the identification and location of unknown active sewer service connections to the Roanoke River Interceptor Sewer, as is more particularly set forth in the City Manager's letter dated August 20, 2001, 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. 4. In order to provide for the usual dally operation of the municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #27 James D. Grisso Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Grisso: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35522-082001 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2001-2002 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriations, in connection with acceptance of a bid submitted by Heitkamp, Inc., for remote television inspection of the old Roanoke River Interceptor Sewer. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc; Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager George C. Snead, Jr., Assistant City Manager for Operations Robert K. Bengtson, Director, Public Works Michael T. McEvoy, Director of Utilities Barry L. Key, Director, Management and Budget H:kAgenda.01 kAugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35522-082001. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 Sewage Treatment 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 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Appropriations Capital Outlay Roanoke River Interceptor Sewer Construction (1-2) ................ Roanoke River Interceptor- Construction C, D and E (3-4) ........... Roanoke Interceptor TV Inspection (5-6) ......................... $ 60,278,448 20,051,306 13,874,198 635,000 1 ) Appropriated from Other Governments 2) Appropriation from General Revenue 3) Appropriated from Other Governments 4) Appropriated from General Revenue 5) Appropriated from Other Governments 6) Appropriated from General Revenue (003-056-8484-8999) (003-056-8484-9003) (003-056-8485-8999) (003-056-8485-9003) (003-530-8488-8999) (003-056-8488-9003) $ (126,130) (73,127) (275,825) (159,918) 401,955 233,045 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 '01 August 20, 2001 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 Television Inspection of the Old Roanoke River Interceptor Sewer The City of Roanoke completed construction of the Roanoke River Interceptor Sewer Replacement Project in July 2000. This project replaced the old sewer that was installed in approximately 1950. It was necessary to keep the old sewer in service while the new one was being built. Once completed, sewer flows were transferred to the new sewer. The proposed contract will provide for the inspection of the old sewer by remote television cameras, cleaning of the sewer, and the identification and location of unknown active sewer service connections. The information provided by this inspection will allow staff to systematically transfer any unknown service connections to the new sewer and evaluate the feasibility of rehabilitating the old sewer to provide additional future capacity. The project was properly advertised and two bids were received for the proposed television inspection work. The lowest bid was submitted by Heitkamp, Inc., and its Division TRB Specialty Rehabilitation, 777 Annapolis Road, Gambrills, Maryland 21054, in the amount of $576,745 with 90 days of contract time. This project is part of the joint use sewer facilities improvement and the cost is shared between the City of Roanoke (36.7%), the City of Salem (33.7%), and Roanoke County (29.6%) Funding for the project is available in existing Roanoke River Interceptor Sewer accounts 003-056- 8485 and 003-056-8484. It is recommended that funding in the total amount of $635,000 be transferred to a new account for the project. Additional funding in excess of the contract amount will be used for miscellaneous project expenses including advertising, printing, testing services, minor variations in bid quantities and unforeseen project expenses. 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 August 20, 2001 Page 2 Recommendation: Accept the above bid and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for the above work with Heitkamp, Inc., and its Division TRB Specialty Rehabilitation, in the amount of $576,745 and 90 days of contract time for the proposed work. Transfer $435,743 from account number 003-056-8485 and $199,257 from account 003-056-8484, for a total amount of $635,000, to a new account entitled Roanoke Interceptor TV Inspection. Respectfully submitted, Darlene L. Bu~ham City Manager DLB/PCS/bls C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance #CM01-00161 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #99-236 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 35524-082001 authorizing execution of an agreement with the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce for administration of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for FY 2001-2002 for certain services related to promotion and development in the central area of the City of Roanoke. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: Elizabeth S. Doughty, President, Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce, 212 South Jefferson Street, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia, 24011-1702 James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Frank E. Baratta, Budget Team Leader H:XAgenda.01XAugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35524-082001. A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of an agreement with the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce for administration of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for FY 2001-2002 for services related to the promotion and development in the central area of the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to execute and attest, respectively, an agreement, and any necessary amendments thereto, with the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce for administration of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for FY 2001-2002 for services related to the promotion and development in the central area of the City, within the limits of funds as more particularly set forth in the City Manager's letter dated August 20, 2001, and its attachment. 2. The form of said agreement, and any necessary amendments thereto, shall be approved by the City Attorney. ATTEST: City Clerk. H: ~,4EA SURESh'-coccdbg. 1 Office of the City Manager August 20, 2001 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Council Member Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council: Subject: 2001-02 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Agreement with Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce Background: Since 1998, the Chamber has conducted a "Community Business Development Initiative" program to promote business development in the central City. On May 7, 2001, City Council authorized the Chamber's 2001-02 CDBG activities and funding by Resolution No. 35319-050701, which approved submission of the City's 2001-02 Consolidated Plan Annual Update to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. City Council accepted the 2001-02 CDBG funds on June 18, 2001, by Budget Ordinance No. 35406- 070201 and Resolution No. 35407-061801, contingent upon receipt of the approval letter from HUD. The approval letter was received on August 8, 2001. Considerations: In order for the Chamber to provide the business development activities approved in the Consolidated Plan, City Council's authorization to execute an agreement with the Chamber is needed. Necessary CDBG funding is available in the accounts listed on page 9 of the draft Agreement, which is attached to this report. A total of $125,000 in CDBG funds is being provided to the Chamber for the July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2002, period. 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 August 20, 2001 Page 2 Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute the 2001-02 CDBG Agreement with the Chamber, similar in form and content to the draft attached to this report. Respectfully submitted, Darlene L. BuNham City Manager Attachments C~ Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Frank E. Baratta, Budget Team Leader #CM01-00137 Attachment 1 AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into this first day of July, 2001, by and between the following parties: The Grantee City of Roanoke, Virginia 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 The Subgrantee Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce, Inc. 212 Jefferson Street, S.E. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 35405-061801 the Roanoke City Council approved the 2001/2002 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and by Ordinance No. 35404-061801 appropriated funds therefor; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. -082001 the Roanoke City Council approved the execution of this subgrant agreement between the Grantee and the Subgrantee; and NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES: The Subgrantee shall undertake an economic development program whose ultimate aim is the creation of new employment opportunities in the City of Roanoke, as further described below. As part of this program, the Subgrantee shall provide one full-time and part-time support staff sufficient to ensure satisfactory performance of all activities including, but not limited to: outreach and marketing of the program, counseling of clientele, facilitating financial assistance, and other related business services. During the period of performance, defined in section 2 below, the Subgrantee shall attain the following performance objectives: ao Outreach and market program services to at least 250 prospects to promote the creation of new businesses or business expansions within targeted areas of the City of Roanoke. Targeted areas in order of priority include: Priority 1: Census Tracts with poverty rates of 20% or more (see Attachment 2 to this Agreement); Priority 2: Census Tracts with poverty rates less than 20%, but at least 51% low- and moderate-income populations (see Attachment 3 to this Agreement); Page 1 of 10 Pages Priority 3: Other areas of the City. Provide counseling and related services resulting in the preparation of business plans, obtaining of financing or other substantive developments for a minimum of 100 prospects considering creating new businesses or business expansions within targeted areas of the City. To count toward this performance objective, the prospect must have been provided such substantive developments during the current CDBG contract period. Development of at least 20 new jobs by businesses provided services under performance objective "b" above during the current or prior CDBG contract period. To count toward this performance objective, a job must be in one of the categories below. In addition, a job previously existing within the City or another community that is relocated to or within the City shall not be counted toward this performance objective. Category 1' The business has newly located or expanded in, and will primarily provide services to residents of, a City Census Tract having a poverty rate of at least 20% (30% if any portion of the of the Central Business District is included in the Census Tract). Category 2: At least 51% of the jobs by the business will be made available to or will be held by persons of low- or moderate-income. (Jobs in this category may be located within any area of the City.) Category 3: The business is a newly-created "low-mod-owned microenterprise"; that is, a business with no more than five employees including the owner or owners, where the owner's or owners' family income does not exceed the low- and moderate-income limit. (Jobs in this category may be located within any area of the City.) Specific documentation which must be obtained and retained by the program in order to receive credit for the creation of a given job is described in section 11 below. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: Unless amended, this Agreement shall be for the period beginning July 1, 2001, and ending June 30, 2002. BUDGET: The total amount of CDBG funds used for this project shall not exceed $125,000. Specific line item amounts are provided below. With prior approval from the Department of Management and Budget, budgeted funds may be shifted among approved line items for expenses which are consistent with the Scope of Services and which do not exceed the funding limitations within the Administrative category. The cost charged by the Subgrantee to lease the computers should be competitive. That is, the Subgrantee shall maintain documentation reflecting that the lease would not be an excessive cost compared to the cost to lease from other sources. Page 2 of 10 Pages Category Admin Cost Project Cost Total Cost Salaries 6,800 61,200 68,000 Benefits 1,840 16,560 18,400 Mileage 1,500 1,500 Training 5,000 5,000 Leased Equipment 2,500 2,500 Telephone 2,000 2,000 General Office Supplies 4,600 4,600 Bookkeeping 3,300 3,300 Computer Software 1,500 1,500 Copying/Printing 5,600 5,600 Subscriptions/Dues 1,000 1,000 Postage 2,000 2,000 Marketing 6,600 6,600 Scholarships 3,000 3,000 TOTAL 11,940 113,060 125,000 PROPOSED PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND PROCEDURES. This is a cost reimbursement contract. Requests for payment, including time sheets for each full- and part-time staff to be compensated, will be submitted to the Grantee's Department of Management and Budget for review and approval. Funds will be disbursed monthly, as needed. Approval of each reimbursement request will be subject to CDBG eligibility and timely receipt of monthly reports detailed in Paragraph 11. All requests for disbursements with respect to costs incurred during the period of performance, set forth in part 2, must be received by the Grantee within 30 calendar days of the ending date of the Agreement. The Grantee shall not be bound to honor requests received after this 30-day period. NONDISCRIMINATION: This Agreement is subject to the requirements of Section 109 of the Housing and Community Page 3 of 10 Pages Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. No person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color, sex, disability, religion, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds available under this title. INDEMNIFICATION: Subgrantee agrees and binds itself and its successors and assigns to indemnify, keep and hold the Grantee and its officers, employees, agents, volunteers and representatives free and harmless from any liability on account of any injury or damage of any type to any person or property growing out of or directly or indirectly resulting from any act or omission of Subgrantee including: (a) Subgrantee use of the streets or sidewalks of the City or other public property; (b) the performance under this Agreement; (c) the exercise of any right or privilege granted by or under this Agreement; or (d) the failure, refusal or neglect of Subgrantee to perform any duty imposed upon or assumed by Subgrantee by or under this Agreement. In the event that any suit or proceeding shall be brought against the Grantee or any of its officers, employees, agents, volunteers or representatives at law or in equity, either independently or jointly with Subgrantee on account of an alleged act of omission by the Subgrantee, in whole or in part, Subgrantee upon notice given to it by the Grantee or any of its officers, employees, agents, volunteers or representatives, will pay all costs of defending the Grantee or any of its officers, employees, agents, volunteers or representatives in any such action or other proceeding. In the event of any settlement or any final judgment being awarded against the Grantee or any of its officers, employees, agents, volunteers or representatives, as a result of an alleged act or omission by the Subgrantee, in whole or in part, either independently or jointly with Subgrantee then Subgrantee will pay such settlement or judgment in full or will comply with such decree, pay all costs and expenses of whatsoever nature and hold the Grantee or any of its officers, employees, agents, volunteers or representatives harmless therefrom. 7. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS: The Subgrantee agrees to abide by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) conditions for CDBG programs and all other applicable federal regulations relating to specific programs performed hereunder. 8. UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS: The Subgrantee shall comply with the requirements and standards of OMB Circular No. A- 110, "Uniform Administrative Requirements..."; and OMB Circular No. A- 122, "Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations. 9. ANNUAL AUDIT: As an entity receiving less than $300,000 in federal funding from the Grantee, the Subgrantee shall not be required by the Grantee to undergo an annual independent audit of the CDBG expenditures under this Agreement. Furthermore, no expenditures with respect to any such audit undertaken by the Subgrantee's own initiative shall be chargeable to the funds under this Agreement. Page 4 of 10 Pages 10. PROGRAM INCOME: "Program income" means gross income received by the Grantee or Subgrantee directly generated from the use of CDBG funds. Program income from any and all sources shall be submitted to the Grantee within five (5) days of its receipt by the Subgrantee. No program income is expected. 11. RECORDS AND REPORTS: The Subgrantee shall maintain full and accurate records with respect to all matters covered under this Agreement. All records pertaining to this Agreement and the services performed pursuant to it, shall be retained for a period of four (4) years after the expiration date of this Agreement or its amendments. Appropriate Grantee and/or HUD personnel shall have free access to those records during the Agreement duration and the following four-year time period. On a monthly basis, the Subgrantee shall submit to the Grantee's Department of Management and Budget reports summarizing project activities and accomplishments using the CDBG Monthly Report Formats located at Attachment 4 of this Agreement. These reports are to be received by the Grantee as part of the Subgrantee's with disbursement requests or by the 15th of the following month, whichever is earlier. In a timely manner upon completion of required documentation, the Subgrantee shall also submit Business Creation and Job Creation Reports Formats located at Attachment 5 of this Agreement. The Subgrantee agrees to submit any other reports as requested by the Grantee, including racial, ethnic and other demographic characteristics of individuals assisted by the Subgrantee, should such be required by HUD. The following represents the documentation that the Subgrantee must obtain and retain in order to receive credit for facilitating the creation of jobs. (See also the CDBG Flowchart located at Attachment 6 of this Agreement.) a. 20% Poverty Area - Location and Services To receive credit for jobs as a result of a business newly locating or expanding in and primarily providing services to residents ora City Census Tract having a poverty rate of at least 20%, documentation shall include: (1) Verification that the address at which the business is locating or expanding is within a City Census Tract having a poverty rate of at least 20% (30% if any portion of the of the Central Business District is included in the Census Tract); and (2) Verification that the services to be provided by the business primarily to the residents of the Census Tract. b. Creation/Retention of 51% Low/Mod Jobs Page 5 of 10 Pages (1) To receive credit that at least 51% of the jobs created will be available to low- and moderate-income persons, documentation for each assisted business shall include: (a) A copy of a written agreement containing i. A commitment by the business that it will make at least 51% of the jobs available to low- and moderate- income persons and will provide training for any of those jobs requiring special skills or educations, ii. A listing by job title of the permanent jobs to be created indicating which jobs will be available to low- and moderate- income persons, which jobs require special skills or education, and which jobs are part-time, if any, and in. A description of actions to be taken by the Subgrantee and business to ensure that Iow-and moderate- income persons receive first consideration for those jobs; and (b) A listing by job title of the permanent jobs filled, which jobs of those were available to low- and moderate-income persons, and a description of how first consideration was given to such persons for those jobs. The description shall include what hiring process was used; which low- and moderate- income persons were interviewed for a particular job; and which low- and moderate- income persons were hired. (2) To receive credit that at least 51% of the jobs will be held by low- and moderate- income persons, documentation for each assisted business shall include: (a) A copy of a written agreement containing: i. A commitment by the business that at least 51% of the jobs, on a full-time equivalent basis, will be held by low- and moderate- income persons; and ii. A listing by job title of the permanent jobs to be created, identifying which are part-time, if any; (b) A listing by job titles of the permanent jobs filled and which jobs were initially held by low- and moderate- income persons; and (c) For each such low- and moderate- income person hired; the size and annual income of the person's family prior to the person being hired for the job. (3) To receive credit that the program benefited low- and moderate- income persons based on the retention of jobs, documentation for each assisted business shall include: (a) Evidence that in the absence of CDBG assistance jobs would be lost; (b) For each business assisted, a listing by job title of permanent jobs retained, indicating which of those jobs are part-time and (where it is known) which are held Page 6 of 10 Pages by low- and moderate- income persons at the time the CDBG assistance is provided. Where applicable, identification of any of the retained jobs (other than those known to be held by low- and moderate- income persons) which are projected to become available to low- and moderate- income persons through job turnover within two years of the time CDBG assistance is provided. Information upon which the job turnover projections were based shall also be included in the record; (c) For each retained job claimed to be held by a low- and moderate- income persons, information on the size and annual income of the person's family; (d) For jobs claimed to be available to low- and moderate- income persons based on turnover, a description covering the items required for "available to" jobs paragraph of this section; and (e) Where jobs were claimed to be available to low- and moderate- income persons through turnover, a listing of each job which has turned over to date, indicating which of those jobs were either taken by, or available to, low- and moderate- income persons. For jobs made available, a description of how first consideration was given to such persons for those jobs shall also be included in the record. c. Low-Mod-Owned Microenterprise To receive credit for jobs as a result of a newly-created low-mod-owned microenterprise, documentation shall include: (1) Verification of no more than 5 employees in the enterprise, including the owner(s); and (2) Verification that, at the time that the CDBG assistance is being provided, the family income of the owner or owners does exceed the low-mod limit. 12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: No employee, agent, consultant, officer or appointed official of the Subgrantee, who is in a position to participate in a decision-making process or gain inside information with regard to any CDBG activity, may obtain a personal or financial interest in any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or in the proceeds thereunder, either for themselves, their family or business associates, during their tenure or for one (1) year thereafter. 13. SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION: In the event the Subgrantee materially fails to comply with any term of the Agreement, the Grantee may suspend or terminate, in whole or in part, this Agreement or take other remedial action in accordance with 24 CFR 85.43. The Agreement may be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44, which provides latitudes for the Subgrantee to initiate such actions. Funding to be made available by the Grantee under this Agreement is contingent upon Page 7 of 10 Pages necessary appropriations by the U.S. Congress. In the event that sufficient funds are not appropriated, at the sole discretion of the Grantee, this Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part. 14. REVERSION OF ASSETS: Upon expiration of this agreement, or amendments thereto, the Subgrantee shall transfer to the City any CDBG funds or program income on hand at the time of expiration, or received after such expiration, and any accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds. 15. THIRD-PARTY CONTRACTS: The Grantee shall not be obligated or liable hereunder to any party other than the Subgrantee. Further, notwithstanding its designation of any third party or parties for the undertaking of all or any part of the program with respect to which assistance is being provided, the Subgrantee shall remain fully obligated under the provisions of this Agreement. Any third party shall comply with all applicable requirements of this Agreement. 16. ANTI-LOBBYING: To the best of the Subgrantee's knowledge and belief, no federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any persons for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an office or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of congress in connections with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. If any funds other than Federal funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this agreement, the Subgrantee will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying, "in accordance with its instructions. 17. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement, including all of its Exhibits, represents the entire agreement between the parties and this Agreement shall not be modified, amended, altered or changed, except by written agreement executed by the parties. 18. GOVERNING LAW: This Agreement shall be governed by laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year hereinabove written: Page 8 of 10 Pages ATTEST: FOR THE GRANTEE: By¸ Mary F. Parker, City Clerk By City Manager/Assistant City Manager ATTEST: FOR THE SUBGRANTEE: By Robert Lawson, Chairman the Board Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce By. Beth Doughty, President Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce APPROVED AS TO CDBG ELIGIBILITY APPROVED AS TO FORM Dept. Management and Budget Assistant City Attorney APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION APPROPRIATION AND FUNDS REQUIRED FOR THIS CONTRACT CERTIFIED Assistant City Attorney Director of Finance Date Acct. No. 035-G02-0230-5021 $125,000 Page 9 of 10 Pages Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 -- Other Federal Requirements -- City of Roanoke Census Tracts with 20% or Higher Poverty Rates -- City of Roanoke Census Tracts with 51% or more Low/Mod Income Populations -- CDBG Monthly Report Formats -- Business and Job Creation Reports Formats -- CDBG Flowchart Page 10 of 10 Pages CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #60-236-305 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 35526-082001 authorizing acceptance of funding from the Department of Criminal Justice Services under its Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Incentive Program, upon certain terms and conditions, in the amount of $32,522.00 for Roanoke City and $12,273.00 Roanoke County. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001 Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator, The Roanoke County Administration Center, 5204 Bernard Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018 James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director, Human Services Barry L. Key, Director, Management and Budget H:L~genda.01~August 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35526-082001. A RESOLUTION, authorizing the acceptance of funding from the Department of Criminal Justice Services under its Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Incentive Program, upon certain terms and conditions. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as follows: 1. The City Manager is authorized to accept the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant allocation of $32,522.00 for Roanoke City and $12,273.00 for Roanoke County, as more particularly stated in the City Manager's letter to this Council dated August 20, 2001. 2. The City Manager is authorized to execute any and all requisite documents, including any documents providing for indemnification by the City as are required for the City's acceptance of this grant, upon form approved by the City Attorney, and to furnish such additional information as may be required in connection with the City's acceptance of this grant. ATTEST: City Clerk. H:X.MEASURES',r-j uvenilegrant I ~ 'N CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #60-236-305 James D. Grisso Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Grisso: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35525-082001 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2001-2002 General and Grant Funds Appropriations, in connection with acceptance of funds from the Department of Criminal Justice Services under its Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Incentive Program for Roanoke City and Roanoke County. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. 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 Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director, Human Services Barry L. Key, Director, Management and Budget H:k4.genda.01kAugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35525-082001. 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 Appropriations Health and Welfare $ 27,386,030 Hospitalization Program (1) ................................ 48,386 Nondepartmental $ 66,920,474 Transfer to Other Funds (2) ................................ 66,159,977 Grant Fund Appropriations Health and Welfare Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant FY02 - City of Roanoke (3) .................................... Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant FY02 - Roanoke County (4) .................................... Revenues Health and Welfare Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant FY02 - City of Roanoke (5-6) ................................... $ 3,984,305 36,136 13,637 $ 3,984,305 36,136 Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant FY02 - Roanoke County (7-8) ..................................... 1) Fees for Professional Services 2) Transfer to Grant Fund 3) Fees for Professional Services 4) Fees for Professional Services 5) State Grant Receipts 6) Local Match 7) State Grant Receipts 8) Local Match (001-630-5330-2010) $ ( (001-250-9310-9535) (035-630-5050-2010) (035-630-5052-2010) (035-630-5050-5050) (035-630-5050-5051) (035-630-5052-5052) (035-630-5052-5053) 3,614) 3,614 36,136 13,637 32,522 3,614 12,273 1,364 13,637 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 August 20, 2001 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 Council: Subject: Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Award Background: The Department of Criminal Justice Services notified Roanoke and Roanoke County in March, 2001 of an allocation of funds under the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program (JAIBG). The allocation of $44,795 in federal funds was awarded jointly to the two jurisdictions. A local match of $4,978.00 is required. Considerations: The allocation formula provides $32,522.00 federal and $3,614.00 match for Roanoke and $12,273.00 federal and $1,364.00 match for Roanoke County. Staff from the jurisdictions have met and developed program proposals for the use of the funding. Roanoke County will provide a substance abuse intervention education program through the schools. Roanoke, in collaboration with the Boys & Girls Club, will provide services to students suspended or otherwise absent from school during the day. Funding for the City's match of $3,614.00 is in Account No. 001-630-5330-2010, State/Local Hospitalization. Roanoke is the fiscal agent for the funds. Room 364 Municipal South 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 (.540) 853-2333 CityWeb:www. ci.roanoke.va~us FAX (540) 853-1138 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 20, 2001 Page 2 Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager or her designee to accept the JAIBG grant allocation of $32,522 (Roanoke) and $12,273 (Roanoke County), total amount of $44,795, to execute the agreement from the Department of Criminal Justice Services for the funds, and authorize the appropriation of $3,614 from Account No. 001-630-5330-2010, State/Local Hospitalization, to an account for the JAIBG allocation to be established by the Director of Finance. Authorize the Director of Finance to establish appropriation amounts and revenue estimates for this grant. Respectfully submitted, Darlene L. Bu¥c'ham City Manager GDR:tem C: Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director of Human/Social Services Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Barry L. Key, Director of Management and Budget John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator #CM01-00177 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #67-289 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 35527-082001 amending the City's Fee Compendium to provide for revised fees for use of City park facilities and services in order to update current fees and to promote uniformity with fees charged by the City and surrounding localities, effective September 1,2001. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools VVanda B. Reed, Acting Director of Parks and Recreation Stephen Niamke, Neighborhood Partnership Coordinator H:kAgcnda.01 kAugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35527-082001. A RESOLUTION amending the City's Fee Compendium to provide for revised fees for use of City park facilities and services in order to update current fees and promote uniformity with fees charged by the City and surrounding localities; and providing an effective date. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The following fees shall be charged for the following permits and services: Facility or Service Resident Non-Resident Recreation Centers: $40 first hour/S25 for each additional hour $45 first hour/S30 for each additional hour Grandin Court, plus $50.00 refimdable damage deposit plus $50.00 refundable damage deposit Eureka, Preston, Buena Vista, Villa During Regular Hours: During Regular Hours: Heights, Garden If available, space will be provided free of If available, space will be provided free of City, Norwich, charge charge Thrasher (After Hours Only) Refunds: Refunds: Rental fees are fully refundable if Rental fees are fully refundable if cancellation is made at least 72 hours cancellation is made at least 72 hours before the reserved time. If cancellation is before the reserved time. If cancellation is made less than 72 hours before the reserved made less than 72 hours before the time, rental fees minus a $25 service charge reserved time, rental fees minus a $25 will be refunded service charge will be refunded. Recreation Center: $150 first two hours/S50 each additional hour $175 first two hours/S60 each additional Mountain View plus $100 refundable damage deposit (or $200 hourplus $100 refundable damage deposit if alcohol is permitted) (or $200 if alcohol is permitted) During Regular Hours: If available, space During Regular Hours: If available, space will be provided free of charge will be provided free of charge Refunds: Refunds: Rental fees are fully refundable ifcancellation Rental fees are fully refundable if is made at least 72 hours before the reserved cancellation is made at least 72 hours time. If cancellation is made less than 72 before the reserved time. Ifcancellationis hours before the reserved time, Reservation made less than 72 hours before the fees minus a $75 service charge will be reserved time, Reservation fees minus a refunded. $75 service charge will be refunded. Mountain View: After Hours: $50/hour plus $100 refundable After Hours: $50/hour plus $100 Rose Garden damage deposit refundable damage deposit During Regular Hours: Free During Regular hours: Free Refunds: Refunds: Rental fees are fully refundable ifcancellafion Rental fees are fully refundable if is made at least 72 hours before the reserved cancellation is made at least 72 hours time. If cancellation is made less than 72 before the reserved time. Ifcancellationis hours bef3re the reserved time, rental fees made less than 72 hours before the minus a $15 service charge will be refunded, reserved time, rental fees minus a $15 service charge will be refunded Gymnasium: $25/hour $30/hour Norwich, Eureka, Armory Swimming Pools: After Hours Rental: $125 for 3 hours or less, After Hours Rental: $175 for 3 hours or plus staff costs less, plus staff costs Regular Hours: Regular Hours: Children Under 5 - free Children Under 5 - free Youth (ages 5 to 15) - $1 Youth (ages 5 to 15) - $1 Adults (ages 16 and up) - $2 Adults (ages 16 and up) - $2 Athletic Fields: $12.50 per hour $17.50 per hour Rental (Does not apply to tournaments) Athletic Fields: Full Football (Includes lines @ 5 yd. intervals, Dragging and all hashmarks, and numbers ~ 10 yard Marking intervals): (cost additional to $175 per field any other charges for athlefiefields, Flag Football (Includes field perimeter with exception of outline, and lines @ 10 yd. intervals): tournaments) $125 per field Soccer (Includes perimeter outline, midfield line/circle, plus 6 yard and 18 yard boxes. Note - youth fields marked proportionately to field size): $125 per field Baseball and Softball (includes all foul lines, coaches boxes, batter's boxes and pitchers circle - if applicable - plus broom dragging field and filling obvious holes): $100 per field Athletic Fields: $7.50 per hour $7.50 per hour Lighting (cost additional to any other charges for athletic fields) Athletic Fields: $5/team entered into tournament, or $125 per Tournaments field per day, whichever is greater (minimum $125) plus direct costs for staff and $200 refundable deposit per field. (This costs covers dragging and marking services, but not lighting.) Tennis Courts $2.50 per hour per court $3.00 per hour per court Picnic Shelters: $30 for half day $40 for half day Crystal Spring $40 for full day $50 for full day Eastgate, Eureka, Fallon, Fishbum, Refunds: Refunds: Golden, Jackson, Reservation fees are fully refundable if Reservation fees are fully refundable if Melrose, Preston, cancellation is made at least 72 hours before cancellation is made at least 72 hours Smith, Strauss, the reserved time. If cancellation is made less before the reserved time. If cancellation is Thrasher, than 72 hours before the reserved time, only made less than 72 hours before the Washington -Upper, 50% of the reservation fee will be refunded, reserved time, only 50% of the reservation Washington - fee will be refunded. Lower, Wasena - Brick, Wasena - Stone Picnic Shelter: Mill $45 for half day $60 for half day Mountain $60 for full day $75 for full day Reservation fees are fully refundable if Reservation fees are {ully refundable if cancellation is made at least 72 hours before cancellation is made at least 72 hours the reserved time. If cancellation is made less before the reserved time. If cancellation is than 72 hours before the reserved time, only made less than 72 hours before the 50% of the reservation fee will be refunded, reserved time, only 50% of the reservation fee will be refunded. Discovery Center $175 ftrst two hours, $50 for each hour after $225 first two hours, $75 for each hour (may be rented after plus $100 refundable damage deposit (or $200 afterplus $100 refundable damage deposit operational hours if alcohol is permitted) (or $200 if alcohol is permitted) only) Refunds: Refunds: Rental fees are fully refundable if cancellation Rental fees are fully refundable if is made at least 72 hours before the reserved cancellation is made at least 72 hours time. If cancellation is made less than 72 before the reserved time. Ifcancellationis hours before the reserved time, rental fees made less than 72 hours before the minus a $75 service charge will be refunded reserved time, rental fees minus a $75 service charge will be refunded Labon Johnson $125 for first eight hours, $15 for each $175 for first eight hours, $20 for each (Elmwood Park) additional hour additional hour Amphitheater Refunds: Refunds: Rental fees are fully refundable if cancellation Rental fees are fully refundable if is made at least 72 hours before the reserved cancellation is made at least 72 hours time. If cancellation is made less than 72 before the reserved time. Ifcancellationis hours before the reserved time, rental fees made less than 72 hours before the minus a $50 service charge will be refunded, reserved time, rental fees minus a $50 service charge will be refunded. Stage One Canopy Direct Cost of Erection and Breakdown of Direct Cost of Erection and Breakdown of (Elmwood Park) Canopy plus 15% of direct costs Canopy plus $15% of direct costs Highland Park $25/halfday $35/halfday Amphitheater $35/fui1 day $45/full day Support for Non- Official Departmental Rate (as established Official DepartmentalRate (as established departmental, Non- yearly by Office of Management and Budget) yearly by Office of Management and City Special Events per employee per hour. Budget) per employee per hour "Festival" Trash Cost to Department plus 10% rounded up to Department Cost plus 10% rounded up to Receptacles and next highest dollar amount, next highest dollar amount. liners Mobile Stage Event - Held in City, co-sponsored by Parks and Recreation Dept.: No charge if set-up and take-down are during business hours. If overtime labor is involved, decision as to whether to charge for direct labor costs shall be determined by Director of P&R Event - Held in City by any user and for which no fee, such as participation, entrance or admission is charged: $600 for 8 hours or less plus $100 per each additional hour Event - Held in City by 501(c) 3 non-profit organization and for which a fee, such as for participation or admission is charged: $900 for eight hours or less plus $125 per each additional hour Event - Held in the City and which is sponsored by any other person or entity for which a fee, such as for participation or admission, is charged: $900 for eight hours or less plus$125 per each additional hour plus 15% of Gross revenues collected by user Event - Held outside the City: The Mobile Stage shall not be used outside the City of Roanoke unless it is to provide support for a Valley-wide event and the event is co-sponsored with the City of Roanoke. Additional personnel will be needed if stage panels are requested, or an electrician is needed. The cost for these personnel will be billed at the appropriate City Department's rate as established yearly by the Office of Management and Budget, and will be for a rninimum of four hours per person. Reservation fee shall be 50% of total rental. Cancellation: Made more than 72 hours prior to set-up time - 25% of rental fee will be retained as service charge Made within 72 hours of the set-up time but before vehicle leaves garage - 75% of rental fee will be retained as service charge Made after the vehicle has left the garage - none of the rental fee will be refunded. 4 Special Considerations Roanoke City School Functions= Teacher affiliated field trips - tees will be waived for shelter and recreation center use, unless special cleaning is requested. School affiliated events co-sponsored by P&R - fees will either be waived or direct costs charged, depending on the service being requested and personnel overtime expenses. Neighborhood Partnership Meetings= Rental fees for recreation centers for regular monthly meetings of Neighborhood Partnership organizations will be waived. 3. The Fee Compendium of the City, maintained by the Director of Finance and authorized and approved by the City Council by Resolution No. 32412-032795, adopted March 27, 1995, effective as of that date, shall be amended to reflect the new and amended fees. 4. Resolution No. 32412-032795 is hereby amended to the extent and only to the extent of any inconsistency with this Resolution. this Council. 6. The fees established by this Resolution shall remain in effect until amended by This Resolution shall be in full force and effect on September 1, 2001. ATTEST: City Clerk. 5 I-~ ~4~.~SUgY_~r-amp&ffe~. I Office of the City Manager August 20, 2001 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: Changes in Fees for various park rentals Background: Parks and Recreation staff members have reviewed current fees charged for park shelters, recreation centers, athletic fields, etc. and have made recommendations for changes as reflected in the attached chart (See Attachment 1). Many of the fees have not been changed since 1990. Considerations: The fee increases being proposed have been kept to a minimum to have the least impact possible on citizens. In most cases, the increases are less than the rate of inflation. Further, basic services remain free to our citizens. The fee changes involve the cost of providing services or facilities, which a citizen has requested over and above basic citizens use. Offering such services involves provision of additional resources such as staff, more hours of heating or cooling our facilities, and/or special preparatory cleanings and maintenance. An example would be the right to exclusive use conferred in a recreation center or picnic shelter reservation. The proposed increases are compatible to similar facilities in surrounding jurisdictions and reflect the rising costs of providing services, especially in areas such as utilities, custodial and staffing costs. Room 364 Mu~i~i~p~gL~.outh 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 August 20, 2001 Page 2 In some cases, refundable damage deposits have been recommended. These are requested in situations where experience has taught the Department they are necessary. Any additional funding derived from the fee increases will be used to improve services at Parks and Recreation's facilities. As a result of City Council's work session on August 13, changes have been made to the recommended fees. In addition, Parks and Recreation staff has met with Dr. Harris to discuss these fees. Special consideration has been given to Roanoke City Schools as well as Neighborhood Partnership organizations in developing the recommended fee structure. These considerations are outlined in Attachment 1, page 8. Recommended Action: Adopt the attached fee changes effective September 1, 2001, thus allowing Parks and Recreation staff time to notify customers of the fee changes. Respectfully submitted, City Manager DLB:kj Attachment C; Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent of Schools Wanda B. Reed, Acting Director of Parks and Recreation Stephen Niamke, Neighborhood Partnership Coordinator #CM01-00150 Proposed Fee Compendium Changes (8-15-01) Parks and Recreation Recreation Centers: After hours: After Hours: $40 first hour/S25 for each $45 first hour/S30 for each Increased cost of operating, e.g. Grandin Court, Eureka, $35 first hour/ $40 first hour/ additional hour plus additional hour plus personnel, custodial, and utility costs Preston, Buena Vista, $20 for each additional $25 for each additional $50.00 refundable damage $50.00 refundable damage Villa Heights, Garden hour hour deposit deposit City, Norwich, Thrasher (After Hours Only) During Regular Hours: During Regular Hours: During Regular Hours: During Regular Hours: Service Charge $10 per Service Charge $15 per If available, space will be If available, space will be hour (Note: Often this fee hour (Note: Often this fee provided free of charge ~rovided free of charge is not charged.) is not charged.) Cancellations: Cancellations: Staff time is spent on paperwork and Rental fees are fully Rental fees are fully site preparation prior to a rental refundable if cancellation is refundable if cancellation is event. This policy will help made at least 72 hours made at least 72 hours discourage last minute cancellations. i before the reserved time. If before the reserved time. If cancellation is made less cancellation is made less than 72 hours before the than 72 hours before the reserved time, rental fees reserved time, rental fees . minus a $25 service charge minus a $25 service charge I will be refunded, will be refunded. (Chart continued next page) Recreation Cen{er: After Hours: After Hours: $150 first two hours/S50 $175 first two hours/S60 Increased cost of operating. Mountain View $75 first hour/ $80 first hour/ each additional hour each additional hour Mountain View is one of the most $40 for each additional $45 for each additional plus plus heavily used centers, and is the most hour hour $100 refundable damage $100 refundable damage expensive to operate for utility costs. deposit (or $200 if alcohol deposit (or $200 if alcohol is permitted) is permitted) During Regular Hours: During Regular Hours: During Regular Hours: If During Regular Hours: If Service Charge of $10 per Service Charge of $10 per available, space will be available, space will be hour (Note: Often th s fee is hour (Note: Often th s fee is provided free of charge provided free of charge not charged.) not charged.) Cancellations: Cancellations: Staff time is spent on paperwork and Rental fees are fully Rental fees are fully site preparation prior to a rental refundable if cancellation is refundable if cancellation is event. This policy will help made at least 72 hours made at least 72 hours discourage last minute cancellations. before the reserved time. If before the reserved time. If cancellation is made less cancellation is made less than 72 hours before the than 72 hours before the reserved time, Reservation reserved time, Reservation fees minus a $75 service fees minus a $75 service charge will be refunded, char~le will be refunded. Mountain View: Rose Not covered under current Not covered under current After Hours: $75/day After Hours: $100/day The rose garden is a popular site for Garden fee compendium fee compendium plus }lus weddings. Such use requires $100 refundable damage $100 refundable damage ~ncreased maintenance by grounds deposit deposit crews. During Regular Hours: Free During Regular hours: Free Cancellations: Cancellations: Staff time is spent on paperwork and Rental fees are fully Rental fees are fully site preparation prior to a rental refundable if cancellation is refundable if cancellation is event. This policy will help made at least 72 hours made at least 72 hours discourage last minute cancellations. before the reserved time. If before the reserved time. If cancellation is made less cancellation is made less than 72 hours before the than 72 hours before the reserved time, rental fees reserved time, rental fees minus a $15 service charge minus a $15 service charge will be refunded, will be refunded Gymnasium: $25/hour $25/hour $25/hour $30/hour Institutes resident/non- resident price Norwich, Eureka, . Armory structure as done for other facilities. 2 ~,!?~ ,~.~ %~= ~Or, ,~..~,~, Current Fee Compendium Prices Swii~n~ing Pools: After HoUrs rental: After Hours Rental: $150 After Hours Rental: $125 After Hours Rental: $175 Costs of operating the pools have $100 for 3 hours or less, for 3 houm or less, plus for 3 hours or less, plus for 3 hours or less, plus risen in the last several years due to plus staff ~sts s~ff costs staff costs staff costs regulations regarding chemical levels ~n the water, staffing, and utili~ Regular Houm: Regular Houm: Regular Hours: Regular Hours: costs. Children Under 5 - free Children Under 5 - free Children Under 5 - free Children Under 5 - free Youth (ages 5 to 15) - $1 Youth (ages 5 to 15) - $1 Youth (ages 5 to 15) - $1 Youth (ages 5 to 15) - $1 Adults (ages 16 and up) - Adults (ages 16 and up) - Adults (ages 16 and up) - Adults (ages 16 and up) - $2 $2 $2 $2 Athletic Fields: Rental $10 per hour with 2 hour $15 per hour with 2 hour $12.50 per hour $17.50 per hour Reflects general increases in (Notes: minimum minimum -Does not apply to operating costs. tournaments -Does not include field Minimal rental time deleted as most lighting which is $7.50 rentals are for a one hour period. per hour Athletic Fields: $25 per field $25 per field Full Football (Includes lines ~ 5 yd. inte~als, all More accurately reflects the relative Dragging and Marking hashmarks, and numbers ~ 10 yard intewals): costs of providing dragging and (cost additional to any $175 per field marking sewices. other charges for athletic fields, with Flag Football (Includes field perimeter outline, and lines exception of ~ 10 yd. inte~als): tournaments) $125 per field Soccer (Includes perimeter outline, midfield line/circle, plus 6 yard and 18 yard boxes. Note - youth fields marked propo~ionately to field size): $125 per field Baseball and Softball (Includes all foul lines, coaches boxes, batter's boxes and pitchers circle - if applicable - 31us broom dragging field and filling obvious holes): $100 per field Athletic Fields: No special price for tournaments $5/team entered into tournament, or $125 per field per Prices more accurately reflect cost of Tournaments day, whichever is greater (minimum $125) providing this sewice. Aisc, brings }lus direct costs for staff and $200 refundable deposit per into line with Roanoke Counys field. (This costs covers dragging and marking se~ices, }rices. but not lighting.) Picnic Shelters: $25 for half day $35 for half day $30 for half day $40 for half day Reflects general increases in Crystal Spring $35 for full day $40 for full day $40 for full day $50 for full day operating costs. Eastgate, Eureka, Fallon, Fishburn, Cancellations: Cancellations: Some patrons have been canceling Golden, Jackson, Reservation fees are fully Reservation fees are fully reservations the day before the evenl Melrose, Preston, refundable if cancellation is refundable if cancellation is and then using the shelter anyway. Smith, Strauss, made at least 72 hours made at least 72 hours This policy should discourage that Thrasher, Washington - before the reserved time. If before the reserved time. If practice. Upper, Washington - cancellation is made less cancellation is made less Lower, Wasena - Brick, than 72 hours before the than 72 hours before the Wasena - Stone reserved time, only 50% of reserved time, only 50% of the reservation fee will be the reservation fee will be refunded, refunded. Picnic Shelter: Mill N/A - New Facility N/A - New Facility $45 for half day $60 for half day New facility in a premium location. Mountain $60 for full day $75 for full day Cancellations: Cancellations: Reservation fees are fully Reservation fees are fully refundable if cancellation is refundable if cancellation is made at least 72 hours made at least 72 hours before the reserved time. If before the reserved time. If cancellation is made less cancellation is made less than 72 hours before the than 72 hours before the reserved time, only 50% of reserved time, only 50% of the reservation fee will be the reservation fee will be (Chart continued next page) refunded, refunded. ~,~, ~,? ~,~ ~, · ~ ?~'?~ Current Fee Compendium PriCes ~,~ .::~ Resident Non Resident Discovery Center N/A - New Faci ity N/A- NeW FaCility $175 first two hours, $50 $225 first two hours, $75 New high quality facility in a premium (may be rented after for each hour after for each hour after location. operational hours only) plus 31us $100 refundable damage $100 refundable damage deposit (or $200 if alcohol deposit (or $200 if alcohol is permitted) ~s permitted) Cancellations: Cancellations: Rental fees are fully Rental fees are fully refundable if cancellation is refundable if cancellation is made at least 72 hours made at least 72 hours before the reserved time. If before the reserved time. If cancellation is made less cancellation is made less than 72 hours before the than 72 hours before the reserved time, rental fees reserved time, rental fees minus a $75 service charge minus a $75 service charge will be refunded will be refunded Laban Johnson $25/half day $35/half day $150 for first eight hours, $200 for first eight hours, Takes into account cost of providing (Elmwood Park) $35/full day $45/full day $15 for each additional $20 for each additional the amphitheater's canopy, which Amphitheater hour hour previous price did not. Cancellations: Cancellations: Rental fees are fully Rental fees are fully refundable if cancellation is refundable if cancellation is made at least 72 hours made at least 72 hours before the reserved time. If before the reserved time. If cancellation is made less cancellation is made less than 72 hours before the than 72 hours before the reserved time, rental fees reserved time, rental fees minus a $50 service charge minus a $50 service charge will be refunded, will be refunded. Stage One Canopy Not covered under current Not covered under current $75/day $100/day This "stage" is a frame and canopy. (Elmwood Park) fee compendium fee compendium Charging as indicated will cover department's direct costs and contribute toward eventual replacement of canopy. "Festival" Trash Not covered in current fee Not covered in current fee $4.00/container $5.00/container These large cardboard trash Receptacles and compendium compendium Iinere containers are very convenient for use at festivals and events. However, they are not generally available in small quantities. Having them available for use by the public will help keep parks and streets clean during events and be a service to the community. Open Space Rental Not covered in current fee Not covered in current fee $150/day $200/day This would apply only to events compendium compendium $150 refundable damage $150 refundable damage where a temporary structure is in deposit deposit place for 8 hours or more, thus removing a portion of a park from general use. (Example: ^ large canopy erected for a week of nightly revival church services.) (Chart continued next page) ~i~ ~¥~i ~::~ ~i~': lib ?~. · ? Resident Non Resident ~i~ Mobile Stage Event - Held in City, co-sponsored by Parks and Recreation Dept.: No charge if set-up and take-down are during business hours. If overtime labor is involved, decision as to whether to charge for direct labor costs shall be determined by Director of P&R Event - Held in City by any user and for which no fee, such as participation, entrance or admission is charged: $600 for 8 hours or less plus $100 per each additional hour Event - Held in City by $01(c) 3 non-profit organization and for which a fee, such as for participation or admission is charged: $900 for eight hours or less plus $125 per each additional hour Event - Held in the City and which is sponsored by any other person or entity for which a fee, such as for participation or admission, is charged: $900 for eight hours or less plus$125 per each additional hour Plus 15% of Gross revenues collected by user Event - Held outside the City: I The Mobile Stage shall not be used outside the City of Roanoke unless it is to provide support for a Valley-wide event and the event is co-sponsored with the City of Roanoke. Additional personnel will be needed if stage panels are requested, or an electrician is needed. The cost for these personnel will be billed at the appropriate City Department's rate as established yearly by the Office of Management and Budget, and will be for a minimum of four hours per person. Reservation fee shall be 50% of total rental. Cancellation: Made within 72 hours of the set-up time but before vehicle leaves garage - 50% of rental fee will be retained as service charge Made after the vehicle has left the garage - none of the rental fee will be refunded. 7 5.a.5. Special Considerations School Functions: Teacher affiliated field trips - fees will be waived for shelter and recreation center use, unless special cleaning is requested. School affiliated events co-sponsored by P&R - fees will either be waived or direct costs charged, depending on the service being requested and personnel overtime expenses. Neighborhood Partnership Meetings: Rental fees for regular monthly meetings of Neighborhood Partnership organizations will be waived. August 24, 200'i~ Office of the City Manager 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: Parks and Recreation facilities' prices from other jurisdictions Attached is the information requested regarding fees charged by surrounding jurisdictions for parks and recreation facilities. The following areas were included: Bedford, Blacksburg, Botetourt County, Montgomery County, Roanoke County, Lynchburg, and Salem. The fees for surrounding jurisdictions were only one factor among many that the Parks and Recreation staff considered as it reviewed prices. Each neighboring jurisdiction has its own set of priorities and ways of doing business. For example, according to figures compiled by the State, in the last five years Salem has been the City with the highest or second highest per capita spending for parks and recreation, while Roanoke's spending was below average. On the other hand, it is well known that Roanoke City spends far more on social services than other area jurisdictions. With such differences in priorities for spending, it becomes very difficult to ensure that one is not dealing with "apples to oranges" in any price comparisons. This is true also in approaches to doing business. For example, the Vinton War Memorial building is set up to be a rental center. Prices and fees include catering, provision of tables, tablecloths and the like. Mountain View Recreation Center, to which the War Memorial might be compared, is not set up first and foremost as a rental center: rather, it must function primarily as a senior recreation center. Thus, any comparison between the two buildings would not be an "apples to apples" situation. Parks and Recreation staff evaluations for setting the new prices included consideration of many factors, each of which had an important effect in determining the prices. They included: · Costs of providing the service/facility · Replacement cost, if applicable · Inflation · Demands for the service/facility · Age and condition of the facilities Room 364 Municipal South 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 (540) 853-2333 FAX (540) 853-1138 C ityWeb :www, ci, roanoke .va. us Mayor Smith and Members of Council August 24, 2001 Page 2 · Location of the facility · Department and City priorities Should you have any questions concerning the enclosed information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Darlene L. Burcham City Manager DB:WR:ds Enclosure C; Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Wanda Reed, Acting Director, Parks and Recreation BOTETOURT COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION Recreation Centers None n/a n/a n/a n/a Garden Rentals None n/a n/a n/a n/a Gymnasiums None (They have an agreement with the n/a n/a n/a n/a schools) Swimming Pools None n/a n/a n/a n/a Athletic Fields Regular: No charge Tournament: No charge Lighting for tournament: $20/hour Dragging and Marking: Normal maintenance for regular use, no special dragging and marking done for tournaments. Picnic Shelters $35/half day 8-10 picnic tables; They ensure that 1 picnic shelter unknown unknown the shelter is clean and trash Fits approx. 100 dumped for reservations, people Amphitheater None n/a n/a n/a n/a Open Space None n/a n/a n/a n/a Mobile Stage None n/a n/a n/a n/a TOWN OF BLACKSBURG PARKS AND RECREATION Recreation Multipurpose Room A: Cleaned daily, Room set-up and 1 facility with 4 Constructed in 1980; good No Centers $75/three hours; $10/ea. hr takedown is provided. Recreation rooms condition after Multipurpose Room B: $40/three hours; $5/ea. hr. Additional amenities at extra cost, after provided for all rooms- Sound System: $20/night Seniors Room: $40/three Big Screen TV: $20/night or 3/hrs. hours; $5/ea. hr. after TV/VCR: $10/hour Overhead Projector: $10/hour Community Room: $40/three hours; $5/ea. hr after Kitchen: $1 O/hour Garden Rentals None n/a n/a n/a n/a Gymnasiums Community Center Community Center 2 facilities, 4 courts Constructed in 1980, good No Athletic Rer~tal- 2 teams: $25 Cleaned on a weekly or daily basis condition for 2 hrs. or $35/two hrs with as needed - 1 large gym can be a clock (no staff) separated by a cloth barrier creating 2 separate courts. Non-Athletic Rental $70/two hrs; $12.50/ea. hr. after Kipps Gymnasium (located in Kipps Gymnasium Kipps Elementary School) Cleaned daily, I large area with 2 Athletic Rental - 2 teams: courts $20/two hrs. or $35/two hrs with a clock (no staff) Swimming Pools Public Rental Saturday only Lifeguards provided; cleaned daily 1 Aquatic Center Constructed in 1992, good No 7p-9p with full time aquatic staff, lap Public Rental condition $75 - max. 25 people swim, zero depth entry, used by 25 people max. numerous swim clubs Pool Lobby Pool Lobby Anytime rental 15 people max. $25/hour; TOWN OF BLACKSBURG PARKS AND RECREATION Athletic Fields Fee for all fields: $5/two No services provided (dragging, Approx. 16 fields The fields were built over the No hours, line, scoreboard, etc.) (several are multi- past 30 years, are purpose) maintained as needed and Individual tournament are in good condition. contracts are revenue-based Baseball=5 to include field maintenance, Football=l lighting, marking, etc. Soccer=7 Adult Softball=3 Picnic Shelters Fee-based shelters Cleaned once a day if possible 8 shelters total; 5 are All park shelters were No $20~ five hours rented; 3 are free. constructed from 1965 to $40/full day The free shelters are 1995. The majority are older Free shelters are provided, located in their main and in fair condition. parks. Fee-based shelter Shelter 1&2:160 capacity ea. Shelter 3&4:24 capacity ea. Shelter 5:48 capacity Free shelters Shelter 6, 7,& 8:15 capacity each. Amphitheater None n/a n/a n/a n/a Open Space None (only athletic fields for specific camps, etc) n/a n/a n/a n/a Mobile Stage None n/a n/a n/a n/a Roller Hockey $5/two hours Maintained as needed Located on an old Built approx. 25 years ago. Court basketball court Skate Park None Open to the public 30' x 150' Unknown MONTGOMERY COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION Recreation Centem $25/hour with $100 Cleaned daily, reom set-up and I rec. center with a Built in 1990 next to their No damage deposit take down is provided, large activity reom main office. In good Capacity 100 condition. Garden Rentals None n/a n/a n/a n/a Gymnasiums None (handles through P & R mows the school ballfield No the schools) for free use of the gyms. n/a n/a Swimming Pools Public Rental Lifeguards provided according to I county operated The Frog Pond, re-built in No $60/hr., max. 450 people 1:25 ratio, pool 1997. Good condition. Special Populations Outdoor pool with seasonal staff, Rental lap swim, zero depth entry, $20/hr., max. 450 people children's features and activities. Athletic Fields None (the two they recently had were closed; all fields managed by n/a n/a n/a n/a schools) Picnic Sheltem Fee-based shelters Cleaned once daily, before and Total of 5 shelters. All shelters approx. 10 to 25 No $20/six hours after each rental. Rental = 3 (100 years old. Good condition $40/all day (9a-9p) capacity each) $25 clean-up deposit. Free = 2 (25 capacity Free shelters are also each) provided. Amphitheater None n/a n/a n/a n/a Open Space None n/a n/a n/a n/a Other amenities No charge for use or n/a n/a n/a n/a tournaments for Frisbee Disc Golf Annual Budget $522,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a Recreation Centers Garden Rentals, Open Space, Picnic Shelters, and Amphitheater ROANOKE COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION Community Room (Auditorium) and Teen Center $50/first hr. $25/ea. add. hr. $50/deposit Kitchen/Classroom Combo $35/first hr. $15/ea. add. hr. $50/deposit General Classrooms $25/first hr. $15/ea. add. hr. $25/deposit 0-150 people: ½ day $25; whole day $50 151-300 people: % day 40; whole day $80 (may have to pay direct cost) 301-500 people: whole day $125 (must pay all direct costs & may require staff supervision) 501-1000 people: whole dayS300 (must pay all direct costs and requires staff supervision.) Commercial Event: $500/day (must pay all direct costs plus 8% of gross sales tax less admission tax.) Commercial Vending, Sales & Concessions: 15% of gross sales plus direct costs. Community Service Org. (fund raiser) one free rental per year. Subsequent events will be Tables and chairs only. Does not include equipment use or personnel. TV/VCR - $5 Stereo/Sound System - $10 Public Address System - $5 Overhead & Slide Projector - $3 Supervisor, Custodial, Staff (set-up & break-down, and/or security: pay current hourly rate for each. Park shelters - Picnic Tables and cleaned daily. 3 - Teen Center, Craig Center (Seniors), Catawba Rec Center (Old School House) Unknown 1 - Garden 14 - picnic shelters Unknown I - Amphitheater (never been rented) No Gymnasiums $50 deposit/S50 1st hr./$25 ea. Table and chairs only I - located in Teen No (otherwise known add'l hr. Center Unknown as the Auditorium) Swimming Pool None n/a n/a n/a n/a Athletic Fields Field use Unknown No Regular: $35 for 0 to 4 hours or ½ day. $70 for full day - max. 8 hours. Tournaments: $5 per team or $75 per field per day, whichever is greater (min. $100) including $200 deposit. $5/hour and $10 key deposit. Lighting: Dragging and Included in tournament price. Marking: Mobile Stage None n/a n/a n/a n/a LYNCHBURG PARKS AND RECREATION Recreation Centers Free, pay $10/hour for staff Tables, chairs and kitchen 7 Recreation All Centers 20 + years old No Centers Garden Rentals Free No Gymnasiums None n/a n/a n/a n/a Swimming Pools $75/hour Includes slide and diving well. 1 - swimming pool $25/hour for kiddie pool Athletic Fields $5/hour Lighting: $5/hour Dragging & Marking: $28 Soccer field - $130 Picnic Shelters City Resident: Grills, Small shelters fit 40 8 picnic shelters (4 unknown No Small-S20; Large-S30 people, Large shelters fit 80 small and 4 large) (Weekday); people. Electricity available at Small-S30 Large-S40 two shelters for an add'l fee. (Weekend & Holidays); Non-City Resident: Small-S30; Large-$45(Weekday); Small- $45; Large-S60 (Weekend Holiday) Amphitheater None n/a n/a n/a n/a Open Space None n/a n/a n/a n/a Mobile Stage None n/a n/a n/a BEDFORD PARKS AND RECREATION Recreation Centers $25/three hours; $50/six Maintenance and regular No hours; $75/all day; cleaning $10/set fee for tables & chairs Garden Rental None Gymnasiums None n/a n/a n/a n/a Swimming Pools None n/a n/a n/a n/a Athletic Fields 9 Baseball/Softball No fields. Regular: $75/per day and 3 Football fields. $100/damage deposit 3 Soccer fields. Tournaments: $75/per day and $100/damage deposit Lighting: $125/per day Dragging & Marking: $175/per day, includes lighting Picnic Shelters Shelter 1: $30/half day; Cleaned twice a week, checked Shelter 1:100 Picnic shelters - 12 years No $60/all day. daily during high usage time. capacity old. Bathroom cleaned daily. Staff Shelter 2: $50/half day; provides extra trash bags. Shelter 2:170 Gazebos - 3 years old $100/all day. capacity Shelter 3: $75/half day; Shelter 3:220 $150/all day. capacity Gazebos: $20/day 3 Gazebos: each hold 25-40 people Amphitheater, Open Space, and Mobile None n/a n/a n/a n/a Stage CITY OF SALEM PARKS AND RECREATION Recreation Centers None n/a n/a n/a n/a Garden Rental None n/a n/a n/a n/a Gymnasiums None n/a n/a n/a n/a Swimming Pools None n/a n/a n/a n/a Athletic Fields Free. Fee of $20 10 - fields No charges for marking 8 - concessions No charge of lighting stands Picnic Shelters No fee- City residents Sinks, running water, electrical Shelter 1:75-100 only. outlets, cleaned daily, capacity Shelter 2:40 capacity Shelter 3:15 capacity Amphitheater None n/a n/a n/a n/a Open Space No rentals only for n/a 4 n/a n/a P&R special events Mobile Stage No rentals only for n/a 1 n/a n/a P&R special events 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: clcrk@ci.roanoke.va.us August 22, 2001 File #67-472 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk Charles M. Robertson, President Magic City Motor Corporation 809 Williamson Road, N. E. Roanoke, virginia 24016 Bradie AIIman, Operations Manager J. W. Burress, Inc. P. O. Box 719 Roanoke, Virginia 24004 Dear Mr. Robertson and Mr. AIIman: I am enclosing copy Resolution No. 35528-082001 accepting the bid ofJ. W. Burress, Inc., for the purchase of one hydraulic crane, in the amount of $69,988.00 and the bid of Magic City Motor Corporation for one cab/chassis, in the amount of $43,888.00, upon certain terms and conditions; finding that the Iow bidder with regard to the hydraulic crane did not provide a responsive bid; and rejecting all other bids made to the City for such equipment. The abover~ferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager James D. Grisso, Director of Finance D. Darwin Roupe, Director of General Services James A. McClung, Manager, Fleet Management Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing H:~a. gcnda.01 ~August 20, 2001 correspondenc.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: ¢lerk~ci.roanoke.va.us August 22, 2001 File #67-472 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk Thomas B. Burton, Sales Representative Highway Motors, Inc. 1814 Hollins Road, N. E. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Dear Mr. Burton and Mr. Johnson: Robert Johnson, President Power Line Rent E Quip, Inc. 42 Noble Avenue, N. E. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 I am enclosing copy Resolution No. 35528-082001 accepting the bid ofJ. W. Burress, Inc., for the purchase of one hydraulic crane, in the amount of $69,988.00 and the bid of Magic City Motor Corporation for one cab/chassis, in the amount of $43,888.00, upon certain terms and conditions; finding that the Iow bidder with regard to the hydraulic crane did not provide a responsive bid; and rejecting all other bids made to the City for such equipment. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. On behalf of the City of Roanoke, thank you for submitting your bid for the abovedescribed vehicular equipment. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure H:XAgenda.01XAugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.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@¢i.roanoke.va, us August 22, 2001 File #67-472 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk Thomas B. Burton, Sales Representative Highway Motors, Inc. 1814 Hollins Road, N. E. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Robert Johnson, President Power Line Rent E Quip, Inc. 42 Noble Avenue, N. E. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Dear Mr. Burton and Mr. Johnson: I am enclosing copy Resolution No. 35528-082001 accepting the bid of J. W. Burress, Inc., for the purchase of one hydraulic crane, in the amount of $69,988.00 and the bid of Magic City Motor Corporation for one cab/chassis, in the amount of $43,888.00, upon certain terms and conditions; finding that the Iow bidder with regard to the hydraulic crane did not provide a responsive bid; and rejecting all other bids made to the City for such equipment. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. On behalf of the City of Roanoke, thank you for submitting your bid for the abovedescribed vehicular equipment. Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure H:L~genda.01 ~August 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35528-082001. A RESOLUTION accepting two bids for the purchase of one (1) hydraulic crane and one (1) cab/chassis upon certain terms and conditions, finding that the low bidder with regard to the hydraulic crane did not provide a responsive bid, and rejecting all other bids made for such equipment. BE IT RESOLVED by this Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The low bidder on the hydraulic crane took exceptions to required boom length, jib, basket capacity and outrigger specifications requested in the bid. The low bidder did not submit a bid which conformed in all material respects to the invitation for bid and was thus nonresponsive. 2. The bids in writing of the following named bidders to furnish to the City the items hereinafter set out and generally described, such items being more particularly described in the City's specifications and any alternates and in each bidder's proposal, are the lowest responsive bids and are hereby ACCEPTED, as set forth in the City Manager's letter to Council dated August 20, 2001, at the purchase prices set out with each item: Quantity Description Successful Bidder Purchase Price 1 cab/chassis for crane Magic City Motor Corp. $43,888.00 Roanoke, VA 1 hydraulic crane J.W. Burress, Inc. $69,988.00 Roanoke, VA 3. The City's Manager of the Purchasing Department is hereby authorized and directed to issue the requisite purchase orders therefor, incorporating into said orders the City's specifications, the terms of said bidder's proposal and the terms and provisions of this resolution. 4. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid procurement 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. August 20, 2001 Office of the City Manager 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 Hydraulic Crane Bid No. 01-07-01 Background: Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP) for the prior year identified the need to replace one (1) hydraulic crane for Parks and Recreation. Considerations: Bids were requested after due and proper advertisement. Four (4) bids were received. The lowest bid meeting specifications for the cab and chassis was submitted by Magic City Motor Corporation, Roanoke, Virginia in the amount of $43,888.00. The lowest bid on the hydraulic crane, submitted by Power Line Rent Equipment, took exceptions to required boom length, jib, basket capacity and outrigger specifications. These exceptions are substantial and cannot be waived as informalities, thus the bid is non-responsive. The lowest bid meeting specifications for the hydraulic crane was submitted by J.W. Burress, Inc., Roanoke, Virginia in the amount of $69,988.00. Funding is available from the SunTrust Lease of Vehicle Account #017-440-9851-9015. 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 August 20, 2001 Page 2 Recommended Action: Award the bids as set forth above and authorize the issuance of purchase orders for a total cost of $113,876.00 and reject all other bids. Respectfully submitted, City Manager DLB:bdf C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance James A. M¢Clung, Manager, Fleet Management Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing CM01-00185 Attachment A BID TABULATION Bids were received, publicly opened and read at 2:00 p.m. on Monday, July 16, 2001 for Hydraulic Crane Bid Number 01-07-01 Qty. Description J.W. Power Line Rent Magic City Highway Burress, Inc.Equipment, Inc. Motor Corp. Motors, Inc. I New cab/chassis for $48,715.00 $48,261.00 $43,888.00 * $48,399.16 crane truck delivered FOB Roanoke, VA 1 New truck mounted $69,988.00 * $63,459.00 No bid No bid hydraulic crane to be mounted on above and delivered FOB Roanoke, VA * Indicates Recommendation CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #60-246 James D. Grisso Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Grisso: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35529-082001 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2001-2002 Consortium Fund Appropriations, in connection with additional funding for the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium, in the amount of $54,770.00. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. 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 Barry L. Key, Director, Management and Budget Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director, Human Services HSAgenda.01XAugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35529-082001. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 Consortium 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 Consortium Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: ADDroDriations Fifth District Employment & Training Consortium Other Jurisdictional Contributions (1) ............................. CDBG - Employment/Training (2-11 ) ............................. Logo Account - Virginia Workforce Emblem (12) .................... $ 5,709,483 1,770 43,000 10,000 Revenues Fifth District Employment & Training Consortium Other Jurisdictional Contributions (13) ............................ CDBG - Employment/Training (14) ............................... Logo Account - Virginia Workforce Emblem (15) .................... $ 5,709,483 1,770 43,000 10,000 1 ) Miscellaneous 2) Wages 3) Fringe Benefits 4) Travel/Training 5) Communication 6) Supplies 7) Insurance 8) Contractual Services 9) Equipment/Furniture (034-633-2180-8360) (034-633-2287-8050) (034-633-2287-8051) (034-633-2287-8052) (034-633-2287-8053) (034-633-2287-8055) (034-633-2287-8056) (034-633-2287-8057) (034-633-2287-8059) 1,770 24,796 5,454 1,000 1,000 1,000 5OO 2,0OO 5OO 10) Participant Support 11 ) On-The-Job Training 12) Supplies 13) Other Jurisdictional Revenue 14) CDBG - Employment/ Training 15) Logo Account Revenue (034-633-2287-8461 ) (034-633-2287-8501) (034-633-2292-8055) (034-633-2180-2180) (034-633-2287-2287) (034-633-2292-2292) 3,750 3,000 10,000 1,770 43,000 10,000 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 August 20, 2001 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: Funding for the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium Background: The Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium (FDETC) administers the federally funded Workforce Investment Act (WlA) for the region, which encompasses the counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig, Franklin and Roanoke as well as the cities of Covington, Roanoke and Salem. WlA funding is for two primary client populations: dislocated workers who have been laid off from employment through no fault of their own, and economically disadvantaqed individuals as determined by household income guidelines set by the U.S. Department of Labor. The City of Roanoke is the grant recipient and fiscal agent for the FDETC funding, thus,' City Council must appropriate the funding for all grants and other monies the FDETC receives. The state office of the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) has sent the Consortium notice of an award in the amount of $10,000 to purchase stationery, business cards, publications and signs, which contain the official Virginia Workforce Logo. 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 City Council August 20, 2001 Page 2 CDBG funds were awarded to the FDETC for project management and administration of the Employment Training Program in the amount of $43,000. (The Employment Training Program is designed to assist Iow to moderate- income individuals in their efforts to obtain employment). Jurisdictions in the Fifth Planning District, which include the cities of Salem, Covington, and Roanoke, the counties of Roanoke, Alleghany, Botetourt and Craig, as well as Franklin County contribute funds to offset the agency's administrative costs. The County of Botetourt has sent a contribution of $1,770 for the fiscal year 2001. Considerations: · Program Operations - Existing activities will continue and planned programs will be implemented. · Funding - Funds are available from the Grantor agency and other sources as indicated, at no additional cost to the City. · Timing - Immediate action will allow activities to be implemented and completed within planned time frames, July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. Recommended Action: Appropriate the FDETC's funding totaling $54, 770 and increase the revenue estimate by $54, 770 in accounts to be established in the Consortium fund by the Director of Finance. R(e~pecffu~.y sub, mitred, City Manager DLB:wc C: Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Mary C. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Barry L. Key, Director of Management and Budget Glenn Radcliffe, Director of Human Services CM01-00184 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #60-236-323-472 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 35531-082001 accepting a Library of Virginia Grant to the Raleigh Court and Williamson Road branches of the Roanoke City Public Library for the purchase of four computers for each branch, upon certain terms and conditions, in the amount of $11,400.00. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001 ~e~ ~. ~ Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Sheila S. Umberger, Acting Librarian H:~genfia.01XAugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35531-082001. A RESOLUTION, accepting a Library of Virginia Grant to the Raleigh Court and Williamson Road branches of the Roanoke City Public Library for the purchase of four computers for each branch, upon certain terms and conditions. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City hereby accepts a Library of Virginia Grant in the amount of $11,400.00 to the Raleigh Court and Williamson Road branches of the Roanoke City Public Library, to be used for the purchase of four computers for each branch, as more particularly set forth in the August 20, 2001, letter of the City Manager to this Council. 2. The City Manager is authorized to execute any and all requisite documents, including any documents providing for indemnification by the City as are required for the City's acceptance of this grant, upon form approved by the City Attorney, and to furnish such additional information as may be required in connection with the City's acceptance of this grant. ATTEST: City Clerk. H:XR-LIBVAGRANT. 1 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #60-236-323-472 James D. Grisso Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Grisso: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35530-082001 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2001-2002 Grant Fund Appropriations, in connection with acceptance of Library of Virginia Infopowering Grant funds for the purpose of purchasing four computers, each, for Raleigh Court and Williamson Road Branch Libraries, in the total amount of $22,800.O0. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. 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 Sheila S. Umberger, Acting Librarian HSAgenda.01XAugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35530-082001. 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 Health and Welfare - Special Purpose $ 321,731 Library of Virginia - Infopowering Grant Funds (1) .................. 22,800 Revenues Health and Welfare - Special Purpose $ 321,731 Library of Virginia - Infopowering Grant Funds (2) .................. 22,800 1) Expendable Equipment <$5,000 2) Library of Virginia Infopowering Revenue (035-650-9740-2035) $ 22,800 (035-650-9740-9740) 22,800 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 August 20, 2001 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: Acceptance of Library of Virginia Infopowering Grant Funds. The Raleigh Court and Williamson Road Branch Libraries have each been awarded a grant of $11,400 by the Library of Virginia to purchase 4 computers for each branch. These branches were not eligible for the grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation which was received by the other branch libraries. Recommended Action: Accept the Library of Virginia Grant and authorize the City Manager to execute the requisite grant documents upon form approved by the City Attorney. Establish revenue estimates of $22,800 in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund. Appropriate funds totaling the same in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance. Respectfully submitted, Dar~ City Manager DLB:sme c: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development #CM01-00174 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 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon DeputY City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #323-472 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001, Council Member Wyatt requested a report on the number of computers in each branch library and the main library. Sincerely, Mary F, Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh pc' Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Sheila S. Umberger, Acting Librarian H:~genda.01XAugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #5-60-236 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 35533-082001 authorizing the acceptance of a certain Local Law Enforcement Block Grant from the United States Department of Justice, and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City, in the amount of $140,859.00, with a local cash match of $15,651.00. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police Barry L. Key, Director, Management and Budget H:kAgenda.01Latugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35533-082001. A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a certain Local Law Enforcement Block Grant from the United States Department of Justice, and authorizing execution of any required documemation on behalf of the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1: The City Manager is hereby aUthorized on behalf of the City to accept from the U.S. Department of Justice, a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant in the amount of $140,859, with the City providing $15,651 in local match, such grant being more particularly described in the letter of the City Manager, dated August 20, 2001, upon all the terms, provisions and conditions relating to the receipt of such funds. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, any documentation required in connection with the acceptance of such grant and to furnish such additional information as may be required by the Department of Justice. ATTEST: City Clerk l:\Clerk~w mt'ommnmt 8r~t CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #5-60-236 James D. Grisso Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Grisso: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35532-082001 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2001-2002 Grant Fund Appropriations, in connection with acceptance of a certain Local Law Enforcement Block Grant from the United States Department of Justice, in the amount of $140,859.00, with a local cash match of $15,651.00. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001. 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 Barry L. Key, Director, Management and Budget H:kAgenda.01kAugust 20, 2001 eorrespondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35532-082001. 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 Public Safety Local Law Enforcement Block Grant FY02 (1-4) .................. $1,408,564 161,510 Revenues Public Safety Local Law Enforcement Block Grant FY02 (5-7) .................. $1,408,564 161,510 1 ) Overtime 2) FICA 3) Expendable Equipment <$5,000 4) Training & Development 5) Federal Grant Receipts 6) Local Match 7) Interest (035-640-3332-1003) (035-640-3332-1120) (035-640-3332-2035) (035-640-3332-2044) (035-640-3332-3332) (035-640-3332-3333) (035-640-3332-3334) $134,840 11,170 15,000 50O 140,859 15,651 5,000 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Office of the Ci~y Manager August 20, 2001 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: Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 2001-2003 Background: For fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated funds for continuation of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Program, to be administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the U.S. Department of Justice. The purpose of the LLEBG Program is to provide funds to units of local government to underwrite projects to reduce crime and improve public safety. Roanoke has been awarded an amount of $140,859, and grant conditions require a local match of $15,651, for a program totaling $156,510. The program period is October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2003. If accepted, this award would renew Roanoke's LLEBG Grant Program for the sixth consecutive year. The deadline for acceptance of this grant is August 31, 2001. Grant funds become available only after a public hearing and an LLEBG Program advisory committee meeting has been conducted. The public hearing and LLEBG advisory committee meeting must be conducted prior to October 15, 2001. Grant conditions require that funds supplement rather than supplant local monies. Grant funds will be used for: (1) payment of overtime to presently employed law enforcement officers for the purpose of increasing the number of hours worked by such personnel and (2) procuring equipment, training and other materials directly related to basic law enforcement functions. Police bicycle patrol, directed at specific/problem areas or neighborhoods will be expanded through implementation of this program. 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 August 20, 2001 Page 2 Considerations: The LLEBG Program requires that all grant funds ($156,510) be placed in an interest bearing account. Based on interest earned during each of the past five years of LLEBG funding, interest earnings of $5,000 are projected. The LLEBG local cash match of $15,651 is available in the Police Department's State Asset Forfeiture account -- account number 035 050 3302 2149. Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to accept the grant and execute any required documentation. Appropriate $161,510 to grant fund accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the following amounts: Police Overtime FICA Expendable Equipment Training and Development Total $134,840 11,170 15,000 5OO $161,510 Increase revenue estimates in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance. Authorize unexpended grant funds to draw interest in accordance with grant requirements. ,~~~~m~bmitted' City Manager DLB:DC c: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Rolanda Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development William M. Hackworth, City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance A.L. Gaskins, Chief of Police #CM01-00182 JAMES D. GRISSO Director of Finance August 22, 2001 CITY OF ROANOKE DEPARTMENT OFI FINANCE 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 461 P. O. Box 1220'~ ~ Roanoke, Virginia 24006-1220 Telephone: (540) 853-2821 Fax: (540) 853-2940 JESSE A. HALL Deputy Director 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 Council Members: During the City Council meeting on Monday, August 20, 2001, related to the discussion of the FY2001 year end financial report, Mayor Smith requested the FY2000 comparative figure for "Transfer to Debt Service Fund". Per the attached copy of page 19 of the wdtten Council report, the comparative figure for FY2000 was $12,109,851 compared to the FY2001 figure of $12,109,799. I believe you would agree that an expenditure of this magnitude with only a $51 difference would be considered equal. Reference was made to the issuance of General Obligation Bonds on October 28, 1999, which required the debt service transfer to increase in FY2000 over FY1999. For your information, the three year comparison of the General Fund expenditure for "Transfer to Debt Service Fund" is as follows: Percentage Fiscal Year Amount Increase FY1999 $11,075,927 16.5% FY2000 12,109,851 9.3% FY2001 12,109,799 .0% Issuance of the authorized bond issue of $56.2 million dudng the last quarter of this year, of which $40.7 million is an obligation of the General Fund, will require an increase in this expenditure category. We have identified resources to provide for this expenditure increase in FY 2002 and 2003. The debt service on the remaining $15,545,000 ($56,245,000 less $40,700,000) will be provided by the funds listed on the following page. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 22, 2001 Page 2 School Fund Civic Center Fund Water Fund Transportation Fund Total If you have additional questions, please let me know. Sincerely, JDG:s Attachment C.' Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager ~(~lliam M. Hackworth, City Attorney ry F. Parker, City Clerk $4,600,000 3,000,000 5,445,0OO 2,500,000 $15,545,000 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA GENERAL FUND Revenue Source General Property Taxe~ O~her Local Taxe~ Permits, Fees and License~ Fines and Forfeiture~ Revenue from Use of Money and Property Grants-in-Nd Commonwealth Grants-in-Aid Federal Government Charges for Se~ice~ Miscetlaneoua Revenue Internal Service~ Total STATEMENT OF REVENUE (UNAUDITED) Year to Date for the Period July I - June 30 July I - June 30 Percentage 1999-2000 2000-2001 of Change $67,491,996 $67,776,339 0.42 55,751,133 58,663,094 5.22 827,219 840,520 1.61 923,558 818,982 (11.32) 1,188,918 1,044,449 (12.15) 49,223,712 51,459,893 4.54 34,308 34,359 0.15 3,389,436 3,483,819 2.78 297,103 295,247 (0.62) 2,210,445 2,225,240 0.67 S181~337~82~ $18e,M%942 2.92 Current Fiscal Year Percent of Revised Revenue Revenue Estimate Estimates Received $66,238,798 102.32% 55,834,655 105.07% 729,250 115 26% 864,500 94.73% 1,124,863 92.85% 52,816,896 97.43% 34,260 100.29% 3,634,660 95.85% 346,500 85.21% 2,350,111 94.69% S183,g74~#3 101.4~% STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURE8 AND ENCUMBRANCES (UNAUDITED) Currant Fiscal Year July I - June 3~ July I - June Expenditum~ 19~-200e 2000-2001 Gen~ ~~ $11,~,111 $11,~,~1 Jud~ Adm~ 4,~,~2 5,~,~2 Pu~ S~ ~,~,~ ~,~,~1 Publ~ W~ ~,~ 24,~,~ H~ ~d W~ 25,~,7~ 25,019,~ Pa~s, R~ ~ Cu~ 4,515,~ 4,~,~ Commun~ D~~ 3,~,~ 4,~Z1~ Transfer to School Fund 43,801,361 48,084,784 Nondeparlmemal 8,801,5~ 10,641,028 Total $1~0,3~33~ $1U~827~4~ of Cha~e 5.58 21.62 1.14 7.98 (1.86) 4.71 20.42 Uneneumber~l Revised S200,857 $12,055,928 213,167 5,798,819 739,716 45,102,997 232,038 24,629,446 2,026,977 27,049,627 % 98,158 4,824,929 % 107,981 4,149,217 5.21% 69,359 20.90 % 165,872 4.70 % 46,154,123 10,806,900 S192,678,78.~ Percent of Budget Obligated 98.33% 96.32% 98.36% 99.06% 92.51% 98.01% 97.42% 100.00~ 99.85% 98.47% 98.00% 19 JAMES D. GRISSO Director of Finance CITY OF ROANOKE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 461 P. O. Box 1220 Roanoke, Vir~,ia 24006-1220 ..... ~'*rr: Telephone: ¥340) 853-2821 ' ~ :~ Fax: (540) 853-2940 JESSE A. HALL Deputy Director August 20, 2001 The The The The The The The Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor Honorable William O. 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: Fiscal year 2001 has come to a close with a positive financial performance and relatively strong year end fund balance. As you know, it has been a year of growth, progress, and challenges. The City of Roanoke has worked hard in the past year to implement a number of new or improved programs aimed at increasing quality service to our citizens. Such efforts include the extensive project of updating our comprehensive plan, where numerous meetings were held to ensure citizen input to create the best possible plan. Another major initiative has been the recent focus on improvements and efficiencies in our solid waste collection system. Additional focus on recycling and City wide attention on greenways, conservation and the environment have also taken place. The City is committed to providing broad based opportunities for its citizens while also working to bring new business and growth to our city. Challenges that have and will continue to face the City include the balance of economies between the local and State governments, particularly in times of a slowing economy where efforts to benefit one level of government may come at a cost to another level. Increasing pressures to meet funding demands are present. We are challenged with the job of setting priorities as to funding needs while attempting to retain a conservative and balanced financial position in doing so. As we continue to look forward to the future, the City will engage in major development projects in upcoming years as we plan issuance of our largest bond issue. This issue, targeted at over $56 million, will pave the path for our new stadium and amphitheater project, Civic Center improvements, Roanoke Academy, the flood remediation project, Crystal Spring water filtration plant, neighborhood curb and gutter construction, Gainsboro parking garage, and phase I of the South Jefferson redevelopment project. We look forward to working toward these projects in the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 20, 2001 Page 2 future, and we are pleased to present this report on the financial performance of 2001, another successful year for our City. The unaudited financial statements are provided to you for planning purposes. The amounts reported herein may change during the course of our annual external audit. A discussion of the City's General Fund operations for fiscal year 2001 follows. Our revenue estimate from all sources was $183,974,493, while actual collections totaled $186,641,942. Total General Fund revenues collected increased 2.92% and exceeded the estimate by 1.45%. The major revenue sources in our revenue estimates are outlined in the following schedule: Source Real Estate Taxes Personal Property (Total) Sales Tax Utility Taxes Business and Professional License Tax Public Service Tax Penalties and Interest Bank Stock Tax Rental Car Tax Social Services Funding from the Commonwealth Jail Block Grant All Other Revenue Total General Fund Revenue Amount Over (Under) % Over (Under) % Growth Over Revised Estimate Estimate (Under) FY 2000 $ 586,191 1.27% 4.43% ( 23,602) ( . 10%) 2.52% ( 561,238) (3.08%) .39% 1,248,833 10.97% 7.80% 953,528 9.09% 8.61% 747,483 22.01% 11.33% 248,274 32.04% 8.47% 555,378 55.54% 6.62% 215,673 31.72% (10.95%) (1,704,460) (8.63%) (3.72%) 310,218 22.44% 16.98% 91,171 .19% 1.76% $ 2,667,449 1.45% 2.92% General property taxes showed only slight growth at .42% while other local taxes achieved growth of more than 5%. General property tax revenue has been significantly impacted by the increased portion of personal property revenue funded by the Commonwealth of Virginia, which is recorded in the Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth revenue category. Inclusive of total personal property tax revenue, revenue in the General Property Tax category grew 4.23% over FY00. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 20, 2001 Page 3 Real estate tax revenues grew approximately 4.4%, and exceeded their estimate by 1.27%. Personal property taxes, producing growth of 2.52% since last year, were slightly under their estimate. Sales taxes produced moderate growth of .39% or $69,086, but under performed our estimate by 3%. Other local taxes providing growth included utility tax, prepared food and beverage tax, Business and Professional Occupational License (BPOL) tax, cigarette tax, and bank stock taxes. Listed below is a five year history of our General Fund revenue estimates compared to actual revenues. GENERAL FUND Fiscal Revenue Actual Percent of Year Estimate Collections Estimate Collected 2001 $183,974,493 $186,641,942 101.45% 2000 177,178,184 181,337,826 102.35% 1999 170,012,900 172,462,548 101.44% 1998 162,083,043 162,793,039 100.44% 1997 155,523,885 158,485,416 101.90% General Fund Statement of Revenue~ A summary of unaudited revenues by category and the variances between actual collections and the budgetary estimates may be found on page 19. The following narrative discusses significant revenue trends for the year. General Property Taxes This category includes taxes on real estate, personal property and public service corporations as well as penalties and interest. Estimated revenues for this category were $66,238,798 while actual collections were $67,776,339, achieving 102.32% of the budget. Real estate taxes increased by $1,978,315 since FY00, providing growth of 4.43%. Personal property taxes recorded in this category are below the prior year due to the increased percentage of funding provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Personal property tax revenue funded by the Commonwealth is reflected in the Grants-in-Aid-Commonwealth revenue category. Total personal property revenue, including the state share, has increased 2.52% over the same period in the prior year, achieving 99.9% of the budget amount, and were in excess of the FY00 total by $578,841. Public service corporation taxes rose $421,728, and exceeded the budgeted amount. Penalties and interest increased $79,865 from FY00, well in excess of the budgeted level. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 20, 2001 Page 4 Other Local Taxes This category includes sales tax, utility tax, cigarette tax, business, professional, and occupational license tax, transient room tax, franchise tax, prepared food and beverage tax and other miscellaneous local taxes. This category of taxes serves as one of the best indicators of the strength of the local economy. The total estimate for this category was $55,834,655, while actual collections were $58,663,094. Collections exceeded the budget by 5.07%, providing growth of 5.22% since FY00. Sales tax rose $69,086 or .39%, but fell slightly below the budgeted amount. Utility tax showed growth of 7.8% or $914,192 over FY00. Electric and gas utility tax have increased compared to the prior year due to increased consumption. Cellular phone tax is up $274,317 or 69.20% due to escalating cell phone usage. Business and professional occupational license tax is up from the prior year, and has exceeded the budget estimate by 9.09%. Prepared food and beverage taxes grew since FY00 and exceeded the budget by 2.06% due to several new restaurant openings. Bank stock tax, cigarette tax and transient room tax also increased. Permits, Fees and Licenses This revenue category includes dog licenses, building related fees, various inspection fees and street opening permits. Revenues for this category totaled $840,520 increasing $13,301 from FY00, and exceeding the budget of $729,250 by 15.26%. The increase is due to higher than budgeted revenues from building, electrical and plumbing inspection fees. A continued high level of construction activity contributes to this revenue growth. Fines and Forfeitures This category consists of parking tickets and fines collected by various courts. Revenue in this category was $818,982, a decline of $104,574 from the prior year. General District Court fines are down due to fewer summons being issued and a corresponding reduction in caseload. The category achieved only 94.73% of the budget. Revenue from Use of Money and Property This revenue category consists of interest earnings and various property rentals. Revenue in this category is $1,044,469, down 12.15% since the prior year. The State is billed for use of the Commonwealth Building monthly based on estimated operating and maintenance costs. In August of FY00, the State was billed for the amount that actual costs exceeded estimated costs, producing significantly higher revenue in FY00. No additional amounts were billed in FY01, causing a decline in rental revenue. The category achieved 92.85% of budget. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 20, 2001 Page 5 Grants-In-Aid Commonwealth This category is comprised of non-categorical aid (state share of personal property tax, recordation tax, ABC, wine, rolling stock and rental car tax), shared expenses for Constitutional Offices, Social Services funding (foster care, day care, welfare payments, employment services, and the Comprehensive Services Act Programs), and other categorical aid (street maintenance, City Jail Block Grant, .Law Enforcement and Library Grant). Revenues in this category totaled $51,459,893, exceeding the FY00 total by $2,236,181 or 4.54%. The increase in this revenue category is largely due to the increase in the percentage of funding provided by the Commonwealth for personal property tax, as discussed in previous paragraphs. Reimbursement received under the Comprehensive Services Act has declined as have the corresponding expenditures. Shared expenses of the Sheriff's department grew by nearly $256,000 due to an increased level of funding from the State Compensation Board. Growth of street maintenance and jail block grant revenues was partially offset by a decline in juvenile detention home block grant funding. Juveniles are now housed at the Roanoke Valley Detention Center, which is an independent commission. Grants-in-Aid Federal Government This category consists of funding from the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA). Revenue in this category was $34,359 compared to $34,308 for FY00. Charges for Services This category includes court fees, refuse collection, weed cutting, emergency medical service, police fees, fire safety fees, and central service charges. Collections totaled $3,483,819, which reflects an increase of 2.78% from FY00. Central services charges have increased as have weed cutting and demolition charges. Weed cutting and demolitions revenues were down in FY00, compared to historical performance. Miscellaneous Revenue Revenues included in this category are payments in lieu of taxes from Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, sales of surplus property, and other miscellaneous revenues. Revenue in this category was $295,247, a decrease of .62% from FY00. Sales of surplus property have decreased almost $30,000, while there have been increases in other miscellaneous revenues. Internal Services This category represents payments from Proprietary and Agency Funds for services provided by the General Fund departments. Services provided include fire safety for the Roanoke Regional Airport, billings and collections services for the Water and Sewage Treatment Funds, engineering services and various other public works services. The category totaled $2,225,240, achieving Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 20, 2001 Page 6 94.69% of the budget and exceeding last year's revenue by $14,795. Fire safety billings and billings by the Office of Billings and Collections to the Water and Sewage Treatment Funds increased. These increases are partially offset by a decline in Engineering billings due to a reduction in work on several large projects of the enterprise funds. Building and grounds maintenance billings also declined. Expenditures Total expenditures and encumbrances for FY 2001 were $188,827,499 which were $3,851,286 or 2.00% less than City Council had authorized (See page 19). The authorized expenditure budget includes appropriations of CMERP funds during the year. General Fund expenditures and encumbrances are up 4.70% overall compared to last fiscal year. General Government expenditures are up $626,960 or 5.58%. Personal services costs of the City Manager's office have increased due to reorganization. Positions which were previously reported under other expenditure categories are now reported in the City Manager's office. Overall, the number of director positions has decreased from prior years. Department of Technology billings to the Office of Billings and Collections are up from prior years due to implementation of the new utility billing system. Personal services costs of the Department of Finance rose as did Department of Technology billings due to system development related to a new release of the accounting system. Judicial Administration expenditures increased 21.62% or $993,100. Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Services costs to house children detained by the courts have increased from the prior year. Effective June 2000, children detained by the court were housed at the Roanoke Valley Detention Center instead of the City-operated detention home. Expenditures of the City- operated juvenile detention home were reported under the Public Safety category in prior years. Personal service expenditures of the Circuit Court have also increased due to additional law clerk positions in FY01. Public Works expenditures are up 7.98% or $1,802,140. Annual paving contract costs rose due to an increase in the number of lane miles of primary roads included in the contract. The cost of paving primary roads is more than the cost of paving secondary roads. Personal service costs of the Streets and Traffic department are up due to the transfer of positions from Parks and Recreation. Expenditures of the Solid Waste Management Division are higher than prior years due to increased tonnage of bulk garbage and brush handled by Roanoke Valley Resource Authority and the purchase of approximately 27,000 recycling containers. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 20, 2001 Page 7 Community Development expenditures rose 20.42% or $685,507. This is largely due to across the board increases in the Planning and Code Enforcement Department related to its recent re- organization and the opening of a new office by the Department of Economic Development. Memberships and Affiliations expenditures were up due to an increase in contributions paid to Center in the Square. Transfer to the School Fund increased 5.21%, consistent with the budgeted increase of 3.81% and the appropriation of $511,648 of CMERP funds allocated to the schools. Nondepartmental expenditures grew 20.90% or $1,839,433. Transfers to the Capital Projects Fund increased due to transfers of funding for Greater Gainsboro property acquisition, infrastructure, and parking garage. Funds were also transferred for the HOPE VI project, the new police building, the stadium/amphitheater project and various other capital projects. Transfers to the Department of Technology increased to fund priority technology projects and equipment needs. The most anxiously awaited information at year end is the amount of designated funding for the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP). Council adopted Ordinance number 26292 on December 6, 1982, establishing a reserve of General Fund balance for CMERP. Computed per the requirements of Ordinance 26292, CMERP for fiscal year 2001 for Schools is $814,204 and for the City is $5,454,530 for a total of $6,268,734 or 3.25% of General Fund appropriations. The following allocation has been calculated based on the Revenue Allocation Model used for the adopted budget (see page 12 for details). General Fund Designated FY 2001 CMERP City Operations School Operations Total General Fund CMERP $ 5,454,530 814,204 $ 6,268,734 School and School Food Services Funds School Board operations are accounted for as a separate fund, as are School Food Services operations. The revenues included in this discussion do not include the multi-year grant funds, but only those that comprise the annual (adopted) budget. School and School Food Services Fund revenues totaled $103,088,666, slightly below the estimate of $103,670,402. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 20, 2001 Page 8 A recent history of School Fund revenue estimates compared to actual revenues follows. SCHOOL FUND Fiscal Revenue Actual Percent of Year Estimate Collections Estimate Collected 2001 $103,670,402 $103,088,666 99.44% 2000 97,975,376 97,824,394 99.85% 1999 92,726,135 92,915,221 100.20% 1998 87,792,494 88,104,376 100.36% 1997 84,588,513 84,956,609 100.39% The amounts shown for FY01 are unaudited and may change during the course of our external audit. They are being reported to you for informational and planning purposes. School and School Food Services Funds Statement of Revenues Shown on page 20 is a summary of the major categories of revenues and the specific variances between actual (unaudited) and estimated. Following are some brief comments on the variances in major revenue categories. State Sales Tax State sales tax totaled $8,859,609, which was under its estimate of $9,040,476 by $180,867 or 2%. This revenue grew by 1.72% over last year. The decline in School sales tax revenue is consistent with performance of the City's sales tax. Grants-In-Aid Commonwealth This category includes Basic State Aid, Special Education, Summer Schools, Vocational Education, At-Risk Children, Fringe Benefit Reimbursement, Disparity Incentive and several smaller revenue sources. Revenues in this category totaled $41,605,369, which is slightly under the estimate of $42,057,082. Basic state aide revenue, which increased 5.3% from the prior year, fell slightly below the budget. Foster Home Children and Special Education revenues exceeded the budget amount. The other major revenues in this category were generally close to the estimates. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 20, 2001 Page 9 Grants-In-Aid Federal Government The largest revenue source in this category is School Food Aid, recorded in the School Food Services Fund. Total revenue collected in this category was $2,890,436, a decrease of .17% from FY00. Charges for Services Major sources of revenue in this category are tuition, cafeteria receipts, and reimbursement for transportation for special trips. Revenues for the category totaled $3,648,488, and were 3.45% over the estimate. Funding for special education, reimbursement for transportation for special trips, and rental of facilities have exceeded their estimates, providing positive variance. Cafeteria receipts, which remained consistent with the prior year, achieved 89.02% of the budget. Transfers from General Fund Local funding from the General Fund totaled $46,084,764 and included the School share of local taxes. Funding from the General Fund increased $2,283,403 since FY00 but fell short of the budgeted $46,154,123 by $69,359 due to a decrease in the transfer to cover additional school CSA costs. Expenditures Expenditures and encumbrances in the School and School Food Services Funds (excluding special purpose grants)totaled $104,207,698, leaving an unobligated balance of $1,221,895. It is important to note that the authorized expenditure budget includes appropriations from CMERP during the fiscal year. CMERP appropriations and budgeted revenue provide sufficient funding in total for expenditures and encumbrances during the year. The School Board will receive a portion of the General Fund CMERP, per the requirements established in Ordinance No. 26292, and also retain the CMERP generated in the School Fund. This is consistent with the method of allocating CMERP between the City and School Administration in prior years. General Fund CMERP allocated to the Schools is $814,204. The amount of CMERP designated in the School Fund totals $557,872 or 2.07% of School Fund Appropriations. Therefore, the total CMERP available to the Schools in both the General Fund and School Fund is $1,372,076. Designated CMERP for FY01 School Share of General Fund CMERP School Fund CMERP Total School CMERP $ 814,204 557,872 $1,372,076 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 20, 2001 Page 10 We would like to reiterate that the General, School and School Food Services Fund amounts discussed within this report are unaudited and subject to change during the course of our external audit. A comprehensive financial report of all funds of the City will be included with the annual financial report. We would also like to thank City Council, the administration, and especially the dedicated staff of the Department of Finance for their support throughout fiscal year 2001. We would be pleased to answer questions that Council may have. Sincerely, Director of Finance JDG:s Attachments C~ Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager George C. Snead, Jr., Assistant City Manager Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Mary F. Parker, City Clerk E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent, Roanoke City Schools Richard L. Kelley, Assistant Superintendent for Operations Barry L. Key, Manager, Department of Management and Budget Alicia F. Stone, Administrator, Management and Budget City of Roanoke, Virginia Allocation of CMERP to the General Fund June 30, 2001 Unaudited General Fund CMERP Allocation General Fund Revenues In Excess of Budgeted Amounts General Fund Unobligated Appropriations Less: Reserve for Uninsured Claims Total General Fund CMERP Allocation School Fund CMERP Allocation, see page 12 Total General Fund CMERP $2,667,449 3,851,285 (250,000) 6,268,734 (814,204) $5,454,530 11 City of Roanoke, Virginia Calculation of General Fund CMERP to Allocate to the School Board June 30, 2001 Unaudited Local Taxes General Property Taxes Other Local Taxes Total Local Taxes $75,539,355 56,663,094 132,202,449 Less: Local Taxes Dedicated for Specific Purposes Current Downtown District Real Estate Tax Delinquent Downtown District Real Estate Tax Current Williamson Road District Real Estate Tax Delinquent Williamson Road District Real Estate Tax Downtown District Public Service Tax Utility Consumer Tax Dedicated to Roanoke River Flood Reduction Telephone Surcharge (E91 l) Taxes Cable TV Franchise Tax Dedicated to Local Government Access Channel Cigarette Tax to Support Debt Service of Bonds Issued for Jail and Juvenile Detention Home Motor Vehicle License Tax to Support Debt Service of Bonds Issued for Jail and Juvenile Detention Home Cigarette Tax for COPE Team and Convention and Visitor's Bureau Transient Room Tax to Support Convention and Visitors Bureau Telecommunications Right of Way Use Fee Dedicated to Paving One Cent Real Estate Tax Dedicated to Economic Development Debt Service on Bonds Issued for Innotech Project Net Local Taxes School Percentage Share of Local Taxes School Share of Local Taxes Other Adjustments: Deduct School Portion of CSA Program Deduct Interest Earnings Add Funding for Pre-School Initiative Add Funding for Middle School Learning Center Program Net School Transfer Less: FY01 Local Funding Provided to School Board Allocation of CMERP to School Board (196,792) (3,089) (56,986) (2,455) (25,445) (8o8,ooo) (1,166,368) (181,092) (305,000) (325,000) (501,429) (200,000) (527,580) (186,635) (915,335) 126,801,243 36.42% 46,181,013 (970,491) (200,000) 204,755 125,000 45,340,277 (44,526,073) $814,204 Percentage share based on Revenue Allocation Model developed by the Department of Management and Budget. 12 City of Roanoke, Virginia Summary of School Board CMERP June 30, 2001 U~a~dited School Fund CMERP Allocation School Fund Revenues Less Than Budgeted Amounts School Fund Unobligated Appropriations Add: Decrease in Workers' Comp Trust Fund Total School Fund CMERP Allocation General Fund CMERP Allocation, see page 12 Total School CMERP ($408,038) 961,978 3,932 557,872 814,204 $1,372,076 13 City of Roanoke, Virginia School Food Services Fund Balance June 30, 2001 Unaudited School Food Services Fund Balance Calculation School Food Services Fund Revenues Less Than Budgeted Amounts School Food Services Fund Unobligated Appropriations Total School Food Services Fund Balance ($173,698) 259,916 $86,218 14 City of Roanoke, Virginia Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Reserve (CMERP) Per Ordinance 26292 Total General Fund Budget FY01 Less: General Fund Transfer to Debt Service Maximum Designated CMERP Reserve $192,678,785 10% 19,267,879 (12,109,799) $7,158,080 15 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA SUMMARY OF CITY MANAGER TRANSFERS AND AVAILABLE CONTINGENCY JUNE 30, 2001 Transfer Number General Fund: CMT-382 CMT-885 CMT-908 CMT-432 CMT-935 CMT-937 CMT-435 CMT-436 CMT-955 CMT-967 CMT-439 CMT-441 CMT-979 CMT-988 CMT-990 CMT-443 CMT-444 CMT-445 CMT-1002 CMT-451 CMT-452 CMT-456 CMT-458 CMT-463 CMT-465 CMT-467 CMT-471 CMT-473 CMT-475 CMT-477 CMT-1055 CMT-1059 C MT-1069 Date 07/11/00 07/12/00 09/19/00 10/02/00 11/09/00 11/14/00 12/11/00 12/11/00 12/21/00 01/16/01 01/17/01 01/24/01 02/14/01 02/26/01 02/27/01 02/28/01 02/28/01 02/28/01 03/12/01 03/13/01 0513/01 03/23/01 03/20/01 03/26/01 03~0/01 04/10/01 04/17/01 05/24101 05/24/01 05/23/01 05/15/01 05/17/01 05/24/01 Ex_ulanatlon From T~o Portrait of Dr. Noel C. Taylor After Prom Parties Virginia Amateur Sports Legal Expense Television Franchise Agreement Operating Support for Roanoke Neighborhood Development Corp. Human Services Coordinator Vision 2001 Comprehensive Plan College Day Transportation Fair Housing Study Contibution to The Committee to Advance the TransDominion Express Christmas Luncheon Assistant City Manager Search Contribution to Partners for Livable Communities Contribution to Salem-Roanoke Baseball Hall of Fame Purchase Shredder Report Truck Operations Report Truck Operations Purchase Shredder Operating Support for Roanoke Neighborhood Development Corp. Operating Support for City Clerk's office Operating Support for City Clerk's office Uniform Expense Operating Support for City Council Enforcement of Graffiti Ordinance Professional Services for Main Library Truck Radios Contribution to Local Commonwealth Attorneys of VA Jury Services Renovation of Main Library and Court Natural Gas Overtime Wages Printing Parking Tickets Security of Courthouse Contingency* City Manager Contingency* Memberships and Affiliations Contingency* Social Services Administration Pay Raise/Supplemental Pay Raise/Supplemental Memberships and Affiliations Contingency* Contingency* Pay Raise/Supplemental Contingency* Contingency* Solid Waste Mgmt - Refuse Parks and Grounds Maintenance Parks and Grounds Maintenance Building Maintenance Contingency* Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Services Pay Raise/Supplemental Streets and Traffic Contingency* Contingency* Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Services Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Services Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Services Jail Jail Contingency* Snow Removal Miscellaneous Jail Amount Purchasing $ 4,500 Memberships and Affiliations 3,000 Memberships and Affiliations 20,000 City Attorney 10,000 Memberships and Affiliations Director of Human Services Planning and Code Enforcement Economic Development City Manager Memberships and Affiliations Human Resources Human Resources Memberships and Affiliations Memberships and Affiliations Streets and Traffic Streets and Traffic Streets and Traffic Streets and Traffic Memberships and Affiliations City Clerk City Clerk Parks and Ground Maintenance City Council Planning and Code Enforcement Building Maintenance Solid Waste Management City Attorney Circuit Court Judges Building Maintenance Libraries Solid Waste Management Billings and Collections Sheriff 25,000 1,800 37,700 3,500 13,700 2,000 2,365 15,000 5,000 10,000 210 8,431 1,41 7 210 30,000 20,091 2,534 1,162 23,150 2,000 3,425 3,400 1,500 25,000 13,400 30,000 25,000 2,675 10,000 16 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA SUMMARY OF CITY MANAGER TRANSFERS AND AVAILABLE CONTINGENCY JUNE 30, 2001 (CONTINUED) Transfer Number Date C MT-479 06100101 C MT-481 00/04101 CMT-483 06/01/01 CMT-485 06/01/01 CMT-487 06/06/01 C M T-489 06/06/01 CMT-491 06/00/01 CMT-493 06/11/01 CMT-495 06113/01 CMT-497 06/14/01 CMT-499 06/11/01 C MT-501 06/19/01 C MT-506 07/19/01 CMT-508 07/19/01 CMT-510 07/19/01 CMT-512 07/19/01 CMT-514 07/19/01 CMT-516 07/19/01 CMT-517 07/20/01 CMT-518 07/21/01 CMT-525 07/19/01 CMT-1111 06/08/01 ExDlanation Legal and Consulting Services Audit Contract Restore Police Funds Tree Planting Expenditures Natural Gas Purchase of Furniture and Equipment Consulting Services for Inner City Coalition Comprehensive Plan UnusedTransfer to Capital Projects Fund Roanoke Ballet Theater Inner City Coalition's Improvements at Washington Park Drug Council Staff Expenditures Department of Technology Billings Department of Technology Billings Department of Technology Billings Department of Technology Billings Department of Technology Billings Year End Accruals Year End Accruals Year End Accruals Workers' Compensation Additional Subsidy From Contingency* Contingency* Contingency* Parks and Grounds Maintenance Contingency* Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Services Miscellaneous Contingency* Transfer to Other Funds Economic Development Juvenile Court Services Relations Court Services Income Maintenance Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Services Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Services Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Services Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Services Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Services Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Services Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Services Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Services Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Services Income Maintenance T__~o Purchasing Muncipal Auditing Police Services Planning and Code Enforcement Building Maintenance City Clerk Parks and Grounds Maintenance Planning and Code Enforcement Contingency Cultural Services Parks and Grounds Maintenance Membership & Affiliations Fire-Administration Department of Finance Real Estate Valuation Building Inspections Emergency Medical Services Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Clerk Fire-Airport Rescue VA Cooperative Extension Fire-Operations Health Department Total General Fund Amount 40,238 11,250 10,192 510 60,000 4,500 3,000 12,100 449 10 10,000 4,850 11,000 9,500 3,200 39,000 33,000 2,500 2,000 58,500 8,000 $682,269 CaDital Projects Fund; CMT-911 10/02/00 CMT-962 12/22/00 CMT-962 12/22/00 CMT-1016 03/22/01 CMT-460 03/27/01 CMT-461 03/27/01 CMT-1103 06/01/01 Drainage Repair Additional Project Expenses Additional Project Expenses Litigation Expense Construction Contract Construction Contract Litigation Expenses ClP Reserve - Storm Drains CIP Reserve - Parks ClP Reserve - Buildings Innotech Expansion Asbestos Abatement Westview Terrace Habitat Innotech Expansion Miscellaneous Storm Drainage $ Mill Mountain Park Improvements Mill Mountain Park Improvements Franklin Square Park Mill Mountain Zoo Access Road Mill Mountain Zoo Access Road Franklin Square Park Total Capital Projects Fund $ 10,321 755 245 2,000 4,036 2,464 20,000 39,821 17 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA SUMMARY OF CITY MANAGER TRANSFERS AND AVAILABLE CONTINGENCY JUNE 30, 2001 (CONTINUED) Available Contin._ency Balance of Contingency at July 1,2000 *Contingency appropriations from above Contingency appropriations through budget ordinances: BO 34579 08/07/00 BO 35156 12/04/00 BO 35233 03/19/01 BO 35354 05/28/01 BO 35359 05/21/01 BO 35381 06/04/01 Project Impact Governmental Electric Service Cash match for Virginia Exile Grant Salary Lapse Purchase of Land Worker's Compensation Available Contingency at June 30, 2001 Contingency Contingency Contingency Contingency Contingency Contingency Emergency Management Services Purchasing Department Transfers to Other Funds Various Departments Railside Linear Park Property Various Departments 420,244 (287,346) (16,59O) (35,442) (8,021) 212,912 (32,758) (152,328) 100,671 18 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA GENERAL FUND Revenue Source General Property Taxes Other Local Taxes Permits, Fees and Licenses Fines and Forfeitures Revenue from Use of Money and Property Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth Grants-in-Aid Federal Government Charges for Services Miscellaneous Revenue Internal Services Total STATEMENT OF REVENUE (UNAUDITED) Year to Date for the Period July I - June 30 July I - June 30 Percentage 1999-2000 2000-2001 of Change $67,491,996 $67,776,339 0.42 % 55,751,133 58,663,094 5.22 % 827,219 840,520 1.61% 923,556 818,982 (11.32) % 1,188,918 1,044,449 (12.15) % 49,223,712 51,459,893 4.54 % 34,308 34,359 0.15 % 3,389,436 3,483,819 2.78 % 297,103 295,247 (0.62) % 2,210,445 2,225,240 0.67 % $181,337,826 $186,641,942 2.92 % Current Fiscal Year Percent of Revised Revenue Revenue Estimate Estimates Received $66,238,798 102.32% 55,834,655 105.07% 729,250 115.26% 864,500 94.73% 1,124,863 92.85% 52,816,896 97.43% 34,260 100.29% 3,634,660 95.85% 346,500 85.21% 2,350,111 94.69% $183,974,493 101.45% Expenditures General Government Judicial Administration Public Safety Public Works Health and Welfare Parks, Recreation and Cultural Community Development Transfer to Debt Service Fund Transfer to School Fund Nondepartmental Total STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES AND ENCUMBRANCES (UNAUDITED) Year to Date for the Period Current Fiscal Year July I - June 30 1999-2000 $11,228,111 4,592,552 43,864,439 22,595,208 25,492,706 4,515,884 3,356,629 12,109,851 43,801,361 8,801,595 $180,368,336 July I -June 30 2000-2001 $11,855,071 5,585,652 44,363,281 24,397,348 25,019,650 4,728,770 4,042,136 12,109,799 46,084,764 10,641,028 $188,827,499 Percentage of Change 5.58 % 21.62 % 1.14 % 7.98 % (1.86) % 4.71% 20.42 % - % 5.21% 20.90 % 4.70 % Unencumbered Balance $200,857 213,167 739,716 232,098 2,026,977 96,159 107,081 69,359 165,872 $3,851,286 Revised Appropriations $12,055,928 5,798,819 45,102,997 24,629,446 27,046,627 4,824,929 4,149,217 12,109,799 46,154,123 10,806,900 $192,678,785 Percent of Budget Obligated 98.33% 96.32% 98.36% 99.06% 92.51% 98.01% 97.42% 100.00% 99.85% 98.47% 98.00% 19 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA SCHOOL AND SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE FUNDS STATEMENT OF REVENUE (UNAUDITED) Year to Date for the Period July I - June 30 July I - June 30 Percentage Revenue Source 1999-2000 2000-2001 of Change State Sales Tax $8,709,580 $8,859,609 1.72 % Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth 38,968,781 41,605,369 6.77 % Grants-in-Aid Federal Government 2,895,226 2,890,436 (0.17) % Charges for Services 3,449,446 3,648,488 5.77 % Transfer from General Fund 43,801,361 46,084,764 5.21% Special Purpose Grants 13,153,134 13,588,212 3.31% Total $110,977,528 $116,676,878 $.14 % Current Fiscal Year Percent of Revised Revenue Revenue Estimate Estimates Received $9,040,476 98.00% 42,057,082 98.93% 2,891,748 99.95% 3,526,973 103.45% 46,154,123 99.85% 13,588,212 NA $117,258,614 99.50% Ex_Denditures Instruction General Support Transportation Operation and Maintenance of Plant Food Services Facilities Other Uses of Funds Special Purpose Grants Total STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES AND ENCUMBRANCES (UNAUDITED) Year to Date for the Period Current Fiscal Year Percent of July I - June 30 July I - June 30 Percentage Unencumbered Revised Budget 1999-2000 2000-2001 of Change Balance Appropriations Obligated $73,741,649 3.93 % $224,692 4,096,876 11.44 % 45,742 3,612,118 (1.04) % 38,961 10,037,503 3.43 % 322,313 4,265,355 2.46 % 259,916 2,986,842 (3.01) % 43,433 5,467,355 14.38 % 286,838 13,588,212 3.31% $70,954,034 3,676,378 3,650,118 9,704,347 4,162,997 3,079,391 4,780,180 13,153,134 $73,966,341 4,142,618 3,651,079 10,359,816 4,525,271 3,030,275 5,754,193 13,588,212 99.70% 98.90% 98.93% 96.89% 94.26% 98.57% 95.02% NA $113,160,679 $117,798,910 4.10 % $1,221,895 $119,017,805 98.97% 2O CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES, ENCUMBRANCES, AND UNENCUMBERED APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY AS OF JUNE 30, 2001 General Government Education Flood Reduction Economic Development Community Development Public Safety Recreation Streets and Bridges Sanitation Projects Traffic Engineering Capital Improvement Reserve Total Expenditures Unexpended Outstanding Unobligated Budget To Date Balance Encumbrances Balance $17,308,420 $11,292,413 $6,016,007 $2,764,648 $3,251,359 2,500,000 2,500,000 14,949,118 8,517,750 6,431,368 281,646 6,149,722 26,591,103 14,470,223 12,120,880 1,615,510 10,505,370 5,767,487 2,282,412 3,485,075 654,251 2,830,824 12,400,450 9,747,365 2,653,085 1,144,641 1,508,444 8,784,637 4,309,317 4,475,320 1,320,737 3,154,583 26,617,470 23,490,674 3,126,796 1,444,972 1,681,824 2,555,725 1,751,353 804,372 139,235 665,137 4,391,660 3,529,313 862,347 234,917 627,430 (1,087,465) (1,087,465) (1,087,465) $120,778,605 $81,890,820 $38,887,785 $9,600,557 $29,287,228 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA SCHOOL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES, ENCUMBRANCES, AND UNENCUMBERED APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY AS OF JUNE 30, 2001 Elementary Schools Renovation Middle Schools Renovation High Schools Renovation Other Renovation Projects Technology Improvements Interest Expense Capital Improvement Reserve Total Expenditures Unexpended Outstanding Unobligated Budget To Date Balance Encumbrances Balance $13,108,122 $11,422,149 $1,685,973 $1,457,434 3,920,549 3,882,637 37,912 37,463 250,000 5,000 245,000 21,430 4,074,808 3,571,501 503,307 330,628 781,786 781,786 - 262,929 257,678 5,251 1,051,271 1,051,271 - $23,449,465 $19,920,751 $3,528,714 $1,846,955 $228,539 449 223,570 172,679 5,251 1,051,271 $1,681,759 21 Interest Revenue: CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2001 (UNAUDITED) FY 2001 Interest on Bond Proceeds Interest on SunTrust Lease Interest on Idle Working Capital Total Interest Revenue Multi Year Revenues: Intergovernmental Revenue: Federal Government: FEMA - Garden City Mitigation Project FEMA - Regional Mitigation Project Commonwealth: Virginia Transportation Museum - ISTI:A Mountain View Historic Resource Buena Vista Historic Resource State Industrial Access Grant - RCIT Project Impact VDES - 1998 Regional Mitigation Second StreetJVVells/Gainsboro ProJect Roadway Safety Improvements $1,287,768 9,277 1,112,469 2,409,514 259,932 243,295 18,368 20,000 20,000 162,839 724,434 Total Intergovernmental Revenue Revenue from Third Parties: Verizon - Brambleton Avenue Signals Mill Mountain Visitors Center - Private Donations First Union Penalty Payment Norfolk Southern - Hunter Viaduct Serenity Funeral Home InSystems Incorporated - Land Sale 118 Campbell Avenue- Land Sale Estate of Lenore Wood Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation VVestview Terrace - Land Sale Total Revenue from Third Parties Other Revenue: Transfers from General Fund Transfers from Water Fund Transfers from Sewage Fund Transfers from Transportation Fund Transfers from Debt Service Fund Transfers from Management Services Fund Transfers from Grant Fund Proceeds from Capital Lease - SunTrust General Obligation Bond Proceeds ~ Series 1999 Total Other Revenue Total 22 36,055 10,000 34,000 137,445 125,110 342,610 6,834,318 2,900 12,600 100,000 700,000 7,649,818 $11,126,376 FY 2000 $1,595,255 903,057 2,498,312 92,935 364,186 79,270 37,500 349,224 17,340 940,455 42,000 10,800 950,000 51,052 13,525 20,000 39,045 1,126,422 4,680,598 293,000 800,000 131,500 27,038,000 32,943,098 $37,508,287 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA WATER FUND COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2001 (UNAUDITED) Operating Revenues Commercial Sales Domestic Sales Industrial Sales Town of Vinton City of Salem County of Roanoke County of Botetourt County of Bedford Customer Services Charges for Services Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenses Personal Services Operating Expenses Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Operating Income Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) Interest on Investments Rent Miscellaneous Revenue Source Water Assessment Grant Interest and Fiscal Charges Transfer from General Fund Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Net Nonoperating Expenses Net Income FY 2001 $3,967,212 3,530,608 310,279 14,738 32,303 234,227 13,188 475,562 3,423,629 12,001,746 4,019,629 5,333,779 1,674,377 11,027,785 973,961 413,016 73,161 19,724 24,000 (1,127,543) (2,900) (600,542) $373,419 FY 2000 $3,424,287 3,185,671 234,613 22 172 24 150 1,621 092 198 609 38 119 562 617 3,131 326 12,442,656 4,157,670 5,471,254 1,815,163 11,444,087 998,569 381,691 77,031 28,155 (1,220,015) 25,000 (708,138) $290,431 23 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA SEWAGE TREATMENT FUND COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2001 (UNAUDITED) Operating Revenues Sewage Charges - City Sewage Charges - Roanoke County Sewage Charges - Vinton Sewage Charges - Salem Sewage Charges - Botetourt County Customer Services Interfund Services Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenses Personal Services Operating Expenses Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Operating Income Nonoperating Revenues(Expenses) Interest on Investments Interest and Fiscal Charges Miscellaneous Revenue Loss on Disposal of Fixed Assets Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Capital Grants-Participating Localities Net Nonoperating Revenue Netlncome FY 2001 $7,311 593 1,034 041 245 691 987 307 150 047 184 926 188 931 10,102,536 1,886,559 6,203,919 1,187,716 9,278,194 824,342 377,421 (198) 44 (12,600) 658,190 1,022,857 $1,847,199 FY 2000 $7,264,213 833,829 139,051 864,740 142,025 176,988 77,589 9,498,435 1,867,311 5,733,551 1,176,716 8,777,578 720,857 411,102 10,683 (4,747) 417,038 $1,137,895 24 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CiViC CENTER FUND COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2001 (UNAUDITED) Operating Revenues Rentals Event Expenses Display Advertising Admissions Tax Electrical Fees Novelty Fees Facility Fees Charge Card Fees Parking Fees Commissions Catering/Concessions Other Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenses Personal Services Operating Expenses Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Operating Loss Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) Transfer From General Fund Interest on Investments Miscellaneous Net Nonoperating Revenues Net Income (Loss) FY 2001 $600,986 181,307 81,000 284,873 25,627 48,567 238,030 39,907 108 1,163,947 20,046 2,684,398 1,294,266 2,160,619 444,016 3,898,901 (1,214,503) 878,703 65,838 11,403 955,944 ($258,559~ FY 2000 $638,707 272,234 57,172 310,291 20,394 69,302 38,011 55,120 232,573 209 1,013,874 12,826 2,720,713 1,368,286 1,711,262 446,985 3,526,533 (805,820) 958,403 64,273 (23,431) 999,245 $193,425 25 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION FUND COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2001 (UNAUDITED) Operating Revenues Century Station Parking Garage Williamson Road Parking Garage Market Square Parking Garage Church Avenue Parking Garage Tower Parking Garage Surface Parking Lots Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenses Operating Expenses Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Operating Income Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) Transfer From General Fund Interest on Investments Interest and Fiscal Charges Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Transfer To GRTC - Operating Subsidy Transfer To GRTC - Capital Transfer To GRTC - Shuttle Service Miscellaneous Net Nonoperating Expenses Net Loss FY 2001 $361,904 434,086 209,009 459,461 400,195 69,237 1,933,892 759,150 540,607 1,299,757 634,135 761,358 26,611 (521,748) (850,183) (98,000) (130,000) 10,432 (801,530) ($167,395) FY 2000 $326,240 402,120 194,891 424,307 361,632 69,614 1,778,804 676,030 541,434 1,217,464 561,340 766,358 18,535 (542,955) (293,000) (537,089) 10,116 (578,035) ($16,695) 26 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA HOTEL ROANOKE CONFERENCE CENTER FUND COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2001 FY 2001 CONFERENCE COMMISSION (1) CENTER (2) TOTAL $ - $ 2,753,796 $ 2,753,796 2,753,796 2,753,796 Operating Revenues Conference Center Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenses Personal Services Fees for Professional Services Administrative Expenses Conference Center Total Operating Expenses FY 2000 $ 2,846,874 Net Operating Income (Loss) Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) Contributions from City of Roanoke Contributions from Virginia Tech Litigation Settlement Proceeds Insurance Proceeds Facility Repair Expenses Interest on Investments Rent, Taxes, Insurance, and Other 2,846,874 Net Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) 103,278 - 103,278 48,780 49,875 - 49,875 23,489 1,204 - 1,204 4,586 2,542,157 2,542,157 2,352,778 Net Income Before Depreciation Depreciation Expense/Replacement Reserve Net Income (Loss) $ Notes to Financial Statement: 154,357 2,542,157 2,696,514 2,429,633 (154,357) 211,639 57,282 417,241 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 133,048 133,048 (4,949,569) (4,949,569) 235,910 235,910 55,723 (140,705) (140,705) (121,365) 3,769,389 (140,705) 3,628,684 3,615,032 70,934 3,685,966 454,591 156,337 610,928 3,160,441 $ (85,403) $ 3,075,038 (1) The column entitled "Commission" represents Commission activity in the City's financial records. (2) 284,358 701,599 634,491 $ 67,108 The column entitled "Conference Center" represents actual revenue and expenses of the Conference Center, as provided by Doubletree Management. 27 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2001 (UNAUDITED) Operating Revenues Charges for Services Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenses Personal Services Operating Expenses Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Operating Income (Loss) Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) Interest Revenue Interest Expense Transfer To Other Funds Transfer From Other Funds Other Revenue Loss on Disposal of Fixed Assets Net Nonoperating Revenues (Expenses) Net Income {Loss) TOTALS Department of Materials Management Fleet Risk Technology Control Services Management Management FY 2001 FY 2000 $4,016,662 $155,895 $116,833 $3,166,877 $9,381,023 $16,837,290 $14,731,591 4,016,662 155,895 116,833 3,166,877 9,381,023 16,837,290 14,731,591 2,003,561 86,102 28,996 1,267,627 246,316 3,632,602 3,340,117 1,293,888 106,654 61,236 1,138,159 9,577,496 12,177,433 9,975,138 260,028 18,835 2,175,031 2,453,894 2,814,550 3,557,477 192,756 109,067 4,580,817 9,823,812 18,263,929 16,129,805 459,185 (36,861) 7,766 (1,413,940) (442,789) (1,426,639) (1,398,214) 246,149 3,427 10,467 68,270 631,750 960,063 887,062 (8,038) (24,175) (32,213) (4,000) (100,000) (104,000) 1,201,205 - 51,033 250,000 1,502,238 1,591,367 9,475 14,786 35,575 59,836 107,195 - (125,867) (125,867) (601) 1,444,791 18,213 (53,958) (30,739) 881,750 2,260,057 2,585,023 S1,903,976 ($18,648) ($46,192) ($1,444,679) $438,961 $833,418 S1,186,809 28 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CITY TREASURER'S OFFICE GENERAL STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE MONTH ENDED JUNE 30, 2001 TO THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: GENERAL STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE CITY TREASURER OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA FOR THE FUNDS OF SAID CITY FOR THE MONTH ENDED JUNE 30, 2001. BALANCE AT FUND MAY 31, 2001 RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS BALANCE AT BALANCE AT JUN 30, 2001 JUN 30, 2000 GENERAL WATER SEWAGE CIVIC CENTER TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS CONFERENCE CENTER RKE VALLEY DETENTION COMM DEBT SERVICE DEPT OF TECHNOLOGY MATERIALS CONTROL MANAGEMENT SERVICES FLEET MANAGEMENT PAYROLL RISK MANAGEMENT PENSION SCHOOL FUND SCHOOL CAPITAL PROJECTS SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE I FDETC GRANT TOTAL $7,555,624.65 $22,120,784.20 $17,965,786.03 $11,710,622.82 $18,120,370.20 7,699,609.87 374,774.28 276,032.74 7,798,351.41 8,037,821.46 7,080,472.09 1,786,730.14 1,363,159.87 7,504,042.36 7,062,152.88 1,065,381.31 334,076.44 349,482.94 1,049,974.81 1,540,100.53 580,493.23 162,880.53 380,000.58 363,373.18 663,766.12 36,980,560.15 1,506,365.25 1,100,218.25 37,386,707.15 46,859,917.07 5,349,569.60 42,835.69 697,625.98 4,694,779.31 931,320.32 2,606,936.51 2,273,512.70 540,696.55 4,339,752.66 4,224,394.04 13,683,942.28 0.00 596,751.78 13,087,190.50 12,204,898.74 5,043,616.89 70,780.32 866,840.44 4,247,556.77 4,391,077.80 196,781.65 98,562.58 139,261.62 156,082.61 (31,911.37) 178,776.72 5,940.85 6,420.72 178,296.85 249,180.16 981,616.48 250.72 812,518.15 169,349.05 1,023,932.94 (8,617,274.43) 19,274,588.25 16,374,527.79 (5,717,213.97) (10,784,299.49) 11,828,903.42 1,171,196.30 590,097.81 12,410,001.91 11,092,309.35 520,853.34 2,380,734.28 2,280,375.87 621,211.75 1,051,788.25 ', 7,607,872.85 6,992,615.65 5,474,645.40 9,125,843.10 9,042,956.63 751,880.58 0.00 742,220.34 9,660.24 1,151,312.20 705,066.52 517,559.30 459,148.52 763,477.30 0.001 82,853.35 57,138.74 114,791.74 25,200.35 157,352.47 727,164.89 715,720.09 397,124.80 1,045,760.18 858,021.48 $102,610,701.95 $59,887,046.31 $51,527,727.92 $_1~10,970,020.34 $117,846,461.78 i CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE STATEMENT OF MY ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, FOR THE FUNDS OF THE VARIOUS ACCOUNTS THEREOF FOR THE MONTH ENDED JUNE 30, 2001 THAT SAID FOREGOING: CASH: CASH IN HAND CASH IN BANK INVESTMENTS ACQUIRED FROM COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS: OVERNIGHT INVESTMENT COMMERCIAL HIGH PERFORMANCE MONEY MARKET COMMERCIAL PAPER FEDERAL AGENCY BONDS LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOL REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS STATE NON-ARBITRAGE PROGRAM (U.S. SECURITIES, COMMERCIAL PAPER) VIRGINIA AIM PROGRAM (U. S. SECURITIES) TOTAL $15,385.90 1,509,872.52 349,000.00 16,404,411.74 24,424,312.22 4,998,600.00 26,539,396.15 20,000,000.00 936,675.23 16,792,466.58 $110,970,020.34 DATE: JUlY 11, 2001 DAVID C. ANDERSON, TREASURER 29 CITY OF ROANOKE PENSION PLAN STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENSES FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2001 (UNAUDITED) Revenue Contributions Investment Income Net Appreciation (Depreciation) in Fair Value of Investments Bond Discount Amortization To~lRevenue(Loss) FY 2001 $4,650,049 8,114,868 (22,045,548) 78,424 ($9,202,207) FY 2000 $5,631,906 10,031,248 6,590,675 56,804 $22,310,633 Pension Payments Fees for Professional Services Bond Premium Amortization Administrative Expense City Supplement to Age 65 Active Service Death Benefit Total Expenses Net Gain (Loss) $12,760,890 1,963,079 114,059 256,124 294,468 15,388,620 ($24,590,827~ $11,514,927 2,347,608 142,914 235,238 208,926 3,891 14,453,504 $7,857,129 3O CITY OF ROANOKE PENSION PLAN BALANCE SHEET JUNE 30, 2001 (UNAUDITED) Assets Cash Investments, at Fair Value Due from Other Funds Due from Other Governments Due from Component Unit Accrued Investment Income Other Assets Total Assets FY 2001 $582,332 337,412,665 588,613 14,517 13,596 876,995 5,434 $339,494,152_ FY 2000 $1,118,499 367,977,890 92,347 25,913 14,379 1,139,245 5,097 $370,373,370 Liabilities and Fund Balance Liabilities: Due to Other Funds Accounts Payable Payable for Cash Collateral on Loaned Securities Total Liabilities Fund Balance: Fund Balance, July 1 Net Gain (Loss) - Year to Date Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 176,136 12,979,698 13,155,834 350,929,145 (24,590,827) 326,338,318 $339,494,152_ $547,544 226,891 18,669,789 19,444,224 343,072,017 7,857,129 350,929,146 $370,373,370 31 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA GENERAL FUND BUDGET ANALYSIS FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2001 Sources of Funds: Original Revenue Estimate for Fiscal Year Revenue Estimate Changes: Ordinance Number Date 34906 07/03/00 35082 10/02/00 35354 05/21/01 35359 05/21/01 Revenue Type Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth CMERP - City - Appropriated CMERP - Schools - Appropriated Undesignated Fund Balance -Appropriated Reserve for Uninsured Claims - Appropriated Reserve for Prior Year Encumbrances Total Sources of Funds Appropriations: Odginal Appropriation Budget for Fiscal Year Ordinance 'Number Date 34906 07/03/00 34906 07/03/00 34953 07/17/00 34979 08/07/00 34979 08/07/00 34987 08/07/00 34990 08/07/00 35009 08/07/00 35045 09/05/00 35045 09/05/00 35059 09/18/00 35064 09/18/00 35082 10/02/00 35090 10/02/00 35093 10/16/00 35097 10/16/00 35127 11/08/00 Deparbnent Jail Contingency Various Emergency Management Services Contingency Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Transfer to School Fund Solid Waste Management - Recycling Libraries Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Transfer to School Fund Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Public Safety-Police Patrol Purpose Deputy Sheriff Position Deputy Sheriff Position Reappropriation of Encumbrances Project Impact Project Impact Greater Gainsboro Cooperation Agreement (CMERP) Roanoke Police Building Phase II (CMERP) Greater Gainsboro Infrastructure Improvements (CMERP) Mill Mountain Zoo Access Road (CMERP) Re-appropriation of Paving Program Funds (CMERP) Installation of Handicap Elevator at Patrick Henry (CMERP) Purchase of Recycling Containers (CMERP) Expendable equipment and publications and subscriptions Art Museum/IMAX Theater Project (CMERP) Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance (CMERP) Public Works Service Center (CMERP) In-Car Video Systems (CMERP) 30,998 43,550 (350,472) 197,949 38,347 (7,349) 1,288,919 16,590 (16,590) 165,102 282,000 500,000 65,000 400,626 50,000 121,230 43,550 150,000 429,172 60,000 90,216 $184,052,468 (77,975) $184,052,458 183,974,493 5,002,940 1,558,691 603,742 250,000 1,288,919 $192,678,785 Intemal Only - A CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA GENERAL FUND BUDGET ANALYSIS FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2001 (CONTINUED) Ordinance Number Date 35137 11/20/00 35144 11/20/00 35174 12/18/00 35174 1 2/18/00 35184 01/16/01 35190 01/16/01 35199 02/05/01 35199 02/05/01 35203 02/05/01 35203 02/05/01 35206 02/05/01 35206 02/05/01 35209 02/05/01 35209 02/05/01 35209 02/05/01 35233 03/19/01 35233 03/19/01 35235 03/19/01 35242 04/02/01 35242 04/02/01 35280 04/16/01 35280 04/16/01 35304 05/07/01 35346 05/21/01 35354 05/21/01 Department Transfer to School Fund Various Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Transfer to Department of Technology Transfer to School Fund Transfer to Risk Management Fund Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Recreation Health Department Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Building Maintenance Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Jail Transfer to Grant Fund Contingency Transfer to School Fund Building Maintenance Solid Waste Management Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Traffic Engineering Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Transfer to School Fund Transfer to Various Funds Purpose Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance (CMERP) Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance (CMERP) Radio Shop FCC Training (CMERP) Vadous Equipment and Facilities Maintenance (CMERP) Vadous Equipment and Facilities Maintenance (CMERP) Annual Funding of Self Insurance Program Mill Mountain Center Mill Mountain Center Service Agreement with Health Department Service Agreement with Health Department Recreation Center ADA Compliance Recreation Center ADA Compliance Renovate Elevator at City Jail Renovate Elevator at City Jail Renovate Elevator at City Jail Matching Funds for Virginia Exile Grant Matching Funds for Virginia Exile Grant Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance (CMERP) Library Improvements Various Equipment (CMERP) Peters Creek Street Lighting (CMERP) Upgrade Alarm System (CMERP) Corps of Engineering Mapping (CMERP) Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance (CMERP) Salary Lapse 184,542 827,250 10,000 1,091,205 43,219 250,000 10,500 (10,500) 85,208 (85,208) 48,200 (48,200) 119,340 (59,000) (60,340) 8,021 (8,021) 71,548 142,091 35,020 80,000 37,200 69,000 780,210 (350,472) Intemal Only - A CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA GENERAL FUND BUDGET ANALYSIS FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2001 (CONTINUED) Ordinance Number Date Department 35359 05/21/01 Contingency 35359 05/21/01 Transfer to Capital Projects Fund 35363 05/21/01 Street Paving 35363 05/21/01 Public Works 35380 06/04/01 Transfer to Capital Projects Fund 35417 06/04/01 Parks and Grounds Maintenance Total Uses of Funds Budget Excess (Deficit) Purpose Puchase of Land Purchase of Land Paving Program (CMERP) Paving Program (CMERP) Drainage Projects (CMERP) Replace Park Furnishings (CMERP) (32,758) 636,500 197,949 455,000 315,000 127,000 8,626,317 192,678,785 IntemalOnly -A Soumes of Funds: Original Revenue Estimate for Fiscal Year CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA SCHOOL AND SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE FUNDS BUDGET ANALYSIS FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2001 Revenue Estimate Changes: Ordinance Number Date Revenue Type 35059 09/18/00 35093 10/16/00 35137 11/20/00 35137 11/20/00 35184 01/16/01 35235 03/19/01 35346 05/21/01 Transfer from General Fund (City CMERP) Transfer from General Fund (City CMERP) Transfer from General Fund (City CMERP) Transfer from General Fund (City CMERP) Transfer from General Fund (City CMERP) Transfer from General Fund (City CMERP) Transfer from General Fund (City CMERP) 50,000 429,172 184,542 125,000 43,219 71,548 780,210 C M E R P-Schools Appropriated Reserve for Health Insurance Claims Reserve for Prior Year Encumbrances Total Sources of Funds Appropriations: Original Appropriation Budget for Fiscal Year Ordinance Number Date De_~artment 34963 07/17/00 Various 34964 07/17/00 Various 35059 09/18/00 Facilities 35059 09/18/00 General Support 35059 09/18/00 Facilities 35093 10/16/00 Facilities 35093 10/16/00 Facilities 35137 11/20/00 Facilities 35137 11/20/00 Facilities 35184 01/16/01 Facilities 35235 03/19/01 Various 35346 05/21/01 Facilities Total Uses of Funds Purpose Reappropriation of Encumbrances Reappropriation of Encumbrances Installation of Handicap Elevator at Patrick Henry (City CMERP) Health Insurance Premiums Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance (CMERP) Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance (City CMERP) Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance (CMERP) Middle School Learning Center Pilot Program Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance (City CMERP) Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance (City CMERP) Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance (City CMERP) Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance (City CMERP) $924,718 8,256 50,000 314,569 327,396 429,172 184,252 125,000 184,542 43,219 71,548 780,210 Budget Excess (Deficit) $101,986,711 $1,683,691 $101,986,711 3,442,882 $103,670,402 511,648 314,569 932,974 $105,429,593 $105,429,593 Internal Only -B CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA SCHOOL FUND BUDGET ANALYSIS FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2001 (CONTINUED) Revenue Budget From Previous Page Special Purpose Grant Budget Total Revenue Budget Appropriations Budget From Previous Page Special Purpose Grant Budget Total Appropriations Budget $105,429,593 13.588,21~ $119.017.805 $105,429,593 13.588.212 $119,017,805 Internal Only - B CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA STATUS OF CMERP GENERAL AND SCHOOL FUNDS JUNE 30, 2001 Appropriations: Ordinance Number Date 34987 08/07/00 34990 08~07/00 35009 08/07/00 35045 09~05~00 35046 09/05/00 35059 09/18~00 35059 09/18/00 35064 09/18/00 35090 10/02/00 35093 10/16/00 35093 10/16~00 35097 10/16~00 35127 11/08/00 35137 11/20/00 35144 11/20/00 35174 12/18/00 35174 12/18/00 35184 01/16/01 Balance July 1, 2000 CMERP from prior year General Fund School Fund De_~artment Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Transfer to School Fund Facilities Solid Waste Management - Recycling Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Transfer to School Fund Facilities Transfer to Capital Projects Fund Public Safety-Police Patrol Transfer to School Fund Various Transfer to Capital Projects Transfer to Department of Technology Transfer to School Fund PurDose Greater Gainsboro Cooperation Agreement Roanoke Police Building Phase II Greater Gainsboro Infrastructure Mill Mountain Zoo Access Road Re-appropriation of Paving Program funds Installation of Handicap Elevator at Patrick Henry Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance Purchase of Recycling Containers Art Museum/IMAX Theater Project Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance Public Works Service Center In-Car Video Systems Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance Radio Shop FCC Training Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance City General Fund $610,828 4,708,412 $5,319,240 $165,102 282,000 500,000 65,000 400,626 121,230 150,000 60,000 90,216 827,250 10,000 1,091,205 School General Fund $50,000 1,508,691 $1,558,691 School Fund 511,648 $511,648 50,000 429,172 184,542 43,219 327,396 184,252 Internal Only -C Ordinance Number 35235 35242 35242 35280 35280 35304 35346 35363 35380 35417 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA STATUS OF CMERP GENERAL AND SCHOOL FUNDS JUNE 30, 2001 (CONTINUED) Date 03/19/01 De_~artment Transfer to School Fund 04/02/01 04/02/01 04/16/01 04/16/01 05/07/01 05/21/01 Building Maintenance Soild Waste Management Transfer to Capital Projects Traffic Engineering Transfer to Capital Projects Transfer to School Fund 05/21/01 Street Paving 06/04/01 Transfer to Capital Projects 06/04/01 Parks and Grounds Maintenance Appropriated Balance June 30, 2001 Unappropriated Balance June 30, 2001 PurDose Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance Facilities Improvement Various Equipment Peters Creek Street Lighting Upgrade Alarm System Corps of Engineering Mapping Various Equipment and Facilities Maintenance Paving Program Drainage Projects Replace Park Furnishings City General Fund $ 142,091 35,020 60,000 37,200 69,000 455,000 315,000 127,000 5,002,940 $316,300 School GeneralFund $71,548 780,210 SchoolFund 1,558,691 511,648 $ $ Internal Only - C Balance July 1, 2000 Ordinance Number CMT954 35415 Date 12/14/00 06/18/01 Ordinance Number 34923 34923 34925 34927 34929 34931 34940 35O23 35035 CMT911 35090 35131 35137 35146 35146 CMT962 35209 35235 35265 CMT1035 35301 35317 35361 35424 Date 07103100 07103/00 07103100 07103100 07103/00 07103/00 07/03/00 08/21/00 08/21/00 09/29100 10/02/00 11106100 11106100 11/20100 11/20100 12/31/00 02/05/01 03/19/01 04/02/01 04/24/01 05/07/01 05/07/01 05/21101 06118/01 Balance June 30, 2001 Issue Issue 1996 1999 1999 1999 1999 1999 1996 1999 2002 CIR CIR 1999 1999 1999 1996 CIR CIR 1999 CIR 1996 1999 1999 1996 2002 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT RESERVE BALANCE JUNE 30, 2001 Transfers In Transfer Completed Fire/EMS Memorial Project Funds to Capital Reserve Transfer from General Fund - Buildings and Structures Transfers Out I A_~_~ro_~rlatlons Property Acquisition for Signalization of Hollins Road Intersection Property Acquisition for Signalization of Hollins Road Intersection Salem Turnpike Drainage Project Summit Hills Drainage Project Trevino Drive Drainage Project Signalization for Williamson Road and Hildebrand Road Additional Funding for Railside Linear Walk Phase 2 and 4 Various Park and Recreation Facility Improvements Greater Gainsboro Parking Garage Construction Vermont Avenue Drainage Project Art Museum/IMAX Theater Project Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology Phase 3 Roanoke Academy for Mathematics and Science Facility Repairs Summit Hills Drainage Project Phase 2 Summit Hills Drainage Project Phase 2 Additional Funds for Mill Mountain Park Improvements City Jail Elevator Renovation High School Renovation Feasibility Study Foot Levelers, Inc. Infrastructure Improvements First Street Pedestrian Bridge - Advertising and Specification Costs Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology - Change Order No. 1 Hollins Road/Liberty Road Traffic Signalization Garden City Storm Drain Project Phase 7 South Jefferson Redevelopment Project $14,116,399 $30,260 57,454 (12,675) (22,325) (38,000) (5,000) (36,000) (2,500) (90,702) (3,823,369) (2,500,000) (10,321) (75,000) (1,431,000) (625,000) (11,447) (189,443) (1,ooo) (20,ooo) (250,000) (27,490) (1,535) (868,500) (11o,ooo) (89,000) (4,ooo,ooo) ($36,194) Capital Improvement Reserve Storm Drains Economic Development Streets and Bridges Buildings and Structures Appropriations Transfers Balance $10,321 ($10,321) 755 (755) 314,823 102,339 (35,021) $428,238 ($46,097) 314,823 67,318 $382,141 IntemalOnly -D CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT RESERVE BALANCE JUNE 30, 2001 (CONTINUED) Public Improvement Bonds Series 1996 Appropriations Transfers Balance Storm Drains $382,202 ($226,995) Parks 90,702 (90,702) Bridges 1,535 (1,535) Streets and Sidewalks 64,123 (64,123) Public Improvement Bonds Series 1999 $155,207 $538,562 ($383,355) $155,207 Appropriations Transfers Balance Streets & Sidewalks $1,407,448 ($146,272) $1,261,176 Economic Development 2,525,000 (2,299,500) 225,500 Schools 1,926,271 (875,000) 1,051,271 Storm Drains 1,594,500 (79,000) 1,515,500 Buildings 85,000 85,000 Parks 3,913,369 (3,823,369) 90,000 Bridges 1,698,011 1,698,011 $13,149,599 ($7,223,141 ) $5,926,458 Public Improvement Bonds Series 2002 Appropriations Transfers Balance Buildings ($2,500,000) (1) ($2,500,000) Economic Development (4,000,000) (2) (4,000,000) ($6,500,000) ($6,500,000) $14,116,399 ($14,152,693) ($36,194) (1) On Monday August 21, 2000, Resolution 35034 was adopted by City Council authorizing the sale of bonds under the Public Finance Act. The purpose of the issuance will be to provide funds to pay the costs of a public improvement project of and for the City, consisting of the Gainsboro Parking Garage and related facilities. These are anticipated to be issued as Series 2002 Bonds. (2) On Monday April 16, 2001, Resolution 35293 was adopted by City Council authorizing the sale of bonds under the Public Finance Act. The proceeds are for the purpose of assisting the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, in paying a portion of the costs of a redevelopment project in the City, known as the South Jefferson Redevelopment Project. These are anticipated to be issued as Series 2002 Bonds. Note: A public hearing on Monday, May 15, 2000, authorized the issuance and sale of $7,500,000 General Obligation Bonds for the purpose of providing funds to defray the cost of the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project. The General Obligation Bonds were originally authorized through voter referendum on April 11, 1989. Internal Only - D CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND INTEREST INCOME ANALYSIS FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2001 (UNAUDITED) Balance July 1,2000 Interest Earned: Virginia AIM Funds SunTrust Lease Investments $1,287,768 9,277 1,112,469 $4,206,753 2,409,514 Ordinance Date Number 07/03/00 34968 08/07/00 34983 08/21/00 35035 03/19/01 35249 06/18/01 35415 06/18/01 35415 06/18/01 35415 06/18/01 35415 Shenandoah Crossing Project Precision Technology Greater Gainsboro Parking Garage South Jefferson Agreement #2 Railside Linear Walk Phase 5 Fire/EMS Facility Improvement Program Roanoke River Greenway YMCA Aquatic Center (1,200,000) (110,000) (2,478,960) (1,000,000) (94,299) (800,000) (200,000) (200,000) Balance Available June 30,2001 $533,008 Other Amounts Available for Appropriation VDOT Local Match Funding - FY 1995-96 Developer Contributions - Planning Department Orr Branch Drainage Lick Run Downstream Balance Available June 30, 2001 $21,242 12,980 $12,305 34,222 $46,527 Sale of Juvenile Detention Assets to Juvenile Detention Commission - FY 1999 Ordinance Date Number 02/22/00 34700 07/17/00 34940 06/18/01 35415 06/18/01 35415 06/18/01 35415 New Police Building Railside Linear Walk Phase 2 and 4 Railside Linear Walk Phase 5 Warehouse Row Buildings Project Undesignated Future Capital Fund Projects Balance Available June 30, 2001 Internal Only - E $700,000 (169,299) (110,070) (252,677) (13,500) (57,454) $97,000 ROANOKE VALLEY DETENTION COMMISSION STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 30, 2001 (UNAUDITED) Revenue Sources: Actual Budget Unrecognized/ Unobligated Budget Balance Billings to User Localities City of Roanoke $950,714 $979,051 ($28,337) Roanoke County 446,881 479,927 (33,046) City of Salem 156,064 230,365 (74,301) Franklin County 188,272 191,971 (3,699) Botetourt County 93,571 38,394 55,177 Other Jurisdictions 105,148 105,148 Total Billings to User Localities 1,940,650 1,919,708 20,942 Grants-In-Aid Commonwealth Juvenile Detention Block Grant State Ward Per Diem USDA Total Grants-In-Aid Commonwealth Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenses: Personal Services Operating Expenses Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Nonoperating Revenue (Expenses): Interest Revenue Interest Expense Total Nonoperating Revenue (Expenses) 1,420,708 1,248,000 172,708 8,550 8,550 45,498 45,498 1,474,756 1,248,000 226,756 3,415,406 3,167,708 247,698 1,979,885 2,i95,975 472,524 501,733 190,247 2,642,656 2,697,708 216,090 29,209 (190,247) 55,052 167,068 (642,867) 470,000 (475,799) 470,000 167,068 (172,867) (5,799) Net Income $296,951 - $296,951 ROANOKE VALLEY DETENTION COMMISSION REPORT OF CONSTRUCTION STATUS FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 7, 1998 * THROUGH JUNE 30, 2001 Actual Through Contract Fiscal Year 2001 Committments Total Amount Available: Loan Proceeds Interest Income Reimbursement from the State (Note 1) $10,600,000 NA 485,159 NA 1,640,621 NA $10,600,000 485,159 1,640,621 TotalAmountAvailable Expenses: 12,725,780 NA 12,725,780 Operating Expenses: Operating Expenses Total Operating Expenses Capital Project Expenses: Land Purchases Legal and Professional Fees A&E Fees Construction-Structures Other Equipment Interest Expense / Bond Issuance Costs Total Capital Project Expenses Total Expenses Net Available Funds 46,966 46,966 154,718 18,016 947,382 42,174 7,443,802 377,597 120,437 831,739 9,516,094 419,771 9,563,060 419,771 $3,162,720 ($419,771) 46,966 46,966 154,718 18,016 989,556 7,821,399 120,437 831,739 9,935,865 9,982,831 $2,742,949 Total Outstanding Contract committments include: (Including Changes) Payments Balance Hayes Seay Mattern and Mattern $305,204 $295,928 $9,276 Martin Brothers 7,204,014 6,826,417 377,597 John H. Parrott 82,000 49,102 32,898 Total $7,591,218 $7,171,447 $419,771 * Date of Regional Service Agreements Note 1: The Department of Juvenile Justice reimbursed the Commission $1,640,621 for construction. The reimbursement may be used to repay a portion of the $4.2 million outstanding loan. CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #66-132-144-175 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001, the following persons addressed Council: Ms. Harriet W. Stanley, 1424 West Drive, S. W., requested that her status on the physically challenged list for solid waste collection be immediately and permanently restored. Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., expressed concern with regard to the need for better communication between Council and the citizens of Roanoke. She advised that the City of Roanoke does not provide a participatory government because citizens are not allowed to engage in dialogue with Council members during Council meetings, citizens are given only five minutes at Council meetings to make remarks, and citizens are not permitted to address Council in work sessions. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh H:XAgenda.01~.ugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.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: ¢lcrk@¢i.roanok¢.va.us August 22, 2001 File #200-424 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk D. Kent Chrisman, Chair City Planning Commission 2319 Avenham Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Walter Rugaber, Chair Citizen's Advisory Committee P. O. Box 988 Roanoke, Virginia 24005 Dear Mr. Chrisman and Mr. Rugaber: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 35535-082001 adopting Vision 2001, dated August 20, 2001, the comprehensive plan for the City of Roanoke, adopting as elements of Vision 2001 those neighborhood plans and plans of development previously adopted as elements of Roanoke Vision; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001, and will be in full force and effect ten days following the date of adoption. Sincerely, f~ ~ P~ar er~' Mary F. ~, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure pc: Dadene L. Burcham, City Manager Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission VVillard N. Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator Ronald L. Smith, Acting Building Commissioner Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer Evelyn S. Lander, Department of Planning and Code Enforcement Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development H:~,genda.01~ugust 20, 2001 corrcspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35535-082001. AN ORDINANCE adopting Vision 2001, dated August 20,2001, the comprehensive plan for the City of Roanoke, adopting as elements of Vision 2001 those neighborhood plans and plans of development previously adopted as elements of Roanoke Vision, and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. WHEREAS, § 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, requires the Planning Commission for the City of Roanoke ("Planning Commission") to prepare and recommend to the City Council for adoption a comprehensive plan for the physical development of' the City of Roanoke; WHEREAS, on May 12, 1986, by Ordinance No. 28141, City Council adopted Roanoke Vision, Comprehensive Development Plan for Roanoke, Virginia, 1985-2005 ("Roanoke Vision"), as the comprehensive development plan for the City of Roanoke; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that Roanoke Vision is outdated and should be replaced; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has caused to be prepared Vision 2001, dated August 20, 2001 ("Vision 2001"), a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the City of Roanoke, by Hutton Associates, Inc., Benson Associates, and Hill Studio, P.C.; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has received public comments pertaining to Vision 2001 and its recommendation takes into account those public comments; WHEREAS, Sections III, IV and V of the South Roanoke Neighborhood Plan, adopted by City Council in Ordinance No. 29198 (July 11, 1988), the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan, adopted by City Council in Ordinance No. 30135-70990 (July 9, 1990), the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenways Plan, adopted by City Council in Ordinance No. 33357-042197 (April 21, 1997), the Roanoke Valley Regional Stormwater Management Plan, adopted by City Council in Ordinance No. 33760-031698 (March 16, 1998), the Greater Raleigh Court Neighborhood Plan, adopted by City Council in Ordinance No. 34303- 051799 (May 17, 1999), the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted by City Council in Ordinance No. 34835-051500 (May 15, 2000), and the Melrose-Rugby Neighborhood Plan, adopted by City Council in Ordinance No. 35434-061801 (June 18, 2001) (hereinafter referred collectively as "Element Plans"), have been adopted as elements of Roanoke Vision; WHEREAS, the purpose of Vision 2001 is to replace Roanoke Vision, but not the Element Plans adopted as elements of Roanoke Vision; WHEREAS, each of such Element Plans referenced above conforms to, and is substantially in accord with, Vision 2001; WHEREAS, the Commission, after giving proper legal notice, and after conducting a public hearing on the matter, recommended to City Council that Vision 2001 should be adopted by the City Council for the City of Roanoke as the comprehensive plan for the physical development of the City of Roanoke to replace Roanoke Vision and that all Element Plans referenced above should be adopted as elements of Vision 2001 by the City Council for the City of Roanoke and certified and sent to the City Council for the City of Roanoke for its consideration; and WHEREAS, this Council, after giving proper legal notice, and after conducting a public hearing on the matter, desires to adopt Vision 2001 as the comprehensive plan for the City of Roanoke and to adopt the Element Plans as elements of Vision 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Vision 2001 be and is hereby adopted by the City Council as the comprehensive plan for the physical development of the City of Roanoke to replace Roanoke Vision. 2. 2001. 3. ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. All Element Plans referenced above are hereby adopted as elements of Vision Pursuant to the provisions of § 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ATTEST: City Clerk. H:\MF.~ASURESkR-VI$ION2001 3 ~~v ~ CHARTERED Roanok~ent of Planning and Code Enforcement Room 166, Municipal Building 21,5 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (540) 853-2344 (Fax) 853-1230 Email: planning@ci.roanoke.va.us August20,2001 Mr. D. Kent Chrisman, Chairman, Planning Commission Mr. Robert B. Manetta, Vice Chair, Planning Commission Mr. Gilbert E. Butler, Jr., Planning Commission Member Mr. S. Wayne Campbell, Planning Commission Member Mr. Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Planning Commission Member Mr. Melvin L. Hill, Planning Commission Member Mr. Richard A. Rife, Planning Commission Member 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 Members of Planning Commission and City Council: Subject: Vision 2001 Comprehensive Plan Background: Section 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia states that "the local planning commission shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the territory within its jurisdiction and every governing body shall adopt a comprehensive plan for the territory under its jurisdiction." In 1986, City Council adopted Roanoke Vision, the City's present Comprehensive Plan. City Council authorized funds for the development of a new comprehensive plan on June 19, 2000. Hutton Associates, Inc., Benson Associates, and Hill Studio, P. C., were hired to assist the City in developing the comprehensive plan and facilitating the public participation process. A Citizen's Advisory Committee, consisting of 44 members, was appointed by City Council in October of 2000 to assist the Planning Commission in developing the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Walter Rugaber served as chair of the committee, and Mrs. Brenda McDaniel served as vice-chair. Seven task teams, chaired by members of the advisory committee, were establish'ed to address specific areas of housing and Roanoke City Planning Commission Architectural Review Board Board of Zoning Appeals neighborhoods, economic development, quality of life, infrastructure, people, public services, and city design. The task teams reviewed the current plan, background information on the specific topics, helped to facilitate public discussions of issues, and assisted in the development of recommended policies, goals and possible action strategies. Approximately fifty public work sessions were held from October, 2000, to June, 2001, to discuss important issues facing the city and to develop the seven basic elements of the plan (housing and neighborhoods; environment, cultural and historic resources; economic development; infrastructure - transportation, technology, utilities; public services - police, fire/EMS, solid waste management, code enforcement; people - education, lifelong learning, health and human services, libraries; and city design). In addition, two public forums were held - one in October of 2000 and one in January of 2001 to discuss the development of the plan and to share the preliminary work and findings of the task teams. The development of the plan was covered by the newspaper, television and radio, and articles were featured in Roanoke Citizen magazine that is mailed to every resident household. Considerations: The purpose of a comprehensive plan is to establish public policy for guiding decisions for land use, the location of public facilities, and the development of public work efforts and budgets. The plan should be broad in its recommendations and should set the framework for more detailed planning. The plan also should be balanced among its elements, considering trade-offs where appropriate. In addition to providing recommended policies for public decisions, Vision 2001 includes a strategic component for implementation that is unique to a comprehensive plan. Action steps are recommended that will involve many community partners - citizens, businesses, ciVic organizations, and government. Regional approaches in addressing issues also are identified. Work sessions to review the draft plan with the City Planning Commission and City Council were held during June and July of 2001. A public session to receive citizen comments was held by the Planning Commission on July 19, 2001. Comments were considered and incorporated where appropriate. A summary of the public comments received and how the comments were addressed was included with the final draft plan of August 3, 2001, that was mailed to you on August 8, 2001. Since that mailing, there have been some minor revisions to the plan that also have been incorporated. A revised final draft plan dated August 20, 2001, is attached for your information, consideration, and adoption. A revised summary of comments and changes to the plan is also attached. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Planning Commission recommend adoption of the final draft Vision 2001 Comprehensive Plan dated August 20, 2001, by formal resolution, including specific referenced elements of Roanoke Vision, and forward a certified copy of the plan to City Council for adoption. It is recommended that City Council adopt the Vision 2001 Comprehensive Plan forwarded by the Planning Commission, including the referenced elements of Roanoke Vision. Respectfully submitted, Evelyn S. Lander, AICP, Agent Roanoke City Planning Commission ESL:mpf attachment cc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Rolanda Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Mary F. Parker, City Clerk The following table summarizes public comments received Topic I Summary of Comment I RecOmmendation Historical Historic clarification needed Add a statement in Chapter 2, page 1, that reads Information regarding Big Lick and the federally as follows: By 1798, the thriving community was established post office in 1798. known as Big Lick and had a federally- established post office. Village Concern expressed regarding the In general, village centers have received strong Centers village center identified in the map support by the community. However, several near the 19th and Andrews Road citizens have been expressed concern regarding area. a specific village center recommended for the area near 19th Street and Andrews Road (Heritage Acres). Delete the village center recommended on 19th Street and Andrews Road as shown on the map in Chapter 5. Industry Include tourism as an industry The plan supports four industry clusters Clusters cluster. (biotechnology, optics, information technology, , transportation-related manufacturing) that are currently being promoted by the Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership. These clusters were identified in a regional economic study because of their significant total employment in the region, as well as their projected growth in the national economy. Tourism was not identified in the study as an industry cluster, but is strongly supported in the ~lan. Do not make tourism an industry cluster. Tree Add statement describing benefits of Add the following statement in Chapter 3, page Canopy the tree canopy in the City. 19, that reads as follows: Maintaining and ~ncreasing the City's tree canopy will have a beneficial impact on air quality, storm water control, noise levels, temperature and visual appearance. Regional Make a reference to a recent Add the following statements in Chapter 3, page Economy economic study about the New 23, that read as follows: A recent economic study Century region by Dr. Christine entitled, Studies on the Regional Economy and Chmura. Public Attitudes Toward Growth in Western Virginia, indicated that employment and population growth has grown at a slower pace in the New Century Region than the state and the nation. Increasing the educational attainment levels of the workforce and focusing efforts to attract industries experiencing growth (i.e., technology) were cited in the study as important economic objectives for the region. Street Design Address traffic calming design in the Modify action statement in Chapter 3, page 42, to Guidelines proposed streetscape manual, read as follows: Adopt standard design principles for streets and develop a manual to guide construction that affects the streetscape and includes attractive designs regarding traffic calming devices. Housing Reference building codes in action Modify action statement in Chapter 3, page 12, to statement in Chapter 3, page 12, of read as follows: Revise zoning ordinance and the Neighborhoods and Housing review the application of the building codes to element, permit the development of live/work space. Public Mention Lafayette Boulevard COPE Add a statement in Chapter 3, page 44, to read Safety unit. as follows: The COPE teams work from satellite sites located in target areas presently at Williamson Road and Lafayette Boulevard. Water Modify action statement in Chapter Modify action statement in Chapter 3, page 21, to Quality 3, page 21, of the Environmental read as follows: Plant natural vegetation, Resources element to include )referably indigenous plant species, on land indigenous plant species, adjacent to the Roanoke River. Housing Modify action statement in Chapter Modify action statement in Chapter 3, page 13, to 3, page 13, of the Neighborhoods read as follows: Consider demolition of derelict or and Housing section, to include neglected structures, outside of historic districts. ' clarification regarding historic districts. Transitional Reference TRUST and the Roanoke Modify action statement in Chapter 3, page 6, to Housing Valley Interfaith Hospitality Network read as follows: Resources for at-risk and the in the background section of the homeless include RAM house, Samaritan's Inn, Housing and Neighborhoods Rescue Mission, TRUST, and the Roanoke element. Valley Interfaith Hospitality Network. .Transitional Concern expressed about the lack of Do not add a sentence regarding group homes. 'housing information in the plan regarding Human services are required for the community's group homes and other forms of vitality. The staff feels that Policy # 8 in Chapter publicly-assisted housing. 3, page 11, adequately addresses group homes and other forms of publicly-assisted housing. Editorial changes Correct grammatical and formatting Make necessary changes regarding grammar, errors and mapping in the plan. mapping and formatting. Implementation Consider corporate sponsorship as Add a statement in Chapter 6, page 4, that reads Tools an incentive for neighborhood as follows: Neighborhood organizations should organizations, consider seeking corporate sponsorship for support of their projects. Implementation Develop zoning map after adoption Add a statement in Chapter 6, page 4, that reads Tools of comprehensive plan. as follows: A zoning map should be developed that reflects the revised zoning code and the recommendations in the plan. Implementation Add statement that recommends a Add a statement in Chapter 6, page 5, that reads Tools detailed matrix with project schedule as follows: A more detailed matrix should be and strategic partners, developed after adopting the plan outlining a project schedule and identifying strategic partners needed to implement the plan. Design : Add statement that incorporates Add a statement in Chapter 4, page 4, that reads 'mixed use development and live- as follows: Commercial corridors should work space in the commercial encourage mixed use development and live/work corridors section of the Design space. element. Design Encourage two-way streets in the Add a statement in Chapter 4, page 2, that reads downtown area. as follows: Encourage two-way streets in the downtown to the maximum extent feasible. Infill Recommend use of the zoning code Add a statement in Chapter 3, page 13, that Development to encourage quality infill reads as follows: Revise zoning code to development, encourage quality infill development that reflects the character of the neighborhood including infill I development standards. Downtown Modify action statement regarding Modify action statement in Chapter 3, page 12, to Living economic incentives and the read as follows: Develop economic incentives application of the building code in and review the application of building code Chapter 3, page 12. regulations in the downtown to encourage residential development. Regional Recommend a regional assessment Modify action statement in Chapter 3, page 20, to Cooperation ;of parks and recreational needs, read as follows: Conduct an assessment of the 3arks and the recreational needs of the region and consider the formation of a Regional Park Authority. Economic Market Enterprise Zones program to Modify action statement in Chapter 3, page 31 to Incentives existing businesses in Roanoke. read as follows: Promote and market the Enterprise Zones program to existing and prospective businesses. Background Mention the Southern Christian Add the Southern Christian Leadership Leadership Conference. Conference to a statement regarding advocacy I organizations in Chapter 2, page 4. Downtown Specify the boundaries of the Do no specify the boundaries of downtown. The boundaries downtown, central business district in the downtown has specific boundaries for taxing purposes; however, for planning purposes, the downtown boundaries extend into the surrounding neighborhoods to ensure coordination and mutually supporting efforts. Transportation Add statement expressing opposition Do not add a statement expresSing opposition to to 1-73 due to concerns expressed 1-73. The plan addresses the impacts of 1-73 and during some Vision 2001 workshops, recommends further stud)/. Environmental Support the development of a Add an action statement in Chapter 3, page 21, Resources ridgeline protection ordinance, that reads as follows: Develop a viewshed protection ordinance and seek regional approaches. Farm land and Develop strategies to protect farm Add an action statement in Chapter 3, page 22, open space land and open space, that reads as follows: Encourage preservation of open space and farm land through appropriate land use programs. Roanoke Encourage development of the Add a statement in Chapter 3, page 20, that River Roanoke River Greenway through reads as follows: Develop strategies that the entire length of the river, encourage development of the Roanoke River Greenway for the entire length of the Roanoke River within the city limits. Storm water Consider vegetative buffers and Modify action statement in Chapter 3, page 21, to management bioengineering as tools for read as follows: Protect and stabilize creek controlling storm water flow. banks by controlling storm water flow and preventing discharge through vegetative buffers, bioengineering and other related methods. Blue Ridge Develop action statement addressing Add action statement in Chapter 3, page 21, that Parkway protection of Blue Ridge Parkway reads as follows: Protect Blue Ridge Parkway corridors adjacent to city limits through coordination with adjacent localities and careful planning. Brand Identity Link outdoors living with Do not add a statement because the plan recommendation for developing a supports using the core strengths, such as the brand identity for Roanoke. quality of life of Roanoke, to develop a brand identity (see Chapter 3 page 29). Roanoke River Develop a river conservation overlay. Modify action statement in Chapter 3, page 21, to read as follows: Protect the shorelines of the Roanoke River to enhance its scenic quality and protect water quality through a river conservation overlay and other appropriate tools. Design Make Design Principles outlined in Do not add a statement making the Design Principles Chapter 4 mandatory. Principles mandatory. The principles are intended to be used as guidelines for developers and for city officials evaluating development proposals. Roanoke River More emphasis needed on the Add the following statement in Chapter 3, page benefits of the Roanoke River. 15, that reads as follows: The Roanoke River is an environmental and economic asset that adds to the quality of life in Roanoke and attracts visitors and tourists to the Cit7. Downtown Discourage demolition of downtown Add action statement in Chapter 3, page 31, that Living buildings being replaced by surface reads as follows: Revise zoning ordinance to parking lots. discourage demolition of downtown buildings beincj replaced by surface parkin~l lots. Housing Clusters Modify definition of housing clusters. Modify definition of housing clusters to read as follows: A housing cluster is a market-rate residential development consisting of mixture of residential uses on a large site, located within or adjacent to existing developments of established neighborhoods. Fair Housing Add a statement to a housing policy Add statement to policy # 5 in Chapter 3, page regarding the City's role in 11, to read as follows: The City will recommend encouraging housing choice, ways to overcome impediments to fair housing by identifying barriers to housing choice, encouraging fair housing education to the community, challenging housing discrimination, requiring affirmative marketing of developments usin~ cit~ funds. Library Address programming and building Modify action statement in Chapter 3, page 55, ~ssues related to the downtown main to read as follows: Improve the downtown main library, library to provide greater accessibility, better service delivery and access to technology. Consider building improvements, a new building or relocation of the library. GENERAL COMMENTS Representative from the Roanoke Regional Homebuilder's Association endorsed the draft Vision 2001 plan Consider using the word "will" in the The word "will" was used in each policy as well plan versus "should". as other sections in the plan for emphasis of a primary statement. Supporting comments in the plan typically used the word "should". Also, design principles appropriately use the word "should." The effect of village centers on racial Village centers are proposed as one method for isolation was questioned, neighborhoods to revitalize their neighborhood commercial areas. Race should have no bearing on their implementation. 8/17/01 4 -I- S-I-O-N 2001 IMAGINE THE FUTURE ~KEEP THE SOUL FINAL DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA August 20, 2001 Submitted to CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL VISION ADVISORY COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT HUTTON ASSOCIATES INC. BENSON ASSOCIATES · HILL STUDIO PC IMA G1NE THE FUTURE / KEEP THE SO UL FINAL DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA AUGUST 20, 2001 Submitted to CITY PLANN~G COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL VISION ADVISORY COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT HUTTON ASSOCIATES INC. BENSON ASSOCIATES · HILL STUDIO PC VISION 2001 Comprehensive Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements Executive Summary Foreword Roanoke 2020: A Vision of the Future Chapter 1. The Planning Process 1.1 Background and Purpose of the Plan 1.2 An Interactive Planning Process: Involvement and Direction Chapter 2. The City at the Cusp of a New Century 2.1 The Past as Prologue: Roanoke's History 2.2 Roanoke Today 2.3 Looking Ahead Chapter 3. Plan Elements: The Building Blocks of the Plan 3.1 Housing and Neighborhoods 3.2 Environmental, Cultural and Historic Resources 3.3 Economic Development 3.4 Infrastructure: Transportation, Technology, Utilities 3.5 Public Services: Police, Fire/EMS, Solid Waste Management, Code Enforcement 3.6 People: Education and Lifelong Learning, Health and Human Services, Libraries Chapter 4. City Design: The Plan's Unifying Theme 4.1 Design Principles 4.2 Implementation 4.3 Design Illustrations Chapter 5. Strategic Map: Mapping the Plan Elements and the Strategic Initiatives 5.1 Strategic Map , Chapter 6. Implementation: Strategies, Tools and Implementation Schedule 6.1 Regional Cooperation and Solutions 6.2 The Plan as an Ongoing Process 6.3 City Organization and Implementation Tools 6.4 Implementation Schedule: Consolidating Actions and Strategies FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/01 VISION 2001 Comprehensive Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Vision 2001 Advisory Committee Walter Rugaber (Chair) Brenda L. McDaniel (Vice-Chair) Carolyn Coles (Housing and Neighborhoods Chair) Frederick M. Williams (Infrastructure Chair) Carl D. Cooper (Public Services Chair) Stephen Lemon (Economic Development Chair) Paula L. Prince (People Chair) Talfourd H. Kemper, Jr.(Environmental Resources Chair) Kevin A. Deck (City Design Chair) Evelyn Bethel Ruth Blackman John P. Bradshaw, Jr Beth Doughty David W. Davis Ill Richard Dearing Christopher Froeschl Pearl Fu Erin Garvin Brian Gottstein Kevin Kays Daniel E. Kames George Kegley Matthew Kennel Mary C. Knapp Jeannette D. Manns Mark McConnel Onawa Miller Jeannie Moses Tom Pettigrew J. Lee E. Osborne Jeanne H. Pedigo Nakia Price Christine C. Profitt Stephanie Scott Patrick N. Shaffner B Brian M. Shepard Dan Smith Elvah D. Taylor James M. Turner, Jr Eddie Wallace Susan L. Willis Jonathan K. Wolfe Richard Rife, Planning Commission member Robert Manetta, Planning Commission member Director: Planning Building and Development Evelyn S. Lander Project Manager David A. Diaz Comprehensive Planning Staff Chris Chittum Frederick Gusler Neil Holthouser James Settle Jacques Scott Ted Tucker Consulting Team Ernest Hutton, Hutton Associates Virginia Benson, Benson Associates David Hill, Hill Studio Administrative Staff Martha Franklin Linda Leedy City School - Internship Students Scott Binnings Jean Teotonio We would like to acknowledge the many members of the Roanoke community who participated in this process. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/01 VISION 2001 Executive Summary Comprehensive Plan Foreword Roanoke as a growing, dynamic and sustainable city. VISION 2001 is a comprehensive plan that will guide investment and decision-making over the next 10 to 20 years. It is important to understand the overall vision and concepts that have guided the development of the Plan's recommended policies and strategies. Roanoke's quality of life and economic development are integrally related. Retaining existing jobs and attracting new jobs are equally important factors in Roanoke's economic stability. Each relies not only on defining costs and benefits of doing business, but also on maintaining and selling the City and region as an attractive place to live and work. Similarly, enhancing Roanoke's livability-- its attractive quality of life, environment, neighborhoods, education, health, public services and civic amenities -- requires the continuing expansion of personal wages and public revenues to pay for these critical amenities. e Roanoke is a city built using quality design principles. Beginning in 1907 with John Nolen's plan for Remodeling Roanoke and continuing to today, comprehensive plans have established the patterns of neighborhoods, business and commercial areas, parks and open space. As recognized by the Nolen plan, considering the big picture for the City is important. A continued comprehensive emphasis on City Design will improve Roanoke's attractiveness for new commercial and residential development and strengthen individual neighborhoods. Future initiatives to promote quality City design should include creation of new neighborhood design districts, landscape and transportation improvements to key corridors and intersections and design guidelines for special economic development areas. Buildings and trees should shape the City's image rather than asphalt and signs. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 i VISION 2001 Executive Summary Comprehensive Plan ge To implement the Plan's policies, a series of strategic initiatives are identified. These initiatives include the following: Targeted Industry Clusters. As the regional economy shifts gears fi.om a manufacturing base to a knowledge-based economy, marketing and development efforts should target industry clusters defined by existing regional assets and opportunities. An example of such a cluster is Roanoke's current biomedical initiative that builds on existing health care resources and higher education/institutional participation. Getting Wired. To accelerate development of technological infrastructure, "getting wired" is a priority objective. Defining a regional relationship with Blacksburg and Virginia Tech will emphasize a complementary development environment for both entrepreneurial startups and established firms. Redeveloping Underutilized Commercial and Industrial Sites. To take advantage of its underutilized industrial and commercial land, the City should inventory industrial and commercial land and defme opportunities for reuse based on market demand and innovative design potential, as well as on site size, location, accessibility and infi.astmcture. Village Centers. As downtown continues to expand its traditional role as the region's business center, new or enhanced village centers can create attractive smaller, decentralized multi-use development sites for commercial activity and higher-density housing. Multi-Service Facilities. To bring needed services closer to neighborhood users, the City can expand the outreach of public and not-for-profit programs for recreation, police, fire, neighborhood, library and human services by creating a series of multi- service facilities at key locations. New Housing Opportunities. Identifying oppommities for new housing clusters ~ potential large site assemblies for development of new residential units -- can provide opportunities for new housing more effectively than current approaches of single-lot infill development. Investing in Critical Amenities. The environmental, entertainment and cultural elements of Roanoke's quality of life are critical amenities that must be financially supported if the region is to fulfill its economic development objectives. The larger community needs to define new methods to share the cost of maintaining and financing such attractions. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 ii VISION 2001 Comprehensive Plan Executive Summary Selling Roanoke to Residents, Newcomers, and Visitors. Roanoke is a well-kept secret within its own boundaries - residents are often not aware of existing amenities. An intense marketing effort must focus on both retaining local citizens, especially young people and attracting outside companies, employees and tourists to "Discover Roanoke" as a place to live, work and play. Roanoke needs to develop a brand identity to be marketed aggressively at the local and global level. Improving Streetscapes. Roanoke's transportation framework has the most potential to affect the City's look and feel for residents and visitors. Creating great streets will improve both Roanoke's image and its function, providing not only a safe but also an attractive environment for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders, as well as for automobile drivers. Based on these values, new design principles should be developed and incorporated into new construction. Demonstration projects also should be pursued that enhance streets for community redevelopment. Healthy Community. Human services -- education and libraries, health facilities and social programs -- are the basic infrastructure for a healthy community. A concentration on high profile, positive programs will organize people-oriented services under a series of easily understandable umbrellas, communicating civic vision, attitude and commitment. Such an approach can include combining early childhood learning, public schools, higher education, libraries and continuing adult education into an integrated program for life-long learning -- or linking outreach programs for health and social services with information and referral networks, establishing the City of Roanoke as a healthy and sustainable community. Roanoke is the heart of the region. The Plan balances and links related elements and initiatives through a comprehensive regional and local development strategy: · Regional linkages are identified that transcend municipal boundaries and relate Roanoke to the surrounding areas. · Priority actions for new land use or public infrastructure initiatives are defined to reinforce multiple objectives. A variety of local project oppommities are identified to promote proactive, public- private development through the implementation of districts, gateway corridors, land use or zoning changes and infrastructure improvements. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 iii VISION 2001 Executive Summary Comprehensive Plan Se The continuing vitality and growth of Roanoke -- like its past development over the last 125 years are dependent on individual and private actions, combined with public investment to ensure quality of life amenities, infrastructure and services. In order to achieve the Plan's challenging goals, a series of agreed implementation steps are critical to achieving them: An ongoing evaluation process to regularly update the Plan and its detailed components for housing, transportation, neighborhood and downtown plans and other elements. · Commitment byparticipants andprivate entities to bepartners on implementing specific proposals Administrative tools to implement the Plan. Such tools may include updates to zoning and other regulatory ordinances, streamlined code compliance procedures and links to City operating and capital budgeting procedures. Go Roanoke's vision is to be a sustainable and livable community. Accomplishing this goal for the City and region implies establishing a permanent, continuing evaluation of economic and quality-of-life indicators an ongoing report card of conditions and progress. The Vision 2001 Plan provides the first step toward reaching this vision. The Plan provides an inventory and evaluation of existing desirable strengths and assets, the quality of life amenities that citizen participants in the planning process hold most dear-- keeping the soul. The Plan establishes a broad model of what citizens want their community to be by recommending a comprehensive and balanced framework for preservation and development, an agenda for action and a method of evaluation for achieving a sustainable community -- imagining the future. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 iv VISION 2001 Comprehensive Plan Executive Summary Roanoke in 2020: A Vision of the Future In the year 2020, Roanoke is a growing, dynamic and sustainable City that is future-focused -- with a strong, diverse economy and a balanced and growing population that values and enjoys a high quality of life in a safe and attractive environment. Working together, the City and region boast a steady growth in jobs and residents, higher school scores, improved government services, and a broader range of recreational and entertainment activities. Through regional cooperation, the mountain views and ridgetops have been protected and are easily accessed by a network of greenways that link downtown, neighborhoods and regional parks and parkways. Roanoke's sustainability is measured not only by the health of its economy, but also by its quality of life. Protecting our natural environment, supporting a wide range of cultural and entertainment amenities, maintaining a first-class educational system and providing ongoing educational opportunities will be the building blocks for attracting new residents and businesses. The Plan establishes a series of specific visions for the year 2020 to accomplish this overall goal: Housing and Neighborhoods Roanoke's neighborhoods are vibrant places for people of all ages, lifestyles and income to live, work and play. To achieve this vision: Roanoke will actively seek to attract a balanced, sustainable population representing all ages, income levels, backgrounds and lifestyles. Roanoke's neighborhoods will be more than just places to live; they will be the nucleus for civic life. Their local 'village centers' serve as vibrant and accessible places for business, community services and activities, including higher-density housing clusters. Roanoke will offer a diversity of housing choices, including not only a range of housing prices but also of housing types such as single-family houses, condominiums, multi-family high-rise and low-rise rental units, town homes and patio homes. Suitable housing should be available in the neighborhood of one's choice for people at all stages of their lives, ranging from new homebuyers to empty nesters. Environmental and Cultural Resources Roanoke successfully markets itself and the region to residents and visitors as both an outdoors and an indoors destination -- combining outstanding cultural and eco-tourism in one community. To achieve this vision: The Roanoke Valley Greenway system will be an interconnected network that not only serves City residents, but also links downtown and village centers to City parks and recreation sites, the River and Mill Mountain. The system will be completed through enhanced regional cooperation with a 'fast-track' implementation schedule. It will also become a regional resource, combining old rights-of-way, river and creek corridors and various public lands and easements into a larger system of hiking trails, park features, fishing areas, rafting zones and other natural features. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 v VISION 2001 Executive Summary Comprehensive Plan Roanoke's clean air and water and greatly expanded greenways and tree cover will be assets that are recognized and supported by the whole community. Entertainment and cultural attractions will draw tourists and visitors who contribute to the City's liveliness. The City will be the regional center for multi-cultural events and attractions celebrating the diversity of the City and the region. The downtown will be a vibrant and dynamic destination that includes an exciting mix of restaurants, clubs and night-spots to complement the art, museum and theatre venues. This is in large part thanks to funding from additional sources and a regional asset district that provides funds from consumer and private sources. Economic Development Roanoke is the strong center of a strong region, boasting a creative, diverse, sustainable economy. To achieve this vision: "New economy" opportunities will be regionally marketed and developed. The Roanoke Valley Economic Development Parmership will successfully market the region's assets to businesses in targeted industry groups such as biotechnology, optics, information technology/software and transportation-related manufacturing and services. Roanoke's vibrant downtown will serve as the economic engine and cultural center for the region, enhanced by new activity centers through the designation of a technology zone and an expanded library and Higher Education Center. The Riverside Centre for Research and Technology, with the Carilion Biomedical Institute as its anchor, will serve as a successful prototype for similar biotechnology industry clusters in the future. Roanoke's brand identity will be known both locally and globally. Roanoke will be rated as one of the top tourist destinations for outdoors and family vacations. The Roanoke name will be associated with its healthy outdoors and adventure areas, combined with high-quality entertainment. The marketing strategy will be credited with increasing tourism and attracting several nationally known businesses to locate in the City. The influx of young professionals and families will boost the City's marketability to businesses that are seeking a quality lifestyle and a pool of talented, highly trained professionals. Roanoke's labor force will be well educated and trained for cutting-edge career opportunities that link industry with colleges and high schools. Underutilized industrial sites throughout the City will be targeted for intensive economic development and reuse. Transportation and Infrastructure In 2020, Roanoke's transportation system is an integrated multi-modal, user-friendly network of well-designed streets that support auto, transit, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. To achieve this vision: FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 vi VISION 2001 Executive Summary Comprehensive Plan Roanoke's transportation system will include an attractive and efficient network of roadways. Landscaped urban boulevards connecting neighborhoods and urban areas will be bordered by sidewalks, comfortable for bikers and linked to greenways. Expressways will be carefully designed to carry traffic through, into and out of the City with carefully minimized impact on surrounding neighborhoods. Local transit will connect higher-density centers of development -- downtown and major employment centers along main roadway corridors -- supported by a demand-driven system of buses and shuttles that serves areas of greatest access needs. Air traffic will link the region to major national destinations and passenger rail service will have returned to the City, making possible short trips to Charlottesville, Richmond, Washington and other points north or south. A framework of support infrastructure will set the stage for sustainable economic growth and quality development -- not only the physical network of telecommunications, public utilities and private energy networks, but also an associated program of available earmarked space, trained workforce and supportive government policies. Public Safety and Services The City delivers high-quality, effective services to maintain and enhance the City's safety, appearance and environment. To achieve this vision: Roanoke will be known as a safe City where public services are professional, standardized, responsive and community oriented. Public safety services will be provided equitably, efficiently and effectively to citizens, regardless of jurisdiction. The City will have a multi-departmental approach to identifying and resolving a variety of community issues and strengthening the cooperative relationship among City departments, business and neighborhood organizations and citizens. Multi- service facilities in key areas of the City will offer needed public services and programs at convenient and accessible locations. Solid waste management and recycling will be a model program with participation from all citizens in the City and in other jurisdictions. People and Human Development In 2020, all citizens have access to a first-rate educational system linked to skills-based training programs and state-of-the-art health care to enhance and support a healthy and productive life. To achieve this vision: The City will promote lifelong learning for all citizens by encouraging the development of first-class academic and vocational institutions that recognize the changing global economy and diverse world in which we live. Roanoke's schools will be known for their enhanced education programs that ensure all children receive a quality education for entry into the workplace or participation in higher education. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 vii VISION 2001 Executive Summary Comprehensive Plan The library is a state-of-the art information and research center. The new downtown library will receive national recognition as a model for the new role of libraries in the community as collections of information, knowledge centers and community learning locations. The video conferencing center has enabled small businesses and groups to actively participate in national and international programs; the coffee shop is a favorite meeting place and regularly hosts programs ranging from authors' nights to scrabble tournaments. The City's state of the art health care and research facilities continue to provide the highest quality health care for residents in the region. A community-based system will bring human and health services into neighborhoods to provide affordable, accessible health and human services that respond to needs and improve the quality of life for all citizens. New multi-service facilities in neighborhoods will include outreach space for public sector and non-profit human services programs and provide services to citizens where they are needed. These facilities will function as 12 month community centers for education, lifelong learning, information and referral and recreation for people of all ages. City Design Finally, a unifying theme to implement Roanoke's vision of a sustainable and livable City is that of City design -- increasing the beauty of Roanoke's gateways and streetscapes, neighborhood and housing developments, village commercial centers and new economic development and institutional growth. To achieve this vision: Design improvements to major entry corridors into the City will enhance Roanoke's image and the visual appearance of the City. Design principles and guidelines will serve as marketing tools and provide desired models for new development by investors and landowners that encourage compatibility with existing neighborhoods. Village centers and areas for housing clusters will provide oppommities for new economic development initiatives. Similarly, new public facilities and buildings will be designed for quality appearance and multiple functions. Streets will have minimal pavement width, place greater emphasis on tree canopy and sidewalks and include bicycle and pedestrian systems. Impacts of new development will be carefully mitigated through creative planning and design. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 VIII IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE ~ CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, A RESOLUTION recommending adoption of Vision 2001, dated August 20, 2001, the comprehensive plan for the City of Roanoke, to City Council, recommending adoption as elements of Vision 2001 those neighborhood plans and plans of development previously adopted as elements of Roanoke Vision, and certifying a copy of the same to City Council. WHEREAS, § 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, requires the Planning Commission for the City of Roanoke ("Planning Commission") to prepare and recommend to the City Council for adoption a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the City of Roanoke; WHEREAS, on May 12, 1986, by Ordinance No. 28141, City Council adopted Roanoke Vision, Comprehensive Development Plan for Roanoke, Virginia, 1985-2005 ("Roanoke Vision"), as the comprehensive development plan for the City of Roanoke; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that Roanoke Vision is outdated and should be replaced; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has caused to be prepared Vision 2001, dated August 20, 2001 ("Vision 2001"), a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the City of Roanoke, by Hutton Associates, Inc., Benson Associates, and Hill Studio, P.C.; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has received public comments pertaining to Vision 2001 and its recommendation takes into account those public comments; WHEREAS, Sections III, IV and V of the South Roanoke Neighborhood Plan, adopted by City Council in Ordinance No. 29198 (July 11, 1988), the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan, adopted by City Council in Ordinance No. 30135-70990 (July 9, 1990), the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenways Plan, adopted by City Council in Ordinance No. 33357-042197 (April 21, 1997), the Roanoke Valley Regional Stormwater Management Plan, adopted by City Council in Ordinance No. 33760-031698 (March 16, 1998), the Greater Raleigh Court Neighborhood Plan, adopted by City Council in Ordinance No. 34303-051799 (May 17, 1999), the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted by City Council in Ordinance No. 34835-051500 (May 15, 2000), and the Melrose-Rugby Neighborhood Plan, adopted by City Council in Ordinance No. 35434-061801 (June 18, 2001) (hereinafter referred collectively as "Element Plans'), have been adopted as elements of Roanoke Vision; WHEREAS, the purpose of Vision 2001 is to replace Roanoke Vision, but not the Element Plans adopted as elements of Roanoke Vision; WHEREAS, each of such Element Plans referenced above conforms to, and is substantially in accord with, Vision 2001; and WHEREAS, this Commission, after giving proper legal notice, and after conducting a public hearing on the matter, is prepared to make its recommendation to City Council on whether Vision 2001 should be adopted as the comprehensive plan for the City of Roanoke and whether the Element Plans should be adopted as elements of Vision 2001. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission for the City of Roanoke that: 1. Vision 2001 should be adopted by the City Council for the City of Roanoke as the comprehensive plan for the physical development of the City of Roanoke to replace Roanoke Vision; 2 2. All Element Plans referenced above should be adopted as elements of Vision 2001 by the City Council for the City of Roanoke; and 3. A copy of Vision 2001 is hereby certified and sent to the City Council for the City of Roanoke for its consideration. Adopted this 20th day of August, 2001. APPROVED: ATTEST: By~y ~e'~-~Lc-~ ~' ~"~ Chairman Secretary H:L'M~A SURES\pc- vision2001 3 ROANOKE VIRGINIA Future/Keep the Soul Presemation of City Council- Dive Plan August 20, 2t I am pleased to be here today to presem new Comprehensive Plan for the City of Roanoke. Hard work and many hours of citizen involvement and input. Special recognition to 1. Consultants: Emie Hutton, Jinni Benson, David Hill & staff 2. Planning Staff: David Diaz, project manager & staff Planners, clerical staff 3. Citizen's Advisory Committee Members: 44 members, Walter Rugaber, Chair & Brenda McDaniel, Vice Chair 4. Task Team Chairs: Paula Prince, Stephen Lemon, Carl Cooper, Rick Williams, Carolyn Coles, Ford Kemper 5. Special thanks to many citizens who came to the work sessions and provided us with their thoughts and ideas 6. Special thanks to City Manager, City Council, Planning Commission, and Department Managers for their support, insight, and involvement The final plan that is before you this evening has a new date of 8/20/01. The plan includes a few minor changes since the draft that was made available and dated 8/3/01. These changes are summarized in an accompanying sheet to the documem which is available for citizens this evening if they P ary · Purpose of Comprehensive PI · Challenges Facing Roanoke · Planning Process · Plan Key Themes · Plan Elements - Key Recommendations · Implementation & Next Steps 08/20/2001 Read fi'om slide 2 Purpose mprehensive Plan · Required by State of Vir · Guide for Land Development · Includes Many Elements · Balance Among Elements · Broad and Forward Thinking · Realistic Goals and Actions 08/20/2001 Read fi'om Slide Challenges '~g Roanoke · Decreasing Population · Changing DemOgraphics · Aging Housing Stock · Little New Housing Development · Stagnant Economy · Limited New Land for Development 08/20/2001 Read fi.om slide 4 Plann · Public Survey · Citizen Advisory Committee · 2 Public Forums + 1 Furore · 6 Task Teams + 1 City Design · Approximately 50 Public Work Sessi · Over 2,000 Participants 08/20/2001 Planning for the development of the Comprehensive Plan began almost one year ago. Survey was distributed to every city household and the results shared at one of the first public meetings to kick offthe plan. A 44 member Citizen Advisory Committee was appointed by City Council to guide the development of the plan and the public participation process. Two public forums were held and another is planned for the future to kick off the plan. The work is really just beginning ! Citizens will be needed to help implement the plan and work as partners with government to achieve its bold goals and action strategies. Six task teams were established to discuss issues facing the city. A seventh team on city design was also formed later in the process to work with the recommendations of the six other task teams with respect to the design of new development. All together there were approximately 50 public work sessions held from October of 2000 until May of 2001. PI; Themes · Roanoke is the heart · Roanoke must be a sustainable community · Roanoke's quality of life and economic development are integrally related · Roanoke's environment and cultural resources are important assets · Roanoke must be a beautiful city 08/'20/2001 There are several key themes that are found throughout the plan. These themes form the basis for the plan's recommendations and action strategies. These key themes are (read from slide) 6 PLA EMENT: Housing and N borhoods · Neighborhoods as Villages · Housing Choice · Affordable Housing · Neighborhood Plans 08/20/2001 · These are some of the key recommendations from the Homing and Neighborhoods section of the plar~ · One of the key recommended strategies for moving our city forward is to look at our neighborhoods as villages that are served by small commercial centers. Raleigh Court and South Roanoke neighborhoods have vibrant centers. Henry Street once provided such a center to the Gainsboro neighborhood. The plan identifies several neighborhood centers and recommends appropriate commercial and mixed homing opportunities around these centers. It is important to point out that the creation of these centers may result in the redevelopmem of some existing neighborhood areas - some demolition of existing residential buildings may have to be done to provide for new mixed use development. · A strong emphasis is placed on creating new housing oppommities in the City - both in the choice of housing type and in the price ranges. It is important that citizens have choices in housing for all neighborhoods and that neighborhoods provide a range of homes, from affordable to high end. · Neighborhood plans will continue to be done for all city neighborhoods. Approximately 1/3 of the city has been studied and plans developed - some of which will be coming to you in the near future. These plans will complement the Comprehensive Plan and make more detailed recommendations regarding specific strategies and zoning patterns. 7 Environment ENT: eGreenways · Mountain Viewsheds eTrees · Historic Resources eAir and Water Quality 0~/20/2001 · The city and the region's environmental resources are very important to our quality of life and our future. · In particular, greenways, viewsheds, and trees were identified as critical to our future. · In addition, the preservation and enhancement of historic properties is critical to understanding our sense of place and our past history. It is important to note that the City Market and our historic neighborhoods have been successful economic investment tools. · Finally, air and water quality is increasingly more important to our future sustainability. New protection regulations will not be easy to deal with, but are very much needed to have quality air and water now and in the future. 8 Economic MENT: · Expanded Economic Base · Redevelopment of Underutilized · Downtown · Village Centers · Regional Economic Development 08/20/2001 · Economic Development is fundamental to achieving the goals set forth in the Plan. The plan recommends an expanded economic base that targets various industry clusters. · It is important that we continue to diverSify our economic base and consider new areas for redevelopment. · Downtown continues to be key to our economic well-being. Downtown housing is recommended for expansion, as well as better utilization of second and third floor spaces. · Village centers are keys to our residential neighborhoods. These recommended commercial and mixed use areas will provide unique environments and services to residents, thereby competing well with surrounding suburb development that relies on the automobile. · Regional economic development and approaches continue to be recommended. 9 PLA MENT: Infrast re · Regional Transportation · Multi-modal approach ( Bicycles, Transit) · Airport · Technology Infrastructure · Regional Water, Sewer, Storm Drains 08/20/2001 · Transportation systems do not stop at jurisdictional lines. Regional planning for transportation systems is important to ensuring quality development that enhances existing built communities. · The development of multi-modal transportation systems for cars, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit is strongly recommended in the plan. Our city should not be dependent on cars for transportation. We should encourage sidewalks, greenways, and bicycle facilities as well as considering transit alternatives in the future. · Our regional airport is important to Economic Developmem and to the residents of our region. Special attention is needed to ensure quality facilities and operations that adequately serve its users. · If we are to attract new technology and businesses that use the technology, we must provide the infrastructure to service those users. Our eominued leadership is needed to work with private businesses to provide services and promote them as available. · Finally, regional approaches to water and sewer facilities, as well as the management of storm water nmoff are recommended. 10 Public ENT: · Community Policing ·Recycling · Code Administration · Multi-Service Facilities 08/20/2001 · Community policing as a philosophy for providing public safety continues to be emphasized in making our commullity safe. · Recycling also was identified as very important to a sustainable community. Our programs will need your continued leadership to emphasize recycling as important. · Code administration for building, zoning, developmem, and nuisance regulations should continue to be improved to meet the needs of Roanoke's citizens and businesses. Careful balancing of interests is important to the success of any new regulations that may be proposed. *Two multi-service facilities (or centers) are recommended as pilot projects to better serve citizens where the needs are the greatest. These are not meant to duplicate services provided by city hall, but to provide better access to citizens where it is needed and to have city staff work collabomtively in the community to address issues and needs. It is important to note that these are not community centers and will not be in every neighborhood. They could, however, be located in existing public buildings in a neighborhood. 11 Peo MENT: · Quality Education · Excellent Facilities and Programs · Lifelong Learning · Workforce Development · Regional Approaches for Human 08/20/2001 · It is essential that our school system continue to provide quality education to our youth and that the school facilities and programs be available to all citizens beyond school hours. · Lifelong learning is essential to our future for both young and old. Our libraries and schools should provide quality programs to enhance continued education. · Workforce developmem - that is education and training - is critical to both economic development initiatives and that of people. · Regional approaches to providing human services should be encouraged and pursued. 12 P MENT: Cityn Design Principles eCollaborative Work Efforts 08/20/2001 · The design of new buildings and facilities is critical to creating a beautiful city. · The plan provides recommendations for various areas of the city including commercial corridors, streets, and neighborhoods. These principles are guidelines that are to be used to encourage quality development. · It is anticipated that the principles would be promoted through collaborative work efforts between city staff and private developers. 13 nitiatives · Target Industry Clusters · Technology Infrastructure · Redevelopment Commercial · Village Centers · Multi-Service Facilities 08/2012001 To jump start the plan's implememation, ten strategic initiatives were discussed in detail. Various opportunities were idemified and strategies developed to help get initial projects underway. These "Top Ten Projects" are discussed in greater detail in the plan and serve as models for development that can be applied to specific areas or to many areas of the city. Read some from slide 14 nitiatives · New Housing · Critical Amenities · Marketing and Tourism · Streetscapes · Healthy Community 08/20/2001 Read from slide 15 Implem on Tools · Zoning Ordinance · Integrated Budgets · Regional Cooperation · Public-Private Partnerships 08/20/2001 *To assist in implementing the plan additional strategies must be undertaken. *A new zoning ordinance should be developed over the next year. *City operating budgets and capital improvemem program budget should reflect the Comprehensive Plan and adopted Neighborhood plans. *Regional cooperation is necessary to effectively achieve many of the goals for the furore. *Public private partnerships are essential to the implementation of the plan. Governmem cannot do it alone. 16 Next Steps rement · Public Forum · Annual Report Card · Community Indicators · City Department Strategic Business · Continued Citizen Involvement · Detailed Plans (Neighborhoods, Downtown) 0g/20/2001 · The next step is a public form that is planned for early October at which we will "roll out" the plan and challenge citizens and businesses to work with govemmem on implementing key projects. We hope that the forum will be energizing and effective in moving Vision 2001 from a paper plan to action. · To measure our progress it is recommended that city admini.qtration provide Council and citizens with an annual report card on the actions taken or pending. · In addition, it is recommended that community indicators be developed to assist in monitoring our sustainable c0mmllllity. Discussions with Virginia Tech have already begun and the Vital Signs Report fi:om the New Century Council would also be of help. · Continued citizen involvement is important to ensuring that we are doing what we need to do. · Also, on-going planning for the city and our neighborhoods must continue. 17 A Bright 2021' Future · Regional Partnerships · New and Unique Housing Opportunities · Outstanding Quality of Life · Sustainable New Economy · Beautiful, Well-designed City In closing, let me share with you some thoughts for Roanoke in 2021. Read from slide Working together, we can ensure a bright and shining future for our star city. 18 ~,~ o o ~ RoANOK"~ VIRGINIA Future/Kee£ the Soul ~Plan City Counc~ Pre ,ummary e Purpose ¢ · Challenges Facing Roanoke · Planning Process · plan Key Themes · Plan Elements - Key Recommendations · implementation & Next Steps Purpose ;nsive Plan · Required by State · Guide for Land Development · Includes Many · Balance Among Elements · Broad and Forward Thinking · Realistic Goals and Actions Challenges Roanoke · Decreasing Population · Changing Demographics · Aging Housing Stock · Little New Housing Development · Stagnant Economy · Limited New Land for Development · Public Survey · Citizen Advisory Committee · 2 Public Forums + 1 Future · 6 Task Teams + t City Design · Approximately 50 Public · Over 2,000 Participants PI Themes · Roanoke is th~ · Roanoke must be a · Roanoke's quality of life and economic development are integrally related · Roanoke's environment and cultural resources are important assets · Roanoke must be a beautiful city VISION 2001 Chapter 1 Comprehensive Plan 1. The Planning Process 1. I BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF PLAN The City's comprehensive plan is an official public document adopted by City Council. The Plan is to be used as a long-term guide for land use decisions related to growth and development and to assist the City in determining when and where new public facilities and improvements are needed. Recommendations of the comprehensive plan are typically general and long-range to outline a vision of the City over a 20-year period. Legal Basis for the Plan Vision 2001 was developed in accordance with Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The local planning commission is authorized to prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the territory within its jurisdiction. Every governing body is required to adopt a comprehensive plan for the territory under its jurisdiction. The Plan is to be general in nature and designate the general location, character and extent of public facilities shown on the Plan. Updating the Plan Annual Report The Plan recommends conducting an annual review of the comprehensive plan in coordination with the City's operating budget, capital improvements program, departmental strategic plans and other financial and regulatory tools. The annual report is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6. Five- Year Updates The Code of Virginia requires that the comprehensive plan be reviewed at least every five years. Detailed procedures for developing five-year updates are recommended for this plan in Chapter 6. Amendments As with any document, amendments may be needed over time depending on new initiatives, more detailed planning, or changes in government policy. Examples of possible future amendments include neighborhood plans, transportation improvement plans, housing plan, parks plan or other master plans. Conflicts may arise between previously adopted and newly proposed policies. The policies and actions within Vision 2001 will supersede any conflicting policies, actions, guidelines and/or principles contained in any of the area or neighborhood plans. Plan Implementation The Plan can be implemented through a variety of regulatory and financial tools. Generally, comprehensive plans are implemented primarily through the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, Operating Budget and Capital Improvements Program, Neighborhood Plans, and Master Plans for specific areas. Understanding and Using the Plan Chapters 1 and 2 provide background material for understanding the primary purpose of the Plan and the Planning process used to develop Vision 2001. Chapter 3 contains the Plan's elements and summarizes the main ideas and recommendations of the Plan. Each element consists of four parts that build on one another: FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 1.1 VISION 2001 Chapter 1 Comprehensive Plan Background: Policy approach: Policies: Actions: fact-based information that informed policy approaches community values used to develop policies guidelines to be used when evaluating development measurable steps to implement the Plan Chapter 4 includes the City Design principles to be used as guidelines for development. This chapter also provides design illustrations for selected model development opportunities. Chapter 5 includes a Strategic Map that consolidates the main recommendations made in the elements of the Plan. Chapter 6 contains a matrix that consolidates the actions identified in the Plan's elements into a single document. A general timeframe and participants responsible for implementing the Plan are identified with each action. 1. 2 AN INTERACTIVE PLANNING PROCESS: INVOLVEMENT AND DIRECTION Past Plans Thc renowned John Nolen plans of 1907, Remodeling Roanoke, and 1928, The Comprehensive City Plan, established the framework for the City's growth. Initially sponsored by thc Women's Civic Betterment Club, a local volunteer group, and later a City Planning Commission, these far-reaching visions were created while Roanoke was still an emerging railroad town. The Nolcn plans defined boulevard corridors, open space systems, and an interrelated network of residential neighborhoods, community facilities, and centrally-located businesses and services. Nolcn's legacy can be seen in Roanoke through its attractive riverside drive, grid street pattern, trees, grouped civic buildings, neighborhood parks, and Mill Mountain. The process and responsibility for city planning has grown and changed since Nolen. A comprehensive plan completed in 1964 responded to urban issues and resulted in policies for urban renewal in downtown and in the City's aging neighborhoods. The 1985 'Roanoke Vision' comprehensive plan used a visioning process that earned Roanoke national recognition for incorporating community participation into the way it does business. The Plan engaged neighborhood energy and enthusiasm through a series of public forums, TV programs, citizen surveys, and outreach meetings. Results have included preservation of historic areas, revitalization of neighborhoods and commercial districts, beautification projects, new commercial/ employment projects around the airport and Valley View Mall and the development of the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology. In addition, the Plan initiated a series of community-based neighborhood plans. Vision 2001: A Participatory Process Vision 2001 is a product of an intensive citizen-participation process involving more than 2,000 citizens through public forums, surveys, interviews and public meetings. The community-participation process was launched in the fall of 2000 with a citywide forum attended by more than 200 residents who were asked to share their ideas for the future. In addition, a citizen-opinion survey was mailed to all city households in the premier issue of Roanoke Citizen. The forum and the survey provided the direction for the 44-member Vision 2001 Advisory Committee appointed by City Council in October 2000. A series of public meetings and neighborhood workshops were held between the fall of 2000 and the spring of 2001, inviting the community to discuss the Plan concepts as it was being developed by the Committee and City staff. The overall strategy of Vision 2001 and its many specific approaches are based on the goals and values expressed by the community. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Parle '1.2 VISION 2001 Chapter 1 Comprehensive Plan City Council Direction In 1997, City Council adopted a strategic vision to guide city policy: City Council Vision Roanoke, "The Star City," appreciating its past and planning for a shining future, will be a community of excellence, providing an outstanding quality of life through educational, economic and cultural opportunities for all people who live, work and visit here. Effective Government Roanoke City government will be a leading force in shaping and achieving the future of our community. We will be participatory, responsive, and efficient, valuing diverse community involvement, public/private partnerships, and regional cooperation. Citizens will be involved in the establishment of community priorities. Our facilitative government will bring together aH available resources to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Economy Roanoke, with its vibrant downtown, will be a dynamic, diversified regional center of commerce and tourism, competing effectively in the global economy. To enhance economic opportunities, we will promote regional cooperation, nurture growth in existing business, and recruit attractive new business and industry. Roanoke will be a destination for people seela'ng a unique combination of scenic, cultural, and recreational attractions. Education Roanoke will be a "learning" community, providing the necessary educational resources and opportunities for all persons to develop to their maximum potentials. Through community involvement and the latest technology, we will provide quality public education. We will strengthen our cooperation with area colleges and universities and expand continuing education to promote an environment of life-long learning. Quality of Life Roanoke will be a community where every person and every family is important and respected. }Ye will be a community of stable, safe, healthy, caring, and friendly neighborhoods. We will protect our natural environment and promote cultural, social, economic, and recreational opportunities that encourage present and future generations to choose Roanoke as their home. In adopting and reaffirming this strategic vision, City Council confn-rns its commitment to protecting, enhancing and strengthening these qualities to ensure that Roanoke continues to maintain its place as the economic, cultural, financial and medical center for the region and throughout Southwest Virginia. VISION2001 is an opportunity to implement City Council's vision for Roanoke's future. The City's comprehensive plan is one of many tools that are vital to the successful implementation of Council's vision. The Plan establishes the goals and direction that will guide annual decision-making processes such as the capital improvements program, consolidated plan update and transportation improvement plan, as well as ongoing detailed plans and strategies such as neighborhood plans, a housing plan or a downtown plan. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 1.3 VISION 2001 REVISED Chapter 2 A.1. · Comprehensive Plan 2. THE CITY AT THE CUSP OF A NEW CENTURY 2.1 THE PASTAS PROLOGUE: ROANOKE'S HISTORY Roanoke's history as a crossroads for commerce began in the 1740s. Mark Evans and Tasker Tosh came fi.om Pennsylvania and took up land near the salt licks where Indian and animal trails crossed in the center of the valley. For generations, those salt marshes, or licks as they were called, had been a gathering place for buffalo, elk and deer, and the Native Americans who hunted them. By 1798, the thriving community was known as Big Lick and had a federally-established post office. In 1834, the Town of Gainesborough, was chartered adjacent to the village of Big Lick. The Virginia and Tennessee Railroad came to the valley in 1852 and established its route just south of the community. With the coming of the railroad, the settlement patterns of Big Lick shifted further south and west to the area now in the vicinity of Second Street, S.W. and the railroad tracks. The older settlement, including Gainesborough, became known as Old Lick. In 1874, the new village center was chartered as the Town of Big Lick. Seven years later, with the coming of the Shenandoah Valley Railroad, which later became the Norfolk & Western Railway, Big Lick was renamed Roanoke for the fiver and the county. Roanoke was derived fi.om the Indian word "Rawrenock," a name for the shell beads worn by the Indians and used for trade. The arrival of the railroad marked the beginning of the building boom. The legacy of development patterns begun in these early boom years is still evident. The location of the Norfolk and Western headquarters in Roanoke sparked a building boom between 1874 and 1889. Roanoke was chartered as a city in 1882. Industrial development grew along the rail lines and the Roanoke River. Speculative land companies built housing to meet the needs of the railway workers. By the early 1900s, Roanoke had established itself as a growing industrial City and the desire for homeownership spun'ed more substantial residential, development. In 1907, Roanoke's first comprehensive plan, entitled Remodeling Roanoke, was commissioned by a group of citizens called the Women's Betterment Civic League. This plan, by John Nolen, was one of the fa'st such efforts in the nation. It established the foundation for the City by coordinating the location of the'downtown buildings along Jefferson Street and at the site of the City Market, establishing an orderly street system and proposing a network of parks. Twenty years later, Roanoke citizens and City government recognized the need to update The Plan. Key results of the 1928 plan can be seen throughout Roanoke today. The road and park systems were developed and schools locations were identified. The sites for Victory Stadium, the City's first airport, and the present mumcipal buildings were chosen. The Plan included the City's first zoning ordinance, which controlled how land in the City could be used. By 1964, the City had grown to include 26 square m/les with a population of 97,110. When the City developed a new plan in 1964, the prevailing wisdom was that the greater metropolitan area, which included Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Salem City and Vinton, would continue to grow rapidly. Residential and retail development would follow the national trend of moving to outlying suburban areas. While business would continue to locate in the central downtown area, the surrounding City, with its easy access to rail sidings and major thoroughfares, would continue to be an attractive and cost-effective location for large industry. FINAI. DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 2.1 VISION 2001 Chapter 2 Comprehensive Plan The Plan responded to this projection by recommending reuse of old neighborhood areas as centers for business, industry, offices and institutions. In 1966, the City's zoning code was changed to reflect this plan. While The Plan reflected the accepted development theory, little protection was built into the zoning or planning to protect the residential and other low-density areas during the projected transition phase to higher density and more intense business and industrial uses. From the1980s to the present, as described in the introduction, Roanoke turned to structured citizen input to help guide its planning and decision making. Not coincidentally, the City began to rediscover the value of its older neighborhoods. Approaches were developed to retain the City's residential and business character. Revised zoning reflected preservation values and mitigation of conflict from new development. New action plans and strategies for downtown, neighborhoods, parks and economic development were created. Roanoke continued to evolve from a manufacturing to a service economy while maintaining its stability as a mature City, the vibrant center of a vital region. 2.2 ROANOKE TODAY Who we are: Demographics and Institutions Demographic Base Roanoke has a relatively stable population representing approximately 40% of the metropolitan area. No large population gains or losses have occurred in the past 20 years. The City has experienced a slight but steady population decrease from the 1980 census of 100,200 and the 1990 Census of 96,397 to the 2000 census of 94,911. Between 1990 and 2000, the metropolitan area population increased by 5% to 235,932. Roanoke's successful efforts to diversify the economy, develop a strong downtown and strengthen neighborhoods have been credited for the City's success in Percentage Population Change 20% 15% ~ ' ~ 5% -5% [-~'-Virginia -II. Roanoke MSA --e--Roanoke City] retaining a relatively stable population base in the face of the trend for central cities to experience more significant population loss. For purposes of The Plan, the City should project the continued trend of a slight but steady population decrease over the next 10 years. Reporting on population statistics and trends has traditionally relied on information provided by the U. S. Census Bureau. The population totals and ethnic characteristics from the 2000 census indicate very slight changes from the projections and trends used by the City's Master Parks Plan (which incorporated data from Claritas, Inc., a national firm specializing in projections and market trends) and the University of Virginia Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. For planning purposes, as detailed U.S. Census data is not yet available, the statistics currently available from these latter sources will be used in describing the City's demographics. Age structure There has been very little change in the age structure since 1985, except for the inevitable aging of different generations, moving their relative proportion along the population curve. The largest segment of the population (59.3%) falls into the working age brackets of 20-64. Roanoke's elderly residents, age 65 and over, and youth, age 18 and under, together comprise an estimated 40.7% of the population. These non-working age groups require a variety of health, education, recreation and other human services. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 2.2 VISION 2001 Chapter 2 Comprehensive Plan The over 64 population in Roanoke continues to rise. In 1970 it was 13.5% of the City total, in 1980 it was 15.7%, in 1990 it was 17% and in 2000 the percentage of residents 65 and older decreased to 16%. Trends The increase in population is occurring in the age groups of 40-54 and ages 85+. This is generally the older families, empty nesters and retired citizens groups. Senior citizen groups are increasing in part due to longer life expectancies. The age group of 10-14 shows the highest increase among the under 18 age groups. AGE 17 & UNDER AGE 18-44 AGE 45-64 AGE 65-84 AGE 85 & OVER JURISDICTION MED. # % # % # % # % # % AGE Botetourt 36.8 5,806 23.20% 10,281 41.10% 5,858 23.40% 2,836 11.40% 211 0.90% County Roanoke City 35.2 21,174 22.00% 40,890 42.40% 17,887 18.60% 14,459 15.00% 1,987 2.10% Roanoke 37.3 17,827 22.50% 32,776 41.30% 18,023 22.70% 9,498! 12.00% 1,208 1.50% County Salem City 37.1 4,667 19.60% 9,973 42.00% 5,172 21.80% 3,529 14.90% 415 1,70% MSA TOTAL 36.4 49,474 22.00% 93,920 41.90% 46,940 20.90% 30,322 13.50% 3,821 1.70% Bureau of the Census: 1990 The decreases in population are occurring in the age groups of 18-29 and 60-69 year olds. The younger set are generally the younger adults right out of college or young couples who move due to job and housing opportunities. Each of these trends is largely due to past population bulges or dips for specific age groups, modified to some degree by in and out-migration trends. For instance, the dip in age of 60-69 year olds mirrors earlier low proportions of 50-59 year olds ten years ago. Consequently, an expected bulge in seniors can be expected in twenty years time, as the current bulge in 4049 year olds makes its way through the system. This projection has policy and economic implications. Similarly, the current dip in 10-19 year olds can cause concern if it extends into a future dip in younger- age workers and parents. This could be mitigated by additional in-migration, spurred by economic opportunities or other factors. ~ Population characteristics The majority racial population is that of whites at 71.3%. African-Americans are the second largest group, projected to have increased from 24.1% in 1990 to 27.4% in 2000. Hispanic-Americans and Asian-Americans, although smaller groups in terms of absolute numbers, are rapidly expanding in terms of percentage of growth, both projected to have increased from 0.7% in 1990 to 2% by the year 2000. Chart 1: Population Trends FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 2.3 VISION 2001 Chapter 2 Comprehensive Plan An analysis of the impediments to fair housing in the Roanoke Metropolitan Area completed in April 2001 reports a high degree of racial isolation in the City and metropolitan area. An estimated 89.7% of the population of the metro area lies in census tracts that are either overwhelmingly white (more than 80%) or overwhelmingly black. Although the number of African-Americans living in Roanoke County, Salem City and the Town of Vinton increased, the majority of the area African-Americans (85.4%) live in the City. Household Size and Characteristics Decreasing household size is another national trend shared by Roanoke. In Roanoke, household size has decreased from 2.85 persons per household in 1970 to 2.6 in 1980 and 2.3 in 1990, and is projected to decrease to 2.22 in 2002. The total number of households is also decreasing. Institutional Capacity Roanoke's strong citizen spirit is reflected in its support of a wide range of civic, cultural, environmental and religious organizations. Neighborhood Organizations The Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership, a public/private partnership including neighborhoods, businesses, civic and human service agencies and the City government, has been actively involved in supporting community activities since 1980. It has grown from the initial four neighborhoods to an active membership of more than 20 neighborhood and business organizations. The Partnership has grown from its initial role of supporting and developing neighborhood organizations to providing technical assistance on a range of projects from the creation of neighborhood development corporations, grant writing and self-sufficiency. The National Conference for Community and Justice provides services regarding conflict resolution, advocacy, promoting cultural and religious understanding, and multicultural education. Participating neighborhood organizations range from small groups focused on neighborhood clean-up projects and crime prevention programs to larger multi-focused organizations actively involved in development projects and citizen advocacy. Advocacy and Action Groups Roanoke and its surrounding region also boast a wide range of advocacy and action groups, ranging from topical groups such as environmental and historic organizations to special focus groups such as the NAACP, Total Action Against Poverty, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and other nonprofit organizations. Civic and Cultural Organizations In keeping with the City's position as a regional hub, Roanoke's civic and cultural organizations such as the Jaycees, Kiwanis, Arts Council, Square Society, Junior League and Lions Clubs attract members from the greater Roanoke region. This infusion of energy and support for the community strengthens the City's position as the financial, retail and cultural center of the Valley. As the largest City in western Virginia, Roanoke is rich in multi-cultural organizations, including museums, theaters, symphony, ballet, opera, and others that provide a wide range of cultural opportunities for City residents and the surrounding region. Outdoor interests are strongly supported by a range of clubs and organizations that sponsor outdoor activities and champion the importance of maintaining the natural environment. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Parle 2.4 VISION 2001 Chapter 2 Comprehensive Plan What We Do: City/Regional Economic Profile A healthy and vital economy is vital to Roanoke's success. Economic activity is the source of jobs and income for City residents as well as nonresidents. Economic activity provides tax revenues to local governments, and many businesses provide goods and services that enhance the quality of life in City neighborhoods. The City of Roanoke is not in itself a local economy. Activity within the boundaries of the City is part of the economy of the entire Roanoke metropolitan statistical reporting area (MSA). While the City, the Counties of Roanoke and Botetourt, and the City of Salem have separate political identities, in economic terms they function as a single unit with the City as their economic center. Roanoke City is home to 53.1% of the companies in the MSA and employs 54.7% of the area's employees. Research has shown that along with the existing labor force of 129,097, there are over 10,000 total new entrants into the labor force each year alone from college/university and secondary educational institutions located in and around the region. A survey of major local firms indicated a large number of new applicants each month, providing those firms with a more-than-adequate pool from which to fulfill staffing needs. The pattern of much of Roanoke's economy was established prior to 1920. Roanoke's economic base, however, has been more varied since the economic recession of the late 1950s, at which point the City began its long transition from a manufacturing to a service/information-based economy. Today, Roanoke's economy is well diversified, consisting of service industries, wholesale and retail trade, manufacturing, governmental activity, transportation and other non-farm activities. By1998, the service industry was the largest industry in the City, employing almost 25,000 or 33.1% of the labor base. Healthcare-related activity accounted for one-third of the service industry, due, in part, to Roanoke's service as the regional medical center of Southwestern Virginia. Reflecting a nationwide trend toward an increase in service industries, the City has experienced employment gains mainly in business, legal, educational, engineering and management services. Trade (retail sales) is the second largest industry, covering a 16-county trade area, which has a combined population in excess of 600,000. This population is located within a one-hour drive of downtown Roanoke and has effective buying income of over $9.4 billion. Roanoke's per capita taxable sales in 1998 was $11,446, the highest in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Roanoke has had the highest per capita taxable sales in the Commonwealth for seven years. Manufacturing is the third largest industry in the City, employing 9,926 workers or 13.2% of the employment base. A broad range of manufacturing companies are represented, producing items from buses, textiles and apparel to fiber optics, business forms and ceramic chip capacitors. Government is the fourth largest employer in the City with 6,964 employees, of which 59% are local government, 25% are federal and 16% are state employees. Transportation is the fifth largest industry in the City, representing over 5,400 jobs, while finance, insurance, and real estate ranked sixth with 4,630 employed. Banking institutions dot the City, constituting some of the area's largest employers. Insurance and real estate firms are well represented. FACTS ABOUT ROANOKE · Total employment in the City increased by 7.9% from 119,595 in 1990 to 129,097 in 2000. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 2.5 VISION 2001 Chapter 2 Comprehensive Plan · In 1990, the unemployment rate for the City was 3.6%, growing to a high of 5.6% in 1992. It dropped to an historic low of 1.6% in 2000. Along with 2,012 unemployed persons counted in April 2000, it is estimated that over 8,960 persons are employed yet remain below the poverty level, indicating the existence of a potential pool of "underemployed" who would be willing to move to another job to improve their wages. · The Roanoke MSA dominates the local labor draw area as well, with a net in-commuting total each day of almost 15,000 workers. In 1980, 10,500 people commuted into the City; in 1990, that number had doubled to 20,234. MAJOR EMPLOYERS: Second QuarIer, 1999 Roanoke Valley Region EMPLOYER # EMPLOYEES Carilion Health System 6,040 Virginia Veterans Care Center 3,223 'Veterans Affairs Medical Center Roanoke County Public Schools 2,808 Norfolk Southern 2,800 Roanoke City Public Schools 2,482 City of Roanoke 2,270 United States Ro~/ta! Sewice 2,228 Commonwealth of Virginia 1,772 (S!~ate.G0vemment) Kroger 1,752 Advance Stores C0 Inc .1,608 Allstate 1,416 ITT 1,405 Lewis Gale Hospital 1,369 General Electric 1,335 Manpower 1,256 County of Roanoke 1,190 Wal-Mart Stores 1,126 Yokohama Tire Carp 1,121 City of Salem 1,056 Source: City of Roanoke, Department of Economic Development FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 2.6 VISION 2001 Chapter 2 Comprehensive Plan How we live: Land Uses, Districts and Neighborhoods Land Uses The City of Roanoke is a mature City in which most of the land has been developed for particular uses. Recent developments have been infill, renovation or expansion of existing planned uses. Although a variety of projects have been completed in the last fifteen years, the general locations of uses have not changed in any substantial way. The adjacent land use map describes the City's pattern of land use: Commercial uses -- office, retail and other job-related functions -- are found in the downtown core, in neighborhood commercial nodes throughout the City, or along major access ways. Downtown has recently prospered from a continuing influx of new office workers, which have attracted new shops and restaurants, anchored by activity centers such as the farmers' market. Neighborhood centers provide local retail -- groceries, shops and restaurants. Auto-related retail is located along major commercially-zoned highways. Other employment centers are located in industrial areas around the airport or in planned industrial centers such as the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology. Residential uses -- Roanoke's neighborhoods are residential in character. Higher density residential developments -- smaller lot houses or multiple unit buildings -- contribute to the pedestrian quality of the older neighborhoods surrounding downtown. Newer neighborhoods built after the 1940s 'are more suburban in character and density. Garden apartment complexes on specific outlying sites tend to be isolated auto-oriented developments. Institutional uses are located with respect to function and needed accessibility. Regional or city-wide uses -- municipal government buildings, the higher education center, and major hospitals -- are located in or near the central downtown area or along major highways. Local institutions -- schools, social services, and other similar facilities -- are located near neighborhood centers. These uses can be reinforced with complementary facilities and nearby services. Infrastructure uses are found along major highways and rail corridors. These include utility plants, landfill facilities, auto-related uses, the Roanoke airport, rail yards and other transportation support facilities. They are often less attractive or less than the highest and best uses for particular sites, making them potential candidates for reuse. Open space uses are found among the City's natural resources or undeveloped land. They include publicly-owned open space such as Mill Mountain. They also include recreation and park space near the Roanoke River and Victory Stadium or golf course facilities, as well as remaining agricultural land within the City. These uses are particular to the City's natural features, and are often not well connected to each other or to neighborhood users. Zoning and Land Use: Opportunity Sites and Potential Conflicts Roanoke's future land uses are to a large degree determined by what is allowed by the City's zoning ordinance, which regulates the use, density, and bulk of potential site development. Therefore, The Plan's zoning map also contains an indication of where there are potential conflicts between existing land uses and what is allowed by zoning regulations. Some degree of difference is natural -- the zoning map is intended in certain instances to be an agent of change. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 2.7 Existing Zoning Single-family residential Multi-family residential Commercial Industrial I-S-I-O-N 2 0 01,~~ ROANOKE VIRGINIA 2000 4000 Existing Land Use Single-family residential ~ Multi-family residential I Commercial I Industrial I School/Public facility/Park i' 'i Religious Vacant · I-S -I -O-N 2 0 01a~l~. ROANOKE VIRGINIA 2000 4000 6000 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan 3. PLAN ELEMENTS: THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE PLAN As described in the Executive Summary, the Plan defines a vision for the future of the City. The vision is a future state based on the goals developed by citizens who participated in the public workshops and on the Vision Advisory Committee. A vision for 2020. In the year 2020, Roanoke is a growing, dynamic and sustainable City that is future-focused -- with a strong, diverse economy and a balanced and growing population that values and enjoys a high quality of life in a safe and attractive environment. Working together, the City and region boast a steady growth in jobs and residents, higher school scores, improved government services and a broader range of recreational and entertainment activities. Through regional cooperation, the mountain views and ridgetops have been protected and are easily accessed by a network of greenways that link downtown, neighborhoods and regional parks and parkways. Roanoke's sustainability is measured not only by the health of its economy, but also by its quality of life. Economic prosperity can be continued and enhanced by supporting our cultural and entertainment amenities, education and other services. Protecting our natural environment, supporting a wide range of cultural and entertainment amenities, maintaining a first-class educational system and providing ongoing educational opportunities will attract new residents and businesses. To achieve this vision, the Plan recommends specific policies and actions that will guide public and private decision-making and investment. The Plan also recommends several strategic initiatives to proactively encourage development opportunities. VISION 2001 plan elements consist of four sections: background, policy approach, policies and actions. The background information provides a thumbnail sketch of the current situation. The policy approach describes the intent of the Plan and identifies initiatives. The Plan's policies establish the guidelines for decision-making. The Plan actions are implementation steps that must be taken to achieve the long-term vision and goals of the Plan. The policies and actions in these sections of the Plan apply City-wide. Detailed neighborhood and area plans are adopted as components of the City-wide Vision 2001 Plan. These plans include more detailed strategies to implement the Plan policies and actions. o. [. O.N STRATEGIC INITIATIVES Strategic Initiatives are the key concepts of the Plan. In developing the Plan's elements, several key ideas emerged as strategies for immediate action. The overall theme of the Initiatives is that new approaches are needed to ensure that Roanoke will be a beautiful, vibrant and livable place that will attract new business and residents to an economically and environmentally healthy community. Several initiatives look at opportunities for housing development such as housing clusters and the reuse of underutilized industrial and commercial sites. One initiative recommends investment in promoting the City and the region, and another identifies the importance of developing a regional approach to protecting and enhancing the critical amenities that set Roanoke apart from other regions. A theme that runs throughout the Plan is that for Roanoke to be truly successful in the new century, it must look for new opportunities to do business, see oldplaces in a new way, and recognize and celebrate Roanoke's urban uniqueness. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.1 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan City-wide Long Range Development Plan Roanoke City is one of several local government units in the Roanoke Region. Maintaining and enhancing the high quality of life that is important to citizens in the City and the region requires the collaboration and cooperation of all of the jurisdictions. Many of the challenges that Roanoke City identifies are also challenges for the region. Critical issues such as economic development, natural resource protection, transportation, tourism, entertainment and cultural venues and housing all require a regional perspective and regional solutions. Vision 200 ! includes not only policies and actions that will be implemented within the City's jurisdictional boundaries, but also recommendations for regional approaches and actions that require intergovernmental cooperation to implement. Roanoke's Regions Roanoke's Regions can be defined in many ways and are viewed as great opportunities for residents, businesses and visitors. The map on page 3-3 shows the general location of the communities that comprise Roanoke's regions. · The Roanoke Valley is typically defined as including the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, the Town of Vinton, and the City of Salem. The Roanoke Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is a much larger region that presently includes Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Salem, Vinton and Botetourt County. This area is defined based upon census information. The Greater Roanoke Region is even more extensive and includes the MSA, the counties of Craig, Franklin, Montgomery, and Bedford as well as the cities or towns of Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Bedford and Lynchburg. Essentially, this region includes those jurisdictions surrounding the Roanoke Valley and those areas served by Roanoke's employment and commercial centers. The Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Planning District includes the Cities of Roanoke, Salem, Clifton Forge, and Covington, Town of Vinton and the Counties of Roanoke, Botetourt, Craig and Alleghany. This district is the official planning district established by the state. The New Century Region includes the Cities of Roanoke, Salem, Clifton Forge, Covington and Radford; Towns of Vinton, Blacksburg and Christiansburg; and the Counties of Roanoke, Franklin, Floyd, Montgomery, Pulaski, Giles, Craig, Botetourt and Alleghany. This region was established several years ago to increase the region's strength and visibility in western Virginia. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 PaGe 3.2 NORTH CAROLINA Roanoke's Regions City of Roanoke Roanoke Valley . Roanoke Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Greater Roanoke Region New Century Region · I.$--O-N I 2 o Io ROANOKE VIRGINIA VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page :3.4 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan 3.1 HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS B.4 CKGR 0 UND Demographic Changes and Challenges Roanoke's population has fluctuated over time from a peak of more than 100,000 residents in the 1980s to 94,900 residents in 2000. During this same time period, the population of the Roanoke Metropolitan Statistical Area has grown by 7%, while the City's share of total population has declined by 5%. This data leads to two conclusions: 1) Roanoke is losing residents to its neighbors through out-migration; and 2) new residents are moving to the region, but are choosing not to live in the City. Roanoke's median household income fell 1% from 1996 to 1997, while the median household income in Salem, Roanoke County and Botetourt County rose more than 6% over the same period. The median household income in Roanoke County is nearly twice as high ($47,838) as the City's median household income of $27,492. Neighborhood Development Patterns Many of Roanoke's neighborhoods are diverse urban areas with compact development patterns and a mix of residential, retail and office uses, along with parks, religious institutions, schools and other public facilities. Traditional neighborhoods formed on the edges of the downtown area, with small neighborhood commercial nodes offering a mix of neighborhood-oriented businesses and services. As the City grew, larger residential subdivisions developed on the fringes, with commercial activity concentrated along corridors or in distinctly separate districts. In the 1970s, many of Roanoke's traditional neighborhoods were rezoned to allow higher-density residential use. Recent planning efforts have sought to reverse this trend by reducing the permitted density in many neighborhoods while focusing higher-density development around neighborhood commercial nodes. Neighborhood Planning Neighborhood plans provide detailed information for specific areas and guide public and private decisions regarding land use, capital improvements and other projects. Neighborhood Plans are adopted as components of the City's comprehensive plan. The City has identified 46 neighborhoods for which detailed plans should be adopted. Plans have been completed for approximately 25% of the City's neighborhoods; it is anticipated that all neighborhoods will have a completed plan in the next five years. (See Map 3.2 -2) Housing Stock Roanoke has approximately 45,000 housing units, 60% of which are single-family units. Approximately half of all dwelling units are owner-occupied. More than 90% of the City's housing stock was constructed prior to 1975; fewer than 6% (approximately 2,600 units) have been built since 1990. New residential development is constrained by the limited number and size of available sites. To significantly increase the number of new dwelling units in the City, a housing strategy could be developed that conducts an inventory of vacant lots that can be converted or redeveloped for residential, commercial and/or industrial purposes. Housing Conditions In 1986, the City adopted a Building. Maintenance Code that establishes a standard for building maintenance city-wide. The Code is part of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and is based on the BOCA National Property Maintenance Code. The City currently estimates that 1,050 dwelling units are substandard and should be vacated or undergo significant repairs. In 1996, the City established a FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.5 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan Rental Inspection Program for rental housing within the City's established conservation and rehabilitation districts (see Map 3.1 -1). The program requires an inspection of any rental unit every two years for compliance with the adopted building maintenance code. Designation of other neighborhoods and expansion of the program has been discussed as a strategy for improving older housing city-wide and ensuring decent safe housing for tenants. Neighborhood Design District Roanoke is the only City in the state with the legal authority to regulate architectural design outside of historic districts. In 1994, the City adopted a neighborhood design overlay district to coordinate the design of new construction in designated Rehabilitation and Conservation Areas. Several neighborhoods located in the Rehabilitated and Conservation District were recognized as having unique architectural and historic value: Belmont/Fallon Park, Gainsboro, Kenwood, Loudon Melrose, Gilmer, Harrison, Highland Park, and Hurt Park. The first neighborhood design overlay district is expected to be established in 2001. Fair Housing A recent Fair Market Housing study sponsored by the City indicates that Roanoke has a sufficient supply of affordable housing. However, most affordable housing opportunities are concentrated in certain inner- City neighborhoods, which are low-to moderate-income, thereby limiting housing choices city-wide. Barriers to housing opportunities include the lack of affordable, good-quality housing in all areas of the City, limited access to information, the need for counseling on housing choices and the lack of home- purchasing incentives for all neighborhoods. Public Housing The City of Roanoke provides most of the publicly assisted housing in the Roanoke Valley through the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA), which owns and operates 1,467 subsidized dwelling units. The RRHA received a Housing and Urban Development HOPE VI Grant for the comprehensive revitalization of the Lincoln Ten'ace Public Housing Development. This grant addresses a significant portion of the repair needs of Roanoke's public housing stock. The HOPE VI program creates new homeownership opportunities, offers job training, facilitates neighborhood revitalization and promotes the values of increased family self-sufficiency. The RRHA also administers other public programs to supplement the supply of affordable housing. These programs include Section 8 Rental Assistance Programs including the Section 8 Housing Certificate Program, the Housing Voucher Program, the Moderate Rehabilitation Program, the Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Moderate Rehabilitation Program and Project Self-Sufficiency. Transitional Housing Roanoke City accommodates the majority of emergency shelters, transitional housing and support programs for the homeless and those at risk of homelessness in the region. The overnight shelters and transitional housing centers are operated by non-profit organizations. The City of Roanoke operates the Crisis Intervention Center for youth. Resources for at-risk persons and the homeless include the RAM House, TRUST, Roanoke Valley Interfaith Hospitality Network, Samaritan's Inn and Rescue Mission, which are located within walking distance of downtown. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.6 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Pao® 3.7 3.1.1 Housing and Neighborhoods I I Single-family dwellings Multi-family dwellings q Housing opportunities · I Existing and potential village centers [ ] Conservation and Rehabilitation Districts I-$ .I-O-N 2 0 01~1~ ROANOKE VIRGINIA 0 20~ 40~0 ~000 3.1.2 Neighborhood and Area Plans I C°mpletect/underway ROANOKE VIRGINIA VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan POLICY APPROACH Roanoke's neighborhoods are the basic building blocks in the City. The City's commitment to reinvestment in neighborhoods has been a positive impetus to retain and attract families to Roanoke. Unlike suburban jurisdictions where choices over investment in development of new areas and expansion of services may come at the expense of reinvestment in existing neighborhoods, Roanoke as a well- defined City is able to maintain a long-term strategy of reinvestment in both the physical and social fabric of existing neighborhoods. To achieve the goal of being a vibrant, healthy sustainable City, every neighborhood should be an active participant in determining its own future. Each neighborhood should have a sustainable balance of housing types, sizes, prices and densities to meet the needs of current and future residents at all stages of their lives. Construction of new housing in Roanoke have fallen dramatically over the last two decades, while the City's existing housing stock continues to age. Like most mature cities, Roanoke has little land available for development of new residential neighborhoods. Infill housing on individual lots is not economically feasible in many existing neighborhoods - only larger sites that offer the opportunity for multiple units will allow economies of scale that will encourage development of "housing clusters" that offer opportunities for a diversity of housing type, price and scale. New sites must be created to promote development of housing clusters on vacant or underused sites within the City. As private market assembly of property is not always feasible, proactive public initiatives may be necessary to assist in packaging land. .~2- I' S 'I 'O'N 001~ S TRA TEGIC INITIATIVE Housing Clusters: Housing clusters are market- rate residential developments consisting of a mixture of residential uses (single-family, two- family, townhouses) on a large site, located within or adjacent to existing developments of established neighborhoods. Assembly of land for the development of housing clusters will promote neighborhood revitalization, replace derelict or neglected structures and complement the surrounding neighborhood. Illustrations of a housing cluster, infill development on small parcel and a large-site in a traditional neighborhood development are shown in Chapter 4, City Design. o. o .N STRATEGIC INITIATIVE Village Centers: Village centers are centers in neighborhoods containing a mixture of higher- density residential uses and neighborhood commercial uses. They serve as the focus of neighborhood activity. Village centers vary in size and scale depending on the nature of uses and size of the surrounding neighborhood. Smaller village centers are often contained within a single block, while larger centers may have a mix of retail and office space and are anchored by larger institutions such as churches or schools. Centers generally have fixed limits so that commercial activity does not encroach into the surrounding residential areas. See Chapter 4, City Design, for examples of village centers. Roanoke's neighborhoods should function as "villages," with downtown serving as the City's premiere urban village. Higher densities of development should be concentrated around existing or planned mixed-use neighborhood commercial areas, w/th housing density decreasing away from the village center. Neighborhood parks, schools and community centers should be maintained and improved. Neighborhood streets and streetscape should encourage pedestrian activity and bicycle use. Streets and roads should encourage a compact urban form and not enable sprawl. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.10 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 '~-~ Comprehensive Plan RECOMMENDED POLICIES NHP1. Sustainable population. Roanoke will have a balanced, sustainable population. Roanoke will promote its urban assets, diversity, convenience and affordability to retain existing residents and attract new ones to our City. NH P2. Neighborhoods as villages. Neighborhoods will function as villages, offering opportunities to live, work, shop, play and interact in a neighborhood setting. Neighborhood-oriented commercial activity will be encouraged in well-defined village centers. NH P3. Neighborhood plans. The City will adopt neighborhood plans for all neighborhoods. Neighborhood plans will address land use, zoning, transportation, infrastructure, neighborhood services, the development of village centers, and recognize those neighborhoods with architectural and historic value, among other issues. Neighborhood plans should include indicators for measuring neighborhood health and sustainability. Implementation of neighborhood plans will be considered in operating and capital budgets. NH P4. Downtown neighborhood: Downtown will be developed as Roanoke's premier urban village with a mix of high-density residential, commercial, retail uses and live/work space. NH PS. Housing choice: The City will have a balanced, sustainable range of housing choices in all price ranges and design options that encourage social and economic diversity throughout thc City. Concentration of federally subsidized, assisted or affordable housing will be discouraged. Thc City will recommend ways to overcome impediments to fair housing by identifying barriers to housing choice, encouraging fair housing education to the community, challenging housing discrimination, requiring affirmative marketing of developments using city funds. NH P6. Housing clusters: Development of housing clusters will be used to encourage and promote neighborhood revitalization, replace derelict or neglected structures and complement the surrounding neighborhood. A housing cluster is a market-rate residential development consisting of mixture of residential uses on a large site, located within or adjacent to existing developments of established neighborhoods. NH P7. Affordable housing: Affordable housing will be available in all parts of the City. Sustainable neighborhoods require a competitive mix of affordable and market-rate housing opportunities. NHP8. Publicly-assisted housing: Publicly-assisted housing efforts and shelters will be of the highest quality that enhances neighborhoods. Publicly-assisted housing and shelters will be equitably distributed in all parts of the region. ACTIONS VILLAGE CENTERS NH Al. Revise zoning ordinance to encourage the development of higher-density, mixed-use village centers and strengthen site development, landscaping and signage requirements in village centers. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.11 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 "~ Comprehensive Plan NH A2. NH A3. NHA4. NH A5. NH A6. NH A7. Identify and map existing and potential village center locations. Rezone existing and potential village center locations to encourage and accommodate higher density development and a mixture of uses. Develop a strategy for improving existing village centers, redeveloping underutilized centers, and creating new centers in key locations through the neighborhood planning process. Consider ND, Neighborhood Design District, overlay zoning for qualifying centers in Rehabilitation and Conservation Areas to encourage compatible design of development in village centers. Develop interdepartmental and agency approaches to target public improvements in village centers. Locate City services in village centers, where feasible. NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS NH A8. Develop and adopt four to six neighborhood plans annually. NH A9. Address the following in neighborhood plans: land use, transportation, public facilities and services, greenways, utilities and economic development. NH A10. Develop indicators for neighborhood health and sustainability. NH A11. Involve neighborhood organizations, civic groups and businesses in the development and implementation of neighborhood plans. MARKETING NH Al2. NH Al3. PROGRAMS Inventory and increase marketing of existing housing programs and incentives that encourage new residential development. Develop housing marketing strategy to identify new programs and incentives. NEIGHBORHOOD APPEARANCE NH Al4. Increase infrastructure funding to improve and enhance existing neighborhood streets and streetscapes; explore alternative funding sources such as grants and private contributions. NH Al5. Strengthen neighborhood organizations and civic groups to develop neighborhood pride. NH Al6. Adopt design and performance standards for neighborhood streets, sidewalks and tree canopies. NH A17. Identify gateways, key intersections and maj or corridors for physical improvement that promotes neighborhood identity and pride. DOWNTOWN NH Al8. NH Al9. NH A20. NEIGHBORHOOD Revise zoning ordinance and review the application of the building code to permit development of live/work space. Develop economic incentives and review the application of building code regulations in the downtown to encourage residential development. Inventory and market vacant lots and underutilized sites for higher-density, mixed-use development. HOUSING STRATEGY NH A21. Complete a housing survey that defines and maps sustainability indicators on a city-wide basis. NH A22. Develop a Housing Plan as a component of the Comprehensive Plan. A Housing Plan should include guidelines for housing choice, sustainability and social and economic diversity. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.12 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 · ~, Comprehensive Plan Develop criteria for evaluating new residential development proposals to ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and supporting the City's goals of a balanced, sustainable housing supply. Strengthen enforcement of building maintenance codes; revise Rental Inspection Program to include periodic inspections as permitted by law and develop a strategy to increase geographic coverage of Rental Inspection Program. Aggressively market the Real Estate Tax Abatement program to encourage rehabilitation of older homes. Consider demolition of derelict or neglected structures, outside of historic districts, when: · Rehabilitation is not economically feasible. · Plans for appropriate redevelopment are approved. · Redevelopment furthers the neighborhood goals for a balanced, sustainable housing supply. Identify and assemble vacant or underutilized land for the development of housing clusters. Consider using public or community development corporations to assemble property for housing development Revise zoning code to permit higher density residential and mixed-use development for housing clusters. Where appropriate, rezone identified areas tbr development of housing clusters. Revise zoning code to encourage quality infill development that reflects the character of the neighborhood including infill development standards. AFFORDABLE HOUSING NH A30. Develop a plan for the location of shelters, transitional living facilities and day facilities that provide appropriate services in all areas of the City and the region, taking into account access to public transportation and proximity to other support services. NH A31. Develop affordable housing plans including programs that include a mix of housing types and opportunities for both rental and homeownership, as part of the housing plan. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Pa~e 3.'13 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 , Comprehensive Plan 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL, CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES BACKGROUND Natural Environment Roanoke's natural environment is one of its most important assets. The City's location amid the Blue Ridge Mountains, combined with access to natural resources such as the Roanoke River, Blue Ridge Parkway, Smith Mountain Lake and parks provide a natural environmental quality in an urban setting. Consequently, how the region conserves and protects the natural environment is particularly important to the quality of life for Roanoke's residents. Regional cooperation and joint environmental programs and protection policies are essential to maintaining the natural environment residents enjoy. Parks and Recreation Roanoke's park system consists of more than 60 parks and eight neighborhood recreation centers located throughout the City. In September 2000, City Council adopted the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The master plan balances the customer requirements for larger- scale recreation facilities, such as an aquatic facility, with the benefits of smaller-scale neighborhood parks and open space. Funding for full implementation of the Parks Master Plan has not been identified; the City has committed to incremental phases of construction or rehabilitation. Greenways Greenways are corridors of protected open space used for recreation, conservation and transportation. In 1997, City Council adopted a conceptual Greenways Plan as a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City currently has seven greenways in various stages of planning or development. Priority projects include the Railside Linear Walk, the Mill Mountain Greenway, the Lick Pun Greenway, the Roanoke River Greenway, the Tinker Creek Greenway and the Murray Run Greenway. Funding for greenways is a combination of City funds, in-kind/case donations, state grants and federal reimbursement grants generally funded through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21). Storm Water Management Roanoke's watersheds experience periodic flooding and are subject to non-point source pollution from storm water runoff, especially sediment from increased development. Erosion of stream banks is a problem requiring bank stabilization. Storm water inflow and infiltration into the sanitary sewer system has caused sanitary overflows with potential degradation of water quality. In 1998, the City participated in a regional storm water management plan that recommends regional policies for managing storm water. Regional detention basins were identified, but there are high costs associated with acquisition and construction. The City has constructed two basins in the Peters Creek watershed. Phase II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit must be implemented by 2003 and a storm water discharge permit obtained by the City to address storm water quality. At the present time, the local municipalities are approaching this task on a regional basis. A storm water management authority may be proposed to manage a regional facility. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.14 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan Roanoke River and the Flood Reduction Project The Roanoke River is an environmental and economic asset that adds to the quality of life in Roanoke and attracts visitors and tourists to the City. The 1989 Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project is in final design and property is being acquired. Construction is expected to start in 2002. Construction will extend from the Water Pollution Control Plant to the west City limits. Flood reduction of up to three feet in some areas can be expected as a result of the project. The project includes a five-mile recreation trail extending from Wasena Park to 13~ Street, S.E. Air Quality Air quality is an issue of concern for all of the municipalities in the Valley. Roanoke Valley will likely be designated as a non-attainment area for ozone in the near future. It is expected that by 2002, regulations will be established by the Department of Environmental Quality to mitigate pollutant levels. This will mean implementation of measures to reduce pollutant discharges, such as vehicle emissions and industrial discharge. Tree Canopy Trees and plants in general improve the air quality by converting carbon dioxide into oxygen. Maintaining and increasing the City's tree canopy will have a beneficial impact on air quality, storm water control, noise levels, temperature, and visual appearance. The City nursery stock is utilized to replace neighborhood street trees that are diseased or damaged. As the City adds new landscaping features, special attention will be paid to using plants that are tolerant to the urban environment, primarily indigenous species. The City's development regulations currently require all new development to include a landscape plan. Cultural Resources Roanoke is the arts and cultural center of Western Virginia, exhibiting substantial historic and cultural resources for a City of its size. Located in downtown Roanoke, Center in the Square houses five major cultural institutions and serves over 500,000 people per year, making it the largest museum and performing-arts complex in the State. The historic City Market has become a central focus for arts and entertainment activities and is listed as one of the most livable places in America. The Harrison Museum of African American culture displays artifacts and memorabilia that preserve and interpret.African-American heritage in southwestern Virginia and includes art exhibits featuring local, regional and national artists. The Roanoke Civic Center and Victory Stadium host special events. The Virginia Museum of Transportation is also a tourist draw that celebrates Roanoke's railroad heritage and the transportation history of the region and the state. The Dumas Drama Guild will provide additional theatrical and cultural venues. The Jefferson Center, a newly renovated facility located in close proximity to downtown also houses several cultural institutions to include the recently renovated Shaftman Performance Hall. Center in the Square houses several museums, including the Arts Museum of Western Virginia, the History Museum of Western Virginia, the Science Museum of Western Virginia, the Mill Mountain Theater, and the Arts Council of the Blue Ridge. Mill Mountain Zoo, located on City-owned Mill Mountain, provides an enjoyable animal attraction for both young and old. Historic Resources The City has three Virginia and National Register Historic Districts, which are also protected locally: City Market District, the Warehouse Row, and the Southwest Historic District in the neighborhoods of Old Southwest, Hurt Park and Mountain View. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 pag~ 3.15 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan Historic designation has contributed to the City's revitalization through improved property maintenance and economic incentives for rehabilitation. Roanoke is currently undertaking a survey to identify additional historic structures in the downtown to promote further economic development and historic preservation strategies. The Historical and Cultural Resources map (Map 3.3.2) identifies the three Virginia and National Register Historic Districts, National Register structures and potentially significant archaeological sites. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/200 3.2.1 Environmental Resources Parks Blue Ridge Parkway ~?o'Io'O'N I ROANOKE VIRGINIA 3.2.2 Historic and Cultural Resources 1 Local historic districts · National register properties I Sensitive culmral/archeological resources · ~.2s0.~.o.~ I 0~ ROANOKE VIRGINIA VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan POLICY APPROACH Roanoke's natural environment contributes to the overall high quality of life for residents. It is also an important economic development and tourism asset. Many high-tech entrepreneurs and employees place a high value on the overall quality of life in making decisions about where to locate. As the City aggressively pursues the growth of knowledge-based industries, the overall quality of life and quality of the natural environment will be critical elements to a successful development strategy. While natural resources are abundant, they are also fragile and must be protected. Local action and regional cooperation are crucial in achieving the goals of protecting and enhancing our environmental quality, protecting our viewsheds and mountain ridges from developments and developing a comprehensive network of greenways and pedestrian facilities throughout the Valley. Roanoke should work with surrounding localities to create regional awareness of the importance of our environment to our overall economic strength. Roanoke should resist the conversion of parkland for other purposes without replacing it with an equal amount of land for parkland. At the present time, each jurisdiction protects and manages the recreation, conservation and open space within its boundaries. As many of these resources cross-jurisdictional lines and enhance the quality of life for all valley residents, it is appropriate to encourage further discussions on regional recreation and environmental management. A regional park authority could be a mechanism to provide larger recreation centers such as water parks serving a regional population or the conservation and management of large parcels of open space. Trees and other vegetation represent both an environmental resource and an important landscape feature in the quality of life in the City. Maintaining and increasing the City's tree canopy will have a beneficial impact on air quality, storm water control, noise levels, temperature, and visual appearance. Additional initiatives could include a tree replacement policy when trees must be removed for site development. Regional efforts to preserve trees in the Valley would be beneficial to the entire community. Roanoke's arts, entertainment and cultural resources are both a City and regional resource for tourism and economic development. Clustering activities that add a 24-hour vibrancy to downtown can be achieved by providing a mix of housing opportunities and quality retail space, as well as designating an area as a technology zone for new and emerging technology industries. Roanoke's cultural and historic institutions generate more than $30 million a year in economic benefit for the local economy. Tax credits should be used to establish and expand National Register Historic Districts. To successfully market Roanoke as a destination for visitors and new business, it will be important to create a clear identity or "brand name" for the City and surrounding area. O'N STR,4 T£G[C INITL4 TIV£ Investing in Critical Amenities: Roanoke and the Valley face the challenge of maintaining and enhancing critical amenities such as natural resources, entertainment attractions, cultural organizations, recreational opportunities and a well designed-cityscape. These critical amenities must be enhanced and expanded if the region is to fulfill its economic development potential and enhance the quality of life for residents. The regional community needs to define new methods to share the cost of maintaining and financing such attractions. Concepts such as the Blue Ridge Asset District and earmarking lodging and cigarette-tax increases are recommended as potential approaches. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.19 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan The same energy, creativity and enthusiasm that marketed Roanoke as the "Star City" must be used in developing a new name that will market Roanoke as it emerges as the biotechnology center of a multi- state region. A regional funding mechanism is needed to support a stable source of funding for the environmental, entertainment and cultural assets and develop an aggressive marketing strategy. RECOMMENDED POLICIES EC PI. Parks and recreation. Roanoke will develop, maintain and manage parks and recreation facilities that enhance the City and the region's quality of life. EC P2. Greenways. Roanoke will develop a high-quality network of regional greenways for recreation, conservation and transportation. EC P3. Viewsheds. Roanoke will protect steep slopes, ridgetops, and viewsheds within the City as important environmental and scenic resources and will cooperate regionally to protect such resources located outside of the City EC P4. Environmental quality. Roanoke will protect the environment and ensure quality air and water for citizens of the region. Special emphasis will be placed on the Roanoke River and its tributaries. Storm water management will be addressed on a regional as well as a local level EC P5. Trees. Roanoke will maintain and increase its tree canopy coverage as a way to improve air quality. Roanoke will work regionally to promote tree planting and tree preservation valley wide. EC P6. Cultural and historic resources. Roanoke will support, develop and promote its cultural resources. Roanoke will identify, preserve and protect its historic districts, landmark features, historic structures and archaeological sites. EC P7. Blue Ridge Parkway. Roanoke will protect the Blue Ridge Parkway and the spur within the City from development. ACTIONS PARKS AND RECREATION EC Al. Establish funding mechanisms to implement park plans (Phase II & Phase 121I) and greenways plan in a timely manner. EC A2. Encourage regional cooperation to develop and manage parks and recreation facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions (e.g., large recreation centers and aquatic centers). Conduct an assessment of the parks and the recreational needs of the region and consider the formation of a Regional Park Authority. EC A3. Consider establishing appropriate user fees for recreation facilities. GREENWAYS EC A4. EC A5. Develop strategies that encourage development of the Roanoke River Greenway for the entire length of the Roanoke River within the city limits. Consider developing an "adopt a greenway" program that encourages private and nonprofit sector involvement in the funding of greenways. Establish weekend bus service between downtown and natural resource destinations such as Explore Park, Carvins Cove and the Appalachian Trail. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.20 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan EC A6. EC A7. EC AS. Increase funding to accelerate construction of the greenway network. Promote trails on City-owned land, where feasible and suitable. Promote and increase access to trails and natural areas by providing parking, guide maps and appropriate marking. VIEWS AND VIEWSHEDS EC A9. Develop a viewshed protection ordinance and seek regional approaches. EC A 10. Encourage reduced light pollution from development, particularly residential neighborhoods, by improving development or ordinances. EC A11. Adopt zoning regulations that address communication towers to minimize their visual impact. EC Al2. Protect Blue Ridge Parkway corridors adjacent to city limits through coordination with adjacent localities and careful planning. WATER QUALITY EC A13. Limit the amount of impervious surfaces to reduce runoff. EC Al4. Plant natural vegetation, preferably indigenous plant species, on land adjacent to the Roanoke River. EC Al5. Ensure integrity of the storm and waste water systems. EC Al6. Protect and stabilize creek banks by controlling storm water flow and preventing discharge through vegetative buffers, bioengineering and other related methods. EC Al7. Protect the shorelines of the Roanoke River to enhance its scenic quality and protect water quality through a river conservation overlay and other appropriate tools. AIR QUALITY EC A18. Promote programs that raise awareness and reduce air pollution through testing, education, incentives, transit and other related policies. EC Al9. Consider use of clean-burning fuels to enhance air quality. EC A20. Establish tree canopy goals that include standards for preservation and planting of native trees based on zoning district and density. ENVIRONMENTAL, HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES EC A21. Develop a comprehensive regional marketing strategy that promotes Roanoke as an outdoors destination (Blue Ridge Parkway, Carvins Cove, mountains, trails, on-road bike routes, Virginia Birding Trail, Mill Mountain, etc.). EC A22. Expand walking and driving tours of historic and cultural resources. EC A23. Develop a stable source of funding from regional resources for cultural, historic and recreation amenities such as a Blue Ridge Asset District. EC A24. Develop local funding strategy for environmental programs, conservation easements and cultural programs. · Earmark lodging and cigarette-tax increases for tourism and critical amenities. · Establish general fund matching grant program to leverage additional partnership funding. · Consider voluntary contributions to critical amenities on utility bills. EC A25. Develop entertainment venues for concerts on Mill Mountain and other open areas. EC A26. Undertake a comprehensive inventory of historic and cultural properties and districts in the City and consider historic districts, where applicable. Solicit neighborhood input and stakeholders in the inventory, where applicable. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Parle 3.2'1 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan EC A27. Promote local, state and federal incentives to include tax credits to encourage rehabilitation of historic structures. PUBLIC AND OPEN SPACES EC A28. Revise Zoning regulations to better address the placement of billboards in Roanoke and regulate maintenance of existing ones. EC A29. Work with conservation organizations to identify critical open space or sensitive environmental properties and pursue the purchase of conservation easements. EC A30. Encourage preservation of open space and farm land through appropriate land use programs. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.22 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan 3.3 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND Regional economy The City of Roanoke is the hub of the larger regional economy. While the City, the Counties of Roanoke, Botetourt, Franklin, and Bedford, the City of Salem and the Town of Vinton have separate political identities, they work cooperatively together as a metropolitan area. Over the past few years, Roanoke and 16 other counties, towns and cities have worked to expand their economic influence to become known as the New Century Region. This expanded area of influence recognizes the interdependence of economic activity over a broader area. While many of these outlying areas have a greater abundance of vacant land and natural resources, the highest concentrations of commercial and retail businesses and medical services are in the City. A recent economic study entitled, Studies on the Regional Economy and Public Attitudes Toward Growth in IVestern Virginia, indicated that employment and population growth has grown at a slower pace in the New Century Region than the state and the nation. Increasing the educational attainment levels of the workforce and focusing efforts to attract industries experiencing growth (i.e., technology) were cited in the study as important economic objectives for the region. Regional approach The formation of the Roanoke Valley Economic Development Partnership in 1984 was a significant regional effort among Roanoke and adjacent jurisdictions to create an organization responsible for marketing localities in the Valley to prospective companies. The Partnership has identified four target industries that enhance and support existing industries in the Valley: biotechnology, optics, information technology/software and transportation-related manufacturing and services. Economic sectors Roanoke's economic base has transitioned from a predominantly manufacturing economy to a modern service economy. By 1998, the service industry was the largest industry in the City, employing almost 25,000 or 33.1% of the labor base. Healthcare related activity accounted for one-third of the service industry, due to Roanoke's position as the regional medical center of southwestern Virginia. Today, Carillon Health Systems is the largest employer in Roanoke with over 6,000 employees. Trade (retail and wholesale) is the second largest industry, covering a 16-county trade area, which has a combined population in excess of 600,000. This population is located within a one-hour drive of downtown Roanoke and has an effective buying income of over $9.4 billion. Roanoke has had the highest per capita taxable sales in the Commonwealth for seven years. Manufacturing is the third largest industry in the City, employing 13.2% of the employment base. A broad range of manufacturing companies is represented, producing items from buses, textiles and apparel to fiber-optics, business forms and ceramic chip capacitors. Government is the fourth largest employer in the City. Local government accounts for 59% of these employees, 25% are Federal and 16% are State employees. Transportation is the fifth largest industry, while finance, insurance and real estate ranked sixth. In 1990, the unemployment rate for the City was 3.6%, growing to a high of 5.6% in 1992. It has dropped to an historic low of 1.6% in 2000. The Roanoke metropolitan area dominates the local labor draw area as well. In 1980, 10,500 people commuted into the City daily. In 1990, that number had doubled to 20,234. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.23 VI$I03~ 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan Downtown Roanoke's downtown continues to serve as the economic engine and cultural center for the region. It is the preferred office location in the City. An update to the downtown plan will be completed by summer 2001. The Plan will address connections with surrounding neighborhoods, the South Jefferson Redevelopment area and locations for residential and high-tech space. The downtown plan will include recommendations for new activity centers including a technology zone in the downtown to attract new technology-based companies. The downtown plan will also conduct a retail, and entertainment assessment of the downtown area. Tourism Tourists and visitors come to Roanoke to take advantage of the excellent shopping and the broad range of entertainment and cultural events. Tourism contributed more than $200 million to Roanoke's economy in 1999. The Convention and Visitor's Bureau is the lead regional agency responsible for marketing the Roanoke Valley to tourists and visitors. Industrial development Many of Roanoke's industrial uses are closely associated with the transportation system; the majority of the industrial land is located around railroads, major roads, the airport and designated flood plains adjacent to the Roanoke River. The City's easy access to rail and major highways has made it a prime location for distribution centers. The regional airport, located within the City limits, is expanding its role as an air-freight center and passenger hub for the region. Since 1983, the Roanoke Valley has attracted more than 70 expansions and relocations. They represent more than 9,700 jobs and $749.3 million in investment. Recent trends reveal that technology companies have chosen to locate in Roanoke, such as Precision Technology Group, Altec Industries, Spectacle Lens Group of Johnson & Johnson Vision Care and InSystems Technologies. Retail and commercial development The Valley View Mall area, the City's largest regional shopping center, is in close proximity to the downtown and the airport and is easily accessed from 1-581. This area has attracted big-box retail, such as Walmart, and a wide range of hotels, restaurants and entertainment venues. The Valley View area is a regional destination and is important to the overall economic health of the City. Workforce The types of industry clusters Roanoke hopes to attract to the region require an educated work:force. The region's adult labor force had lower educational attainment levels than the state's adult population as a whole in 1990. Roanoke has made significant investments in education through the public school system and in attracting a consortium of higher educational institutions to offer a range of programs in the newly renovated Roanoke Higher Education Center located immediately north of the City's downtown. Redevelopment efforts In 2001, City Council approved redevelopment plans for the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area, which will house the Riverside Centre for Research & Technology (RCRT). The Carillon Biomedical Institute is expected to be the first tenant of the Centre. Virginia Tech and the University of Virginia will join Carillon in promoting biomedical science, engineering and technology for research and development. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 ~'a~e 3.24 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan The City's role will be to coordinate planning, assemble land, build the infrastructure and provide incentives that will encourage the clustering of healthcare, biotechnology, research and supporting business facilities in the area. Village centers Many of Roanoke's traditional neighborhoods developed as "villages," self-contained centers that provided opportunities for people to live, work, shop, play and interact in a local setting. Village centers offer amenities typically not found in suburban areas, such as convenient access to schools, local shops and places of employment. Village centers contain retail, entertainment venues and office space that contribute to the economic health of Roanoke. Enterprise Zones The Enterprise Zones program enables the state and a local government to enter into a twenty-year partnership to encourage business expansion and recruitment by offering both state and local incentives. Roanoke established two enterprise zones. Enterprise Zone One was established in 1984 and is centered along the main east-west tracks of the Norfolk Southern Railroad. Enterprise Zone Two was established in 1996 and contains the largest inventory of industrial sites in the City, covering the Roanoke Center for Industry and Technology and adjacent areas. Technology Zones Municipalities use technology zones as an economic development tool to attract technology companies. Technology zones are designated areas that provide tax incentives and regulatory flexibility through the reduction of permit fees, user fees and any type of gross receipts tax. The City may designate a technology zone in an existing enterprise zone for up to 10 years. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.25 3.3.1 Commercial Development I Commercial land use ~ Development opportunities · Existing village center ® Village center for revitalization Potential village center I '2So' Io' O'N ROANOKE VIRGINIA 0 2O00 400O 3.3.2 Industrial Development Industrial land use [' [ Development opportunities · I.S..O.N 2 o ROANOKE VIRGINIA l~'~giC~l ~ · I~ILL ~I'L~[O PC VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan POLICY APPROACH City investment alone is not sufficient to revitalize the economy. It takes significant investment from the private sector coupled with the City's support to sustain growth. These public/private sector investments need to be targeted to specific geographic areas and economic clusters to maximize their impact. Areas targeted should have the potential for significant job creation, leveraging existing industry or enhancing community quality of life and access to services. -s- O.N o STRATEGIC INITM TIVE Shifting Gears - New Economic Initiatives: Roanoke should pursue an aggressive strategy that develops and attracts businesses in the target industry clusters: biotechnology, optics, information technology/software and transportation-related manufacturing and services. To accomplish this goal, Roanoke must invest in the critical amenities of entertainment, environment and recreation to provide a high quality of life. The City must have a diverse supply of housing that offers choices for people of all age groups and interests. The City must also be a learning City that values lifelong learning and provides a strong core education for all students. The Virginia Western Community College's Center for Business, Industry and Technology provides continuing education, up-to-date training and resources to support the technical training requirements of these industries. Attracting and retaining businesses in these target industries require ongoing support for training and the availability of developable industrial land. Roanoke must attract knowledge-based industries by having a pool of qualified workers, a research and development presence, telecommunications infrastructure, transportation services (air and rail service), water quality, non-interruptible power and a high quality of life, which includes a vibrant, diverse setting. Roanoke has strengths in many of these areas, but it will take the concerted effort of many partners working toward the same goal to create a strong economic development climate. Roanoke should pursue an aggressive strategy that develops and attracts businesses in the target industries such as biotechnology, optics, information technology/software, transportation- related manufacturing and services, and supporting business services. The Plan encourages development of commercial and residential centers as opposed to strip development. As an example, commercial areas along Williamson Road or Melrose Avenue could be enhanced by clustering a mixture of higher- density residential and commercial uses at key intersections. Applying the concepts in the village center initiative should be considered could be applied to such areas to encourage Roanoke has several older shopping centers and strip commercial areas. Many of these are located along traditional transportation routes such as Williamson Road, Melrose Avenue, Hershberger Road and Franklin Road. Commercial strip areas are frequently characterized by small lot sites or older shopping centers, many of which have found new uses such as warehousing or outlet centers. Visual conflicts between residential and commercial uses are common to many of these areas. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.28 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan I.O.N i STRA TEOIC INITIATIVE Redeveloping underutilized commercial and industrial sites: The economic success of large- scale retail in the Valley View and Tanglewood areas has changed consumer patterns in the City and region. Older commercial sites have experienced long periods of vacancy or change in use to light industrial (i.e., warehousing, distribution). These commercial sites often have a single structure surrounded by large expanses of parking. In the 1960s, the City rezoned a significant amount of land to encourage industrial development. However, some of those areas are still in residential use because the assembly of lots under multiple ownership was difficult. In addition, the location of industrially zoned sites discourages development because of poor access to highways. For example, the industrial area bounded by Plantation Road, Hollins Road and Liberty Road has an uneven traffic pattern characterized by four-lane roads changing abruptly to two-lane roads. Many industrial areas are located in the flood plain, which discourages development because of the additional development costs for infrastructure and flood insurance. Concepts for redevelopment of commercial and industrial sites are illustrated in Chapter 4, City Design. Underutilized shopping centers and commercial sites can be converted to more appropriate uses that are assets to the neighborhood. These sites are frequently located on main thoroughfares and detract from the visual appearance of the community. By redeveloping these sites with showroom-type buildings along the street frontage, placing the parking into the newly created interior area, these sites can accommodate a range of uses from institutional to warehousing and showrooms. Revising the zoning code to permit this type of development with greater site coverage, requiring zero setback from the property line and establishing maximum parking requirements, are ideas that can be considered as incentives to converting these underutilized sites to dynamic business centers. Roanoke should market the rich diversity of its neighborhoods to attract young families and young adults. Neighborhoods with village centers provide opportunities to market housing, smaller-scale specialty destination shops, offices and live/work space. Village centers should be supported by permitting higher-density residential development at the edges or above stores to add to the vitality and serve as the transitional buffer between the commercial and lower-density residential areas. ~'?o'Io'O'N i STRATEGIC INITIATIVE Selling Roanoke to Residents, Newcomers and Visitors: Many of Roanoke's assets are well-kept secrets, even among native Roanokers. The challenge is getting the message out - and whom to tell. People often make decisions about where to visit, live and do business based on their image of the community. Successful communities are able to develop and market a "brand" name that distills the core strengths and defines the characteristics of the place. A brand name should be clearly recognizable, consistently applied and regional in scope to encompass the best qualities of life in the Roanoke Valley. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.29 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan RECOMMENDED POLICIES ED Pl. Economic base. Roanoke will have a sustainable, diverse economic base that supports target industries in biotechnology, optics, information technology/software, transportation-related manufacturing and services and supporting business services. ED P2. Regional economic development. Roanoke will participate in and actively promote regional economic development efforts. ED P3. Downtown. Downtown will continue to serve as the region's central business district with opportunities for downtown living, office space, retail and cultural and entertainment attractions. ED P4. Tourism. Roanoke will promote tourism for the City and the region. ED P5. Industrial development. Underutilized and vacant industrial sites will be evaluated and redevelopment encouraged. Local policies and incentives and state economic incentives will strengthen the businesses and industries in the Enterprise Zones and provide jobs. ED P6. Commercial development: Roanoke will encourage commercial development in appropriate areas (i.e., key intersections and centers) of Roanoke to serve the needs of citizens and visitors. ED P7. Workforce. Roanoke will have a highly qualified and educated workforce to meet the demands of a knowledge-based economy. ED P8. Village centers. Village centers will be pursued as an economic development strategy to strengthen neighborhoods and the City's economy. ACTIONS ECONOMIC BASE ED Al. Develop and implement an economic development strategy that attracts, retains and expands businesses in the targeted industries such as biotechnology, optics, information technology/software and transportation-related manufacturing and services. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ED A2. Expand participation in regional economic development efforts. Continue meetings with elected officials and administrative staff in neighboring localities to discuss regional efforts. DOWNTOWN ED A3. ED A4. ED A5. ED A6. ED A7. ED A8. Adopt the Downtown Plan as a component of Vision 2001. Support initiatives to develop a technology zone in the downtown that permits mixed-use developments containing offices, residential and commercial/retail support services Develop an entertainment strategy for the downtown market area. Pursue strategies to increase availability of specialized retail and live/work space in the downtown. Complete survey of historic structures in the downtown. Facilitate the development of significant regional attractions such as the IMAX Theater. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.30 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan ED A9. Revise zoning ordinance to discourage demolition of downtown buildings being replaced by surface parking lots. TOURISM ED Al0. ED All. ED Al2. ED Al3. ED Al4. ED Al5. ED Al6. ED Al7. Develop a "brand identity" for Roanoke. Coordinate with regional parmers to launch a marketing campaign. Identify and develop a consistent funding source for promotion of tourism, marketing and special events that provides information for tourists and residents. Increase the current level of funding for the promotion of regional tourism through the Convention and Visitors Bureau and other related agencies. Develop and install directional signs that are clear, consistent and strategically placed to identify major attractions that capture tourists Provide transportation connections (i.e., shuttle service) to multiple sites such as Explore Park, Carvins Cove, and Mill Mountain. Promote greenways and linkages to the downtown and surrounding areas. Increase efforts to provide tourist information for residents and visitors. · Develop a primary source of consistent, up-to-date information that promotes and advertises festivals, events and tourist attractions. · Develop and maintain a web site and list serve with public information. · Expand efforts to market attractions and programs at the airport and other key locations. · Create satellite centers for visitors at area shopping centers to capture local, regional and destination shoppers. · Develop a regional outdoors guide. Expand the current marketing strategy to target young families and young adults. Strengthen and expand the Newcomer's Club; create a junior newcomer's club that involves children and teenagers. Develop a youth hostel or other budget hotel accommodation in the downtown to encourage hikers and Appalachian Trail enthusiasts to visit Roanoke. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ED A18. Identify underutilized industrial sites and promote redevelopment as part of Roanoke's economic development strategy. ED A 19. Support the redevelopment of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area (SJRA) by coordinating with participating organizations such as Carilion, Virginia Tech and the University of Virginia. ED A20. Investigate a strategy for funding streetscape improvements in the Franklin Road gateway corridor (between SYR. A and Wonju Street) to stimulate private sector development ED A21. Revise zoning regulations to encourage increased use of planned unit developments. ED A22. Promote and market the Enterprise Zones program to existing and prospective businesses. ED A23. Increase the role of the Industrial Development Authority and other related industrial redevelopment organizations for development of plans for areas such as the West End, Plantation Road and Shenandoah Avenue corridors. ED A24. Develop an economic development strategy to attract, retain and grow technology businesses. Designate a lead agency to coordinate programs, redources, and planning for development of technology business. Create a web site that promotes Roanoke to technology companies including information about available space, communication infi-astructure and links to other technology resources FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.3'1 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan ED A25. Establish technology zones that provide special tax incentives, expedited development and economic development assistance. Designate a section of downtown as the primary Technology Zone and key village centers as secondary technology zones. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ED A26. Identify underutilized commercial sites and promote revitalization. ED A27. Revise zoning and develop guidelines that encourage maximum use of commercial and industrial sites by addressing setbacks, lot coverage, parking requirements and landscaping to encourage development of commercial businesses in centers versus strip developments. NEW ECONOMIC INITIATIVES ED A28. Initiate small-area plans for mixed use (i.e., residential, commercial and industrial) and industrial redevelopment in the West End, Plantation Road and Shenandoah Avenue corridors. ED A29. Initiate small-area plans and alSpropriate rezoning for Crossroads area to consider a mix of high-density residential, commercial, and research & development. ED A30. Develop incentives and programs to encourage redevelopment activities that create attractive commercial corridors that address strip development and underutilized commercial centers. ED A31. Revise zoning ordinance to permit small-acreage, mixed use (flex-space) development. ED A32. Revise zoning ordinance to permit home offices in certain residential areas. ED A33. Explore redevelopment of areas identified for industrial, commercial or mixed use development or reuse such as: · South Jefferson Redevelopment Area · Franklin Road between SJRA and Wonju Street · Crossroads Mall area · Campbell Avenue between 5t~ and l0t~ Streets · Roanoke Salem Plaza · Shenandoah Avenue · Plantation and Hollins Road area Area plans for these sites should include participation of stakeholders and design professionals WORK FORCE ED A34. Invest in education and training to create a labor force that can succeed in an information- based economy. ED A35. Support and expand workforce development efforts that link economic development agencies and educational institutions. Develop work/study (co-operative) programs linking existing industry, high schools, college and economic development agencies. VILLAGE CENTERS ED A36. Encourage village centers through identification of potential locations in neighborhood plans. ED A37. Develop design guidelines for village centers. ED A38. Revise zoning code to permit mixed-use residential/commercial development and live/work space in village centers and on the periphery of the central commercial areas. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.32 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan 3.4 INFRASTRUCTURE: Transportation, Technology, Utilities BACKGROUND Transportation Roanoke's transportation system is a network of local and regional roads, freight rail (east-west, north- south), airport, transit and an evolving system of greenways and bikeways. The major interstate and regional routes are I-81, 1-581, U.S. 220/Roy L. Webber Expressway, U.S. 460 and U.S. 11. Norfolk Southern provides freight rail service. Passenger and freight air service are provided through the Roanoke Regional Airport. Valley Metro provides bus transit and paratransit service. The City, with cooperation and funding from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), is responsible for planning and maintaining its roads, greenways, bikeways and other transportation facilities. Roanoke participates in a regional Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The MPO develops the Long-Range Transportation Plan, Regional Greenway Plan, Regional Bikeway Plan, Transportation Improvement Program and other transportation plans. Road System The road system is an interconnected grid providing easy access via multiple routes throughout Roanoke. However, in outlying areas in southwest and northwest that developed after WWII, the street system is more suburban in character with cul-de-sac streets. The conventional suburban road pattern requires longer drives and concentrates traffic on fewer, larger roads. Several major road projects were completed in the 1990s. · Peters Creek Road was extended from Melrose Avenue to Brandon Avenue. · The Valley View Interchange on I-581 provided easier access to Valley View Mall and surrounding commercial development. · The Gainsboro Road project linked 2na Street in downtown with Orange Avenue near 1-581. · Removal of the Hunter Viaduct in downtown was completed. · Fifth Street - between Norfolk Avenue and Gilmer Avenue - was improved. However, some improvements have not contributed to sustainable forms of development. Design guidelines are needed to address this issue. As shown on Map 3.5.1, several projects have been identified as priorities for further study: · A new interchange from the Roy L. Webber Expressway to Reserve Avenue/Jefferson Street to provide access to the Riverside Centre for Research and Technology. · Reconfiguration of the Elm Avenue/I-581 interchange. · Tenth Street, N.W., safety improvements from Gilmer Avenue to Williamson Road (consideration may be given to extending the improvements southward to the Wasena Bridge area). · Thirteenth Street, S.E., widening from Jamison Avenue north to Hollins Road, with construction of a bridge over the railway tracks. · Wonju Street, S.W., extension from Colonial Avenue to Brandon Avenue. VDOT has studied alternative routes for a new Interstate 73, to be routed from the Virginia-North Carolina border, and made its recommendations to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). The CTB chose the route that goes through the City and eastward. The location ofi-73 will have significant FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.33 VISION 2001 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3 effects on the City and the Valley depending on the corridor selected for construction. Additional land use planning, urban design of the road and adjacent intersections and mitigation of environmental impacts will be important considerations in the near future. Pedestrian Systems Roanoke encourages sidewalks within the City. Sidewalks are considered important assets for residential neighborhoods in that they enhance the quality of life, in addition to providing safe access for pedestrians. The City funds sidewalks annually, but funds have been limited and there have been more requests for repairs, replacement and new sidewalks than available funds can provide. Greenways Greenways are corridors of protected open space, which are managed for recreation, conservation and non-motorized transportation. Many of the proposed greenways include recreational-use trails. Greenway planning is done in accordance with an adopted Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenways Plan. Current projects under construction or funded for construction are Lick Run, Mill Mountain, Murray Run, and Tinker Creek, and Roanoke River Greenways. Bikeways are also planned on the regional level; the Roanoke Valley - Alleghany Regional Commission coordinates and updates the Bikeway Plan for the Roanoke Valley. The location of current and proposed greenways and bikeways is shown on Map 3.4.2. Transit System The Greater Roanoke Transit Company, Inc., operates Valley Metro, which provides local bus transit service. Routes are based on demand and generally serve major employment centers, commercial destinations and neighborhoods in Roanoke. Some routes extend into Roanoke County, Salem and Vinton. Campbell Court Transportation Center in downtown is the central hub of the system. The Downtown Express, a pilot program providing shuttle service between Civic Center parking and downtown began in 2000. The RADAR program provides public transportation for citizens with special needs. The transit system is show on Map 3.4.3. Airport and Air Service Roanoke Regional Airport provides full-service passenger and freight air service, and is thc primary airport serving southwest Virginia. Thc airport has approximately 90 scheduled passenger flight arrivals and departures per day, accessing twelve major cities with nonstop service. A five-member commission that includes representatives of the City and Roanoke County governs thc airport's operations. The airport has made major improvements in recent years to ensure its competitiveness, such as a new terminal and runway extension. A new tower is planned along with other improvements. Project Nexus is a regional project to increase thc airport's competitiveness by promoting low-fare, daily express service between Roanoke Regional Airport and Dulles International Airport. Rail System Norfolk Southern (formerly Norfolk and Western) Railway provides freight rail service. Once headquartered in Roanoke and the major employer for the region, Norfolk Southern still retains a major presence in the City, and Roanoke enjoys excellent connections to the national rail network. The railroad discontinued passenger service in the 1980s. An initiative is underway to develop the Old Dominion Express, which would provide passenger rail service from Bristol, through Roanoke and Richmond, to Washington, DC. This service would provide access to major north-south lines from New York to Florida. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.34 3.4.1 Transportation System Highway Arterial road Collector road Local access road 1-73 corridor (state recommended) Recommended road projecls (2000-2002 Transportation Improvement Program) .I-S-I.O.N 2 0 01~ll~ ROANOKE VIRGINIA 2000 4000 3.4.2 Greenways and Bikeways · "..' Greenway/bikeway :,/'x'/' Bikeway Only I-S -I-O-N 2 0 01~ll~ ROANOKE VIRGINIA x\ 3.4.3 Transit, Rail, and Air ~Tmnsit Coverage ~-----~1 Line ~r A~rt ROANOKE VIRGINIA 0 20~0 4000 ~ VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan Technology As Roanoke makes the shift from an industrially based economy to an information-based economy, the same investment in infrastructure that laid down railroad tracks and built highways must be made in technology infrastructure. Technology infrastructure is more than the physical infrastructure of a fiber- optic communications network. It includes buildings, workforce, local government policy and intellectual infrastructure. Ready-to-occupy buildings and warehouses with historic character and flexible leases known as "heritage office spaces," coupled with a highly trained workforce and innovative tax structure and incentives, are all critical elements to attracting knowledge-based industries to technology districts. Utilities Private corporations provide electric power (American Electric Power), local telephone (Verizon) and natural gas (Roanoke Gas) utilities, with operations, rates and services regulated by the State Corporation Commission. Cox Communications provides cable television through a franchise agreement granted by the City. Five companies provide fiber-optic and other telecommunication infrastructure. Water and sewer service are provided by the City. The City has three major sources of water supply: Carvins Cove Reservoir, Crystal Spring and Falling Creek Reservoir. Carvins Cove provides approximately 2/3 of the water supply. All are good sources of high-quality water requiring very little treatment. In 1994, Roanoke completed a project that linked the three water sources. In 1999, the City increased connections to the County water supply system to improve reliability. Water distribution lines cover nearly the entire City and utility extensions are done on an as-needed basis, usually for new infill development. Wastewater treatment is provided at a regional treatment plant located in Roanoke City. The Plant and the Roanoke River Sewer Interceptor line have been upgraded recently. As with water lines, sewer lines cover nearly the entire City, and extensions are generally made on an as-needed basis. Maintenance of the existing lines and reducing rainwater infiltration has been the primary focus for the City. In some of the City's older neighborhoods, sewer lines are experiencing deterioration because of the age of the clay pipes. In other areas, rain gutters and floor drains empty directly into the sewer system instead of the storm drainage system. The infiltration and inflow of rainwater in the sewer system can cause temporary overloads, placing additional stress on the wastewater treatment plant. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page :5.38 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan POLICY APPROA CH Transportation 2['O'N i ~ 0 0 1~ S TP~ TE G I C INITIATIVE Improving Streetscapes: Good street design supports multiple modes of transportation and adds value to the adjoining properties. It is essential to the continuing revitalization of downtown, neighborhoods and commercial areas. A street-design manual will address the design of new and existing streets and will provide guidance for planning and implementing improvements to create "Great Streets." Roanoke's streetscapes should be welcoming and attractive multi-modal linkages that carry vehicle traffic, pedestrians and bicycles safely and efficiently to and from their destinations. Recognizing the importance of creating an urban network of streets within the City, guidelines for street design will be based on a street classification system that balances the purpose of the roadway with the impacts on the surrounding areas. Roanoke's transportation system should be an integrated and user-friendly network of well- designed streets that support auto, transit, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. One of Roanoke's characteristics in the region is that it is an urban community with a compact development pattern and effective street grid. The street grid should be preserved and new development should tie into the existing road network, completing the street grid where possible. Greenways and bikeways should be linked as both transportation and recreational opportunities. Bicycle facilities and pedestrian improvements should be considered a fundamental part of land use and transportation planning. The public transit system is an important element of an urban transportation plan and should provide access to employment nodes, recreation and cultural venues, as well as retail and commercial areas. As Roanoke becomes more economically diversified, the traditional pattern with downtown as the hub may need to be expanded to include east/west and north/south routes linked directly to employment or retail nodes. At state and federal levels, studies are underway to provide an interstate transportation facility (1-73) in the existing 1-581 corridor, passing through the City to the southeast. In the design and construction phases of proposed improvements, streetscape elements consistent with the streetscape and corridor design recommendations of the Plan should be included to enhance the appearance and help mitigate negative impacts. Such stmetscape elements may include extensive landscaping, installing sidewalks or trails linked to existing pedestrian facilities, providing decorative lighting and unified signage. Special care should be taken to make new improvements compatible with existing neighborhoods and downtown; and improvements should protect adjacent areas from noise and unnecessary traffic. Parking in residential areas typically is not an issue; however, areas where them are businesses or institutions have some parking conflicts that may require residential parking permits to limit the time of day or duration of parking. Neighborhood commercial, commercial and multi-family residential parking standards should be in keeping with the projected impact, while seeking creative solutions such as shared parking capacity to limit the amount of impervious surface. Where possible, parking should be located in the interior of the development or in the rear or on the side of buildings buffered from the roadway by landscaping. Access to parking by alleys can be an alternative to reduce the impact of cars entering and exiting lots on neighborhood streets. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.39 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan Significant improvements have been made to the airport facilities and runways since 1985. The air terminal is an attractive gateway to the City and the region. Current estimates are that more than 80% of the passengers arriving at the airport are traveling to destinations outside of the metropolitan area, such as Blacksburg. The addition of an airport shuttle that connects with major destinations such as shopping, hotels, downtown and restaurants may encourage passengers to visit Roanoke as part of their overall travel plan. The Airport Authority has been successful in attracting airfreight businesses to locate in the area. The development of freight handling businesses on Authority-owned land as part of the airport facility can increase the profitability of the operation. In response to concerns regarding the number of cost- competitive daily flights, the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance and the City of Roanoke, along with localities in the region, have sponsored a pilot project, Project Nexus, to promote low-fare, daily express service from the Roanoke Regional Airport to Dulles International Airport. Similar links to other destinations rather than hub cities are needed. Projects such as this are important for economic development and tourism. ~ oI'O'N01~l STRATEGIC INITIATIVE Getting Wired: This initiative focuses on creating an environment for technology businesses by providing infrastructure, office space, workforce and supportive government policies. Technology companies seek flexible work spaces with short-term leases and access to high-speed communications. Software businesses often prefer buildings and warehouses with historic character, commonly known as "Heritage Space?' Technology companies require an educated workforce with professional and technical skills. Their primary investment is frequently in the intellectual ability of their employees. Tax structures and economic development incentives should recognize the special needs of technology businesses. State legislation allows the establishment of technology zones where special incentives are available. Technology Infrastructure Roanoke's primary role in encouraging new technology and associated businesses is to provide access to public rights-of-way for telecommunications infrastructure. The City can take a proactive role by ensuring that any in-road utility improvements include installation of conduit for future use by service providers. The current system should be mapped to identify areas where fiber optic cabling and/or conduit are available and buildings that have been renovated to provide access. A fast, accessible, inexpensive and reliable telecommunications system and a primary technology zone should be developed in the downtown, along with secondary technology zones in selected village centers. The future trend in telecommunications will include greater reliance on wireless technology, which will provide greater flexibility in location but is not expected to eliminate the requirements for wired connections that provide greater security. Technology is also providing better access and communication between citizens and government. The idea of e-Government has been gradually developing in Roanoke and needs to be embraced as a medium for providing information to citizens and providing access to City government services. Utilities Increasing regional cooperation and agreements to develop additional water sources to meet current and future residential, commercial and industrial needs are important to Roanoke and the Valley. Replacement of water lines to ensure quality service, upgrades to sanitary sewer lines to eliminate inflow FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 ~'aoe 3.40 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan and infiltration of storm water, and creation of a regional utility to manage storm water are needed. Water supplies for the region should be cooperatively managed and conservation practices implemented to ensure a safe and sufficient supply of water for the future. Growth management of the region should be well planned and coordinated with furore utility extensions. RECOMMENDED POLICIES Regional transportation planning. Roanoke will participate in regional transportation planning through the M_PO to appropriately develop regional plans that support compact urban development, discourage sprawl and emphasize multi-modal forms of transportation that prioritizes facilities for bicycles, pedestrians, rail, and transit as well as accommodate automobiles. Cooperative planning on the local, regional and state levels should include design features that maintain or improve connectivity of streets while maintaining neighborhood integrity and minimizing negative visual and noise impacts. IN P2. Transportation system. Roanoke will provide a transportation system that is an integrated, multi-modal network of automobile, bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities. Interconnected street systems should be encouraged in new development and be maintained in existing development. New roadways through existing urban areas will be designed to minimize impact on the City's urban fabric and complement Roanoke's neighborhoods. IN P3. Land use and transportation plans. Transportation and land use planning will be integrated to promote compact urban development and reduce the frequency and length of automobile trips. Bicycle facilities and pedestrian improvements will be a fundamental part of land use and transportation planning. Future commercial development along arterial roads will be focused at major intersections, rather than strip commercial development along corridors. IN P4. Parking. Roanoke will encourage on-street parking wherever possible and discourage excessive surface parking lots. Maximum parking standards for development outside of downtown will be established. Off-street parking will be encouraged to the side or rear of buildings. Carpooling, park-&-ride lots and transit will be encouraged to reduce parking demand. The City will continue to maintain structure parking downtown. INP5. Airport. The City will participate in the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission to support continuous improvement in air service and passenger and freight facilities in order to maintain its position as the region's major airport. Land use adjacent to the airport should be reserved for commercial and industrial development related to air transportation or those businesses needing easy access to airport facilities. Airport-related uses will be encouraged in the areas near the airport. Residential land uses will be discouraged in the areas where noise exceeds recommended land use standards. IN P6. Technology environment and infrastructure. Roanoke will create an environment for electronic government and technology businesses through planning, develOpment of favorable policies and incentives for technology infrastructure. Roanoke will facilitate development of the capacity and coverage of fiber-optic, cable and wireless communication networks. The visual impact of telecommunication facilities will be minimized by co- location and placement of towers in strategic locations. IN P7. Water and sewer systems. Roanoke's water and sewer systems will be maintained, upgraded and extended to meet public needs in accordance with an adopted plan for utility FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 page 3.41 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan improvements. Regional cooperation and agreements will be encouraged to provide the most efficient and effective utility services to citizens of Roanoke and the region. Conservation practices will be promoted and implemented. Roanoke will examine the potential for a regional storm water utility system, where needed. ACTIONS ROAD SYSTEM IN Al. Adopt standard design principles for streets and develop a manual to guide construction that affects the streetscape and includes attractive designs for traffic calming devices. IN A2. Develop an inventory of City streets based on transportation corridor classifications and identify priorities for design improvements. IN A3. Develop a transportation plan as a component of Vision 2001 that uses the recommended design principles to implement and prioritize street improvements. Identify priorities for streetscape improvements through neighborhood plans and through a street design inventory. IN A4. Expand the urban forestry program to increase the number of street trees planted and replaced. IN A5. Change zoning, subdivision and other development ordinances to include revised street design principles. IN A6. Coordinate with state and regional transportation agencies to include revised design standards for new and existing public roadways. Pursue public transportation links between the New River Valley and Roanoke. PEDESTRIAN, IN A7. IN A8. IN A9. IN Al0. GREEN-WAY, AND BICYCLE SYSTEMS Develop a greenway system to provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages between the region's parks, rivers, creeks, natural areas, recreation areas, business centers, schools and other institutions. Identify long-term funding for sidewalk construction. Develop procedures that link or expand greenways when obtaining rights-of-way when developing utilities. Develop and adopt a bicycle and pedestrian transportation plan that uses the recommended design principles. TRANSIT SYSTEM IN A11. Develop programs to increase ridership of Valley Metro. IN Al2. Encourage employers to establish motor pools for work-related trips during the day so employees can walk or bike to work. IN A 13. Continue programs that provide public transportation to disabled citizens; consider expansion of service to employment and medical centers. IN Al4. Explore streetcars or other mass transit systems. AIRPORT IN Al5. IN A16. Encourage expanded direct air service to major national destinations. Provide accessible shuttle service between the airport and other local destinations. RAIL SYSTEM IN Al7. Encourage expansion of rail service to relieve mack congestion on Interstate 81. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.42 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan IN Al8. IN Al9. Explore development of a regional facility for truck-to-rail intermodal transfer facility and inland port. Pursue passenger rail service. TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE IN A20. Create a task force responsible for developing a technology strategy. IN A21. Inventory and map technology resources such as available buildings, communications infrastructure and existing technology businesses. IN A22. Foster strong partnerships and cooperative projects with Virginia Tech and other local universities. VVATER AND YVASTEWATER IN A23. Promote regional solutions to public water and sewer needs and services, including consideration of water conservation strategies. IN A24. Maintain and upgrade sanitary sewer lines to eliminate infiltration and inflow of storm water. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Paoe 3.43 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan 3.4 PUBLIC SERVICES: Police, Fire/EMS, Solid Waste Management, Code Enforcement BACKGROUND Public Safety The Police Department operates out of centralized offices in the Municipal Building Annex in downtown Roanoke. The Department has approximately 250 budgeted positions for sworn personnel. Due to numerous vacancies in police personnel, additional emphasis has been placed on recruitment, improving benefits and retention of existing officers. Police operations patrol 13 districts that are covered by 14 to 18 police cars 24 hours a day. A new police building is under construction and will relieve overcrowded conditions and provide additional space for new operations. Roanoke became one of only two localities in Virginia to be awarded the status of Certified Crime Prevention Community. The designation came out of a new program developed by the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. The Police Department has adopted community oriented policing as a standard method of operation. This approach includes the Community Oriented Policing Effort (COPE) unit, a special police team that moves to specific sites to address particular problems. The COPE team works cooperatively with other departments to solve problems and can work from satellite offices in the community. Currently, COPE teams work from satellite sites located in Williamson Road and Lafayette Boulevard. The Department has made a significant investment in time and financial resources in the Record Management System, which is a computerized system that enhances officers' ability to transmit and share information electronically. Mobile Data Terminals in vehicles are used to reduce paperwork, improve timeliness and accuracy of information, and reduce response time. The Department is accredited by the Commission for Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). CALEA accreditation requires police departments to work regionally to achieve goals Set out in standards. This cross-j urisdictional cooperation greatly enhances the ability of departments to respond to problems and provides training and education opportunities for personnel. The Roanoke Fire-EMS (Emergency Medical Services) Department has central offices located in the Jefferson Center building at 541 Luck Avenue, S.W. The department employs approximately 275 personnel. The department is a full-service fire and emergency medical service agency providing basic and advanced pre-hospital life support, fire prevention, educational programs, fire suppression services and arson detection. It also provides vehicle extrication and tactical heavy rescue, and supports a regional hazardous materials team. Roanoke Fire-EMS operates 14 fire-EMS stations throughout the City with 13 fire engines, four aerial ladder trucks, two water tankers, five ambulances, three command vehicles and airport fire fighting. Each year the department responds to approximately 2,500 fires or first responder calls, of which 240 (on average) are fires. In contrast, 15,500 EMS calls are answered each year, which involve approximately 10,000 ambulance transports to local hospitals. Improvements to equipment and training methodologies have improved both the overall response time and effectiveness of the force. More than 92% of the department's personnel are cross-trained to perform both firefighting and emergency medical tasks greatly increasing the department's overall effectiveness. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.44 3.5.1 Public Facilities · Police offices Fire/EMS stations Public facility I-S-I-O-N 2 0 01~11~ ROANOKE VIRGINIA VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan Zoning, Building and Development The City has adopted various ordinances that regulate new development and the rehabilitation of existing structures. These include the Zoning Ordinance, Uniform Statewide Building Code, Property Maintenance Code and Subdivision Ordinance, as well as ordinances for erosion and sediment control and storm water management. Various designated agents and Council-appointed Boards provide administration, enforcement and appeals of these regulations. Solid Waste Management The City disposes of solid waste at the Smith Gap Regional Landfill (established in 1993), which is accessed from a regional transfer station operated by the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. Solid waste is collected on a weekly basis from its residential customers and on a bi-weekly basis for commercial customers. Recycling is provided City-wide and includes composting of brush and yard wastes. POLICY APPROA CH Public Safety Studies indicate that thc perception of a safe environment is one of thc critical factors to a City's success in attracting residents, visitors and businesses. Roanoke's Police Department is developing an effective and responsive approach to law enforcement that actively involves community policing in developing anti-crime initiatives. Thc development of satellite offices is an opportunity for officers to work in thc community with residents and businesses, as well as other City departments and agencies to resolve problems and bring resources to the community to address many of the root causes of crime. Roanoke should strengthen career development programs for experienced police officers to stay on active duty patrolling and provide officers with updated equipment based on changes in technology. The Fire-EMS (Emergency Medical Services) Department is reviewing facility requirements. Further study and planning is needed to investigate the costs and benefits of closing some of the existing facilities and the reassignment of equipment and personnel. Renovated facilities could continue to serve the community as offices or locations for community-based services. Some inter-jurisdictional agreements have been established, but closer coordination should be encouraged between Roanoke and neighboring localities to coordinate fire and emergency services in urbanized areas of the Roanoke Valley. Zoning and Development Code Administration Citizens place a strong emphasis on neighborhoods as being an "essential element in Roanoke's quality of life" and as such, the "character and environmental quality" of neighborhoods should be protected. These publicly-identified and important community values focus on the need for better public and private property maintenance through public policy, including stronger controls over unsightly properties and the strengthening of housing maintenance and zoning codes to ensure improved development quality and community appearance. As Roanoke positions itself to attract new housing and business, the development process should be streamlined and flexible in order to meet development needs while protecting the public welfare and safety. This process should emphasize excellence in customer service. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.46 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan Solid Waste Management Recycling and resource recovery programs are progressive long-range approaches to managing Roanoke's solid waste and increasing the life of the Smith Gap Landfill. Roanoke should evaluate and implement additional programs that encourage cost-effective methods of recycling. Composting should be considered as a method to increase the life of the landfill. City Services and Delivery Improved communication and computer technology provide opportunities to re-examine how services are delivered. Satellite work sites at dispersed multi-service facilities could serve as information sites in neighborhoods for businesses and citizens to work with City staff, pay taxes, obtain vehicle decals, or fOr information and referrals for various programs and services. Code compliance activities should be coordinated among City department and state agencies. -s- . O .N STRATEGIC INITM TIVE Multi-Service Facilities: Providing needed public services in accessible locations in the community are important to improving customer service and working relationships with neighborhoods and businesses. Community multi-service facilities are proposed as neighborhood-based service centers to provide easy access to City services, community education programs and other community not-for-profit agencies, acting as an information and referral outreach service. Specific programs that could be located in multi-service centers include Code Compliance, Recreation Facilitators, Human Service Department intake counselors, Treasurer's Department, Health Department programs, and COPE officers. Other activities may include after-school programs, adult education, and computer center for Internet access, general health clinics, senior citizen services and employment centers. The facilities should augment existing services by operating as branch offices with the range of services tailored to meet the needs of patrons. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.47' FISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan RECOMMENDED POLICIES PS Pl. Community policing. Roanoke will continue its community policing approach to strengthen close interaction and mutual cooperation between police, residents, businesses and community groups. PS P2. Public safety services. Public safety services will maintain a high degree of excellence that meet or exceed nationally-recognized accreditation standards. PS P3. Fire and EMS services. All areas of the City will have fire and emergency services that are located to provide the most effective and equitable protection. PS P4. Code administration. The City will continuously review development and building codes and their administration to ensure appropriate regulations and review processes that encourage quality development and protection of the public health, welfare and safety. PS P5. Recycling. Recycling and resource recovery will be promoted as a regional, solid waste management tool. Roanoke will be known as a City that recycles all recyclable material, where feasible. ACTIONS PUBLIC SAFETY PS Al. Develop strategies that strengthen community-policing (i.e., C.O.P.E.) efforts between the police department, residents, businesses and community groups. PS A2. Public safety agencies will maintain or exceed nationally-recognized standards such as the Commission for Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies. PS A3. Revise zoning ordinance to integrate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in the development review process. PS A4. Promote citizen participation in public safety programs such as the Citizens Police Academy. PS AS. Study and promote regional approaches to providing public safety services that ensure their location and operation provide the most equitable, effective and efficient service to citizens. CODE ADMINISTRATION, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS PS A6. Revise zoning code regarding nuisance offenses to provide for civil fines and on-site ticketing to increase compliance. PS A7. Provide code enforcement information to residents and inspectors in satellite service centers. PS A8. Provide ongoing training for boards and commissions related to zoning, property maintenance and development codes through certified training programs. PS A9. Revise zoning and other ordinances to address new development patterns and land uses. PS Al0. Coordinate regulations, where feasible, with neighboring jurisdictions for consistency. PS A11. Increase the use of information technology to improve services. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.48 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PS Al2. Develop and expand recycling and educational programs that promote its use. PS A13. Consider developing a staffed recycling center with a household hazardous waste component. CITY ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE-DELIVERY SITES PS Al4. Pursue innovative service-delivery strategies that improve customer service. Increase the use of computers and information technology to reduce reliance on paper and provide greater access and sharing of information. PS Al5. Ensure that all public schools and City-owned facilities are located, designed and maintained to complement neighboring land uses. PS Al6. Pursue regional efforts for solid waste management and recycling. PS A17. Consider development of community service centers to provide direct services and serve as information and referral centers. · Identify community service needs for two pilot locations (north and south) for centers. · Develop an administrative plan that provides services and management of the centers. · Involve private and non-profit sector organizations such as the Council of Community Services in planning for the facilities FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.49 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 · Comprehensive Plan 3.6 PEOPLE: Education and Lifelong Learning, Health and Human Services, Libraries BACKGROUND Public Schools The Roanoke Public School System consists of two high schools, six middle schools, 21 elementary schools and two alternative schools (see map). The schools offer a number of special programs, including the Magnet school program, CITY School, the Noel C. Taylor Learning Academy and the Blue Ridge Technical Academy. Enrollment in 2000 totaled 13,867 students. Renovations Roanoke has completed major renovations of seven elementary schools, four middle schools, and has made substantial improvements to six elementary schools. A new school will be constructed in the Melrose Rugby neighborhood to replace the existing school. Studies are underway for improvements to both of the City's high schools. Magnet Schools The Magnet School program was initiated in 1988. It is the largest magnet program in Virginia and has programs in 13 schools for students in grades K-12. Magnet schools feature special programs and resources that draw students from around the region. Each Magnet school develops programs ranging from dance, computers and aviation to piano, architecture, languages and the prestigious International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme. Roanoke's newest Magnet School, Round Hill Montessori School, offers the first public Montessori program in this part of the state. After-school programs Roanoke schools have an extensive after-school activity program offering a mix of academics, cultural enrichment, community service activities and sports. A third of the City's high school students and more than half of the middle school students participate in these programs. Nearly 800 middle and high school students are participating in a dozen tutorial programs, which are designed to improve grades, boost SOL test scores and reduce dropout rates. Governor's School of Science and Technology Roanoke City is home to the Roanoke Valley Governor's School for Science and Technology, which serves students from regional high schools. Bedford, Craig, Franklin, and Roanoke Counties and the cities of Roanoke and Salem participate in the program. The Governor's School is located on the Patrick Henry High School Campus in Southwest Roanoke. Libraries The City Library System includes a downtown main library, five branch libraries (see map) and a bookmobile. A consortium has been formed with the library systems of Roanoke and Botetourt Counties and Salem City to operate an integrated automated library system. The consortium provides greater flexibility for patrons to take advantage of the collections and services located at any of the partner facilities. The main library houses the Virginia Room, a nationally-renowned collection of genealogy and history resources. The library is in the process of assessing whether the main library should be relocated to a larger, more central site that would provide greater flexibility for expanded services and improved parking. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.50 3.6.1 People and Human Development · Elememary school · Middle school · High school [] Private school College/higher education Hospital Medical clinic Library I-2So-Io-O'N I ROANOKE VIRGINIA 0 2000 4000 6000 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan Higher Education Center Roanoke has expanded educational and training opportunities for adults in the region. The opening of the Roanoke Higher Education Center fulfilled a ten-year effort by local businesses and education leaders to expand post-secondary education opportunities. Virginia Tech, The University of Virginia and 17 other educational institutions offer graduate and undergraduate degree programs. Virginia Western Community College offers a wide range of programs leading to Associate Degrees or technical certifications. Regional Colleges Four colleges and universities are located within close proximity of Roanoke: Hollins University, Roanoke College, Virginia Tech and Radford University. Partnerships with these colleges and universities are increasing, especially with respect to student internships, special projects and technical assistance on governmental and environmental issues. Virginia Western Community College Virginia Western Community College's Center for Business, Industry and Technology provides continuing education, up-to-date training information, resources and support services to existing and potential business, industry, government and the community. Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium (FDETC) serves the cities of Roanoke, Clifton Forge, Covington and Salem and the counties of Roanoke, Alleghany, Botetourt and Craig. The FDETC assists employers and job seekers by assessing employer needs as well as job-seeker skills and abilities, developing customized service strategies, and providing employment counseling, education and specific occupational skills training. The FDETC receives its primary funding from the resources of the federal Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), through the Governor's Employment and Training Department. Locally, the FDETC receives its policy guidance and oversight through the partnership of the Policy Board and Private Industry Council. Health and Human Services City of Roanoke: The Medical Center of Southwestern Virginia Roanoke is the medical center for southwestern Virginia providing significant medical services and employment for the region. Roanoke Memorial and Community Hospitals have undergone major renovations and restructuring during the past few years. Carillon Health Systems is the region's largest employer and includes both Roanoke Memorial and Community Hospitals. Public Mental Health Services Public mental health services are provided by Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare of the Roanoke Valley, which offers programs for mental health, retardation, illness and substance abuse. Roanoke City Health Department provides a range of health and mental-health programs. The Health Department also provides environmental health services, communicable disease programs and programs for children and families. Social Services Roanoke's Department of Social Services provides assistance in three areas: protective services, support services and temporary financial assistance programs. Most recipients are experiencing a financial or medical crisis, unexpected unemployment, natural disaster or fire, family violence, hardship caring for aging parents or a life-altering disability. These programs directly impact and enhance a citizen's ability to obtain and maintain self-sufficiency, care for dependent family members and experience a safe and satisfying quality of life. The City is reimbursed from state and federal sources for approximately 87% of FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.52 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan these services. The department also serves citizens interested in becoming foster parents, providing day- care services or adopting a child. POLICY APPROACH Education and Lifelong Learning The perceived quality of a school education is strongly linked to the City's long-range revitalization goals. The undeserved but sometimes negative image of 'City schools' has been perceived as one of the major stumbling blocks in attracting and retaining young families in City neighborhoods. Continued efforts are needed to improve the image of the schools and to promote the wide range of quality educational opportunities available through the Roanoke City Public Schools. Children are encouraged to actively take advantage of Roanoke's existing excellent resources to receive a well-rounded education that prepares them for ongoing study or to enter the workforce. National studies indicate that successful after-school programs create a positive learning environment and actively engage students. These programs should be expanded into community learning centers that are available to students, parents and the community in all areas of the City - possibly as part of larger dispersed multi- service facilities. Workforce development is an important element of Roanoke's overall economic development strategy. Continuing education opportunities, as well as job training and lifelong learning, are important components of supporting a learning environment. The Roanoke Higher Education Center is poised to expand the current range of degree and non-degree programs to provide even greater opportunities for residents to pursue career interests. Libraries The future for a strong library system must include broadening the vision of what a library provides. In a celebration of Library Week 2001, First Lady Laura Bush called libraries "Palaces of People." She said that libraries are more than warehouses for books; they are gathering places, literally community centers. At the same time, as Roanoke plans for the future, libraries must become vital resources for lifelong learning. Health and Human Services A healthy City is one that is continually creating and improving those physical and social environments, and expanding those community resources that enable people to support each other in performing all functions of life and in developing themselves to their maximum potential. A healthy community is built on a foundation of multiple assets: economic, social, environmental and human. To achieve the goal of being a healthy community, the City should adopt principles of sustainability that guide policymaking and enhance and sustain a high quality of life. RECOMMENDED POLICIES EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING PE Pl. Quality education. Roanoke school system will be known for its quality education that prepares students for the workplace or with the skills and knowledge needed to succeed in higher education. Roanoke will maintain and improve its high-quality public education facilities and programs at all levels. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.153 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan PE P2. School facilities. School facilities are important community facilities. The location of new school facilities will be carefully planned to enhance the surrounding community and adhere to the City design principles recommended. PE P3. Lifelong learning. Roanoke will support schools, libraries, continuing and higher education programs, community-based education and recreation programs that foster a positive learning environment for persons of all ages. PE P4. Community learning centers. Roanoke will encourage the efficient use of public schools by co-location of education, lifelong learning and recreation programs in school facilities, making them Community Learning Centers. PE P5. After-school and evening programs. Roanoke will encourage parents to participate with students in innovative school programs beyond the school curriculum during after-school, evenings and weekends. PE P6. Workforce development. Roanoke will strive to provide the necessary education and training for a well-qualified workforce to meet the demands of business and industry. Accordingly, Roanoke will support Roanoke City Schools and the Roanoke Higher Education Center, Center for Business, Industry and Technology, Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium and other regional facilities. LIBRARIES PE PT. Libraries. Roanoke will support its libraries as a fundamental part of its lifelong learning system. They will function as informational and social centers that provide places for community gathering, business research, and educational activities. The library will establish strong links with schools and higher-education facilities. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PE PS. Health-care programs. Roanoke will support health-care programs that encourage healthier living to improve community health. PE P9. Health and human service agencies. Roanoke will support a range of health and human services to meet the needs of Roanoke's citizens. PE P10. Local and regional collaboration. Roanoke will support efforts for local and regional collaboration and cost-sharing measures to assist health and human service agencies. ACTIONS EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING PE Al. Develop and expand strategies that encourage parents and children to make the commitment for children to attend and participate in school every day. PE A2. Create programs that provide opportunities for education and coaching in local institutions such as churches, neighborhood groups and businesses to increase awareness and value of education. PE A3. Develop plans for constructive alternatives for students in in-school suspension. PE A4. Create ways to encourage churches and civic groups to adopt a school and provide programs/activities to build youth interest and provide role models for success. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.54 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan LIBRARIES PE AS. PE A6. PE A7. PE A8. Improve the downtown main library to provide greater accessibility, better service delivery and access to technology. Consider building improvements, a new building or relocation of the library. Continue to support the Virginia Room as the premier resource center for genealogy and history. Explore inclusion of business development services at the main library. Develop a plan that identifies branch library facilities that have become outdated or cannot be expanded; consider relocation to sites that have facilities to provide access to bus service, and provide adequate and safe parking. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PE Ag. Promote programs that educate citizens regarding public and private programs to make health care more accessible. PE Al0. Develop a strategy that addresses duplication of inter-related services in health and human service programs. PE A11. Promote health-care programs related to pre-natal care, immunization, dental and vision care and health screening by using the interact, television and other forms of media. PE Al2. Inventory existing day-care facilities; develop a plan aimed at increasing the availability of affordable day and evening care for children, elderly and the handicapped. PE Al3. Develop special-needs programs that are accessible and connected to housing and support networks. PE Al4. Provide accessible information in satellite service facilities. PE Al5. Promote development of a regional cost-sharing program for health and human services. PE Al6. Establish new regional public transportation routes in the Valley to provide better access to health care and support services. PE Al7. Develop strategies that support greater use of recreational and exercise programs in schools, parks and greenways. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 3.55 VISION 2001 Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/200 t Page 3.56 VISION 2001 Chapter 4 Comprehensive Plan 4. CITY DESIGN: THE PLAN'S UNIFYING THEME The overall goal of Vision 2001 is to make Roanoke an attractive place for people of all ages, backgrounds and income levels to live, work, shop and play. This vision requires not only sound social and economic policies, but also a strong commitment to excellence in community design and appearance. Simply put, Roanoke must be a beautiful City. Good design is not optional. The quality of the physical environment - attractive streets, buildings, parks and open space -has a direct impact on Roanoke's economy, the sustainability of its neighborhoods and the successful stewardship of its unique natural and cultural resources. The community expects the highest level of excellence in building design, streetscapes, pedestrian amenities, preservation of special places and enhancement of community distinctiveness. 4.1 DESIGN PRINCIPLES The City Design element of the Comprehensive Plan seeks to achieve this goal by establishing general design principles to guide future infill, new development, street improvements and redevelopment of underused sites. City Design recognizes that Roanoke is not uniform in design; rather, the City is comprised of distinct character districts, each with its own set of place-defining characteristics. Design principles associated with each character district are intended to inform future land use and zoning, providing landowners and developers with ideas regarding site development and building decisions. Region The City of Roanoke serves as the economic and cultural hub of the largest metropolitan center in Southwest Virginia, the Roanoke Valley. The City's image goes beyond its political boundaries; visitors, newcomers and businesses form their impressions of Roanoke at a regional level. Therefore, it is important to reach across political boundaries to promote sensible development, attractive transportation networks and good design throughout the Roanoke Valley. Design principles · Roanoke should cooperate with its neighbors to protect the scenic beauty of the Roanoke Valley by limiting ridgetop development, preserving important viewsheds and protecting natural waterways. · Roanoke should cooperate with its neighbors to mitigate the effects of population growth by supporting cluster development, preservation of open space and the development of a multi- modal transportation network throughout the Roanoke Valley. · Major transportation routes within the Roanoke Valley should be attractively landscaped and designed to minimize disturbance of the natural environment. Gateways and appropriate signage should welcome visitors and newcomers to the Valley. · Landmarks, parkways, environmental, historic and cultural tourism attractions should be protected from visual or physical encroachment by incompatible uses. City The City of Roanoke owes its distinctiveness to its compact urban form. Intense development is concentrated around Roanoke's downtown and large regional shopping centers, with density of development generally decreasing as it radiates from the City center. Visual impressions of Roanoke are formed at key entrance points along major transportation routes, with Mill Mountain and the downtown skyline serving as the City's predominant visual landmarks. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 4.1 VISION 2001 Chapter 4 Comprehensive Plan Design principles: · Gateways should be established along major transportation routes leading into the City. Major transportation routes should be attractively landscaped and should include appropriate signage to direct visitors and promote Roanoke's unique attractions. · Roanoke should have well-defined edges to support an understanding of the City's image and create a clear sense of arrival and departure. · New development along the City's edges should promote a positive image of the City by respecting natural features, emphasizing high-quality building design and incorporating appropriate landscaping. Downtown Downtown is characterized by a pronounced skyline, pedestrian-friendly streets and a mixture of retail, office, residential and light industrial uses. Downtown is not confined to the Central Business District, but extends into the Belmont, Gainsboro and Old Southwest neighborhoods. Downtown streets form an interconnected grid and are designed to accommodate both vehicular and pedestrian use. Buildings are typically set close to the street and often adjoin each other. Parking is generally concentrated in parking structures, or is located to the side or rear of principal buildings. Design principles: · Downtown should have a recognizable skyline; tall buildings and maximum site development should be permitted. Buildings should be set close to the street, with ground-floor facades that emphasize pedestrian activity. · Building should be designed to accommodate a mixture of uses. Downtown's historic character should be preserved and used to guide new development with the assistance of the Architectural Review Board guidelines. · Access to and circulation within the downtown should be efficient, convenient and attractive. Streets should be designed to accommodate multiple modes of traffic: pedestrian, bicycles, transit automobiles. Encourage two-way streets to the maximum extent feasible. · On-street parking should be reserved for shoppers and short-term visitors. Long-term parking should be concentrated in parking structures or to the side or rear of principal buildings. Surface parking should be minimized. Downtown neighborhoods Downtown neighborhoods are characterized by small lots (approximately 5,000 square feet), two-story houses with porches, consistent building setbacks and an interconnected grid of narrow, tree-lined streets and alleys. These neighborhoods developed adjacent to the downtown between the 1890s and 1920s. Design principles: · Houses should have front porches; setbacks for residential structures should be consistent. · Recognized historic buildings should be preserved and should be used to guide new development. · All streets should have sidewalks and should be lined with trees; on street and rear-access parking should be encouraged. Traditional neighborhoods Traditional neighborhoods are characterized by medium-sized lots (5,000-7,000 square feet), one-and-a- half or two-story houses, consistent building setbacks and an interconnected grid of narrow, tree-lined streets. These neighborhoods developed between the 1920s and 1940s as the streetcar system expanded outward. Traditional neighborhoods often feature churches, neighborhood schools and small neighborhood commercial centers. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 4.2 VISION 2001 Chapter 4 Comprehensive Plan Design principles: · All streets should have sidewalks and should be lined with trees. On-street parking should be encouraged; driveways and garages should be located to the side or rear of buildings. · Neighborhood schools and commercial centers should be preserved. · Houses should be consistent in terms of front setback and bulk. Suburban neighborhoods Suburban neighborhoods are characterized by large lots (greater than 7,000 square feet), a variety of housing sizes and styles, deep front setbacks, wide curvilinear streets and prominent driveways and garages. These neighborhoods developed after World War II as dependency on the automobile increased. Design principles: · New residential development should incorporate traditional neighborhood principles rather than suburban patterns. · Street improvements within suburban neighborhoods should focus on greater vehicular connection, pedestrian amenities and reduction of pavement width. Village centers Roanoke's traditional neighborhoods typically featured small commercial centers that allowed residents to live, work and shop in a local setting. Village centers are characterized by a mixture of high-density uses, including neighborhood-oriented retail, office and residential uses. Buildings are typically set close to the street and often adjoin each other; parking is located to the side or rear of principal buildings. Design principles: · Higher-density residential development should be concentrated within and immediately adjacent to village centers; housing density should decrease with distance away from the village center. · Buildings should be set close to the street with ground-floor facades that emphasize pedestrian activity. · Village centers should have broad sidewalks that provide strong pedestrian links into the surrounding neighborhood. Streets and streetscapes should promote pedestrian activity. · Parking should be located on the street or to the rear or side of principal buildings and on-street parking should be encouraged. Local commercial centers Local commercial centers are intended to serve multiple neighborhoods, but generally do not draw customers from a Citywide or regional base. These centers are typically located along arterial or collector streets and are characterized by large sites, linear development, deep setbacks and large expanses of parking. Uses often include grocery stores, restaurants and small retail shops. Design principles: · Local commercial centers should maximize site development through reduced parking spaces, increased lot coverage and parcels developed along street frontages. · Parking lots should have multiple vehicular entrances that are clearly marked and attractively landscaped. Parking lots should have trees located in the interior of the site and along street frontages. · Visual clutter and excessive lighting should be discouraged. Signs should be consolidated and attractively designed. Regional commercial centers Regional commercial centers are intended to serve as retail centers that draw customers from the City and the region. These centers are typically located along arterial roads or interstate FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Pa[le 4.3 VISION 2001 Chapter 4 Comprehensive Plan highways. They are characterized by large sites, with deep setbacks and large expanses of parking. Land uses often include big-box retail stores, shopping malls, national-chain restaurants and entertainment attractions. Design Principles: · Regional commercial centers should maximize connectivity with existing collector and arterial streets. Traffic improvements should avoid impact on surrounding neighborhoods. Streets should encourage pedestrian traffic and bicycle lanes. · Site development should be maximized through reduced parking spaces, increased lot coverage and parcels developed along street frontages. Shared parking should be encouraged · Parking lots should have multiple vehicular entrances that are clearly marked and attractively landscaped. Parking lots should have trees located in the interior of the site and along street frontages. · Visual clutter and excessive lighting should be discouraged. Signs should be clustered and attractively designed. Commercial corridors Commercial corridors are intended to serve as retail strips for customers from throughout the City and are generally located on arterial roads. They are characterized by linear development on wide roads without bicycle lanes or pedestrian traffic access with excessive signage and curb cuts. Land uses often consist of a variety of business supportive services such as banks, restaurants, furniture stores and convenience stores, among others. Design Principles: · Commercial development should be concentrated at key intersections and encourage higher- density, mixed-use development and live/work space along the road. Curb cuts should be minimized; shared parking lots and on-street parking should be encouraged. · Site development should be maximized through reduced parking spaces, increased lot coverage and parcels developed along street frontages. · Visual clutter and excessive lighting should be discouraged. Signs should be attractively designed, co-located on single displays or monuments. Industrial centers Industrial centers are intended to serve as employment hubs that attract workers from the City and the region. These centers are typically located along arterial roads or interstate highways. They are characterized by large sites with perimeter fencing, outdoor storage, deep setbacks and large expanses of parking. These centers sometimes have adjacent land uses that are incompatible and discourage expansion or redevelopment opportunities. Design Principles: · Outdoor storage should be shielded fi-om public view and perimeter fencing should be attractive. · Site development should be maximized through reduced parking spaces, increased lot coverage and parcels developed along street frontages. Shared parking should be encouraged. · Parking lots should have multiple vehicular entrances that are clearly marked and attractively landscaped. Parking lots should have trees located in the interior of the site and along street frontages. Connectivity within centers and with existing collector and arterial streets should be encouraged. · Excessive lighting should be discouraged. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 4.4 VISION 2001 Chapter 4 Comprehensive Plan Industrial corridor Industrial corridors are intended to serve as employment hubs for localities. These centers are typically located along areas that provide convenient transportation access (i.e., railroad, fiver, arterial road). They are characterized by large sites with deep setbacks, outdoor storage, perimeter fencing, large expanses of parking and a principal entrance. Design Principles: · Outdoor storage should be shielded from public view and perimeter fencing should be attractive. · Site development should be maximized through reduced parking spaces, increased lot coverage and parcels developed along street frontages. Bicycle lanes, pedestrian traffic and shared parking should be encouraged. · Parking lots should have multiple vehicular entrances and have trees located in the interior of the site and along street frontages. Connectivity within centers and with existing collector and arterial streets should be encouraged. · Excessive lighting should be discouraged. Streets Street design principles address the design of new and existing streets and are intended to provide guidance for improvements. These principles are based on discussions of the case studies and research of street design practices. They address eight general elements of the streetscape: automobile accommodations, bicycle accommodations, pedestrian accommodations, transit accommodations, trees, signs, lighting and buildings. Design Principles Automobile · Arterial road designs should encourage tree-lined urban boulevards with attractive pavement and efficient travel lanes. · Pavement should be kept to the minimum width necessary. · Narrow vehicle travel lanes should be used to discourage speeding. · One-way streets should be converted to two-way streets, where possible, to improve access and promote safer speeds. · On-street parking is desirable on most streets as it provides a buffer between pedestrians and automobile traffic, and it reduces the amount of scarce land dedicated to parking. · Off-street parking should be located at the side or rear of buildings. · Textured paving materials should be encouraged, where slower design speeds are desired. · Access within and adjacent to industrial areas and key business sites should be encouraged. Bicycles · Bike lanes should be encouraged. Bike accommodations should be striped or colored lanes on urban collectors, minor arterials and intermediate arterials. · Major arterials should have off-road lanes or designated parallel routes. Pedestrians · Sidewalks should be provided on both sides of urban residential, urban collector, downtown and arterial streets. Existing brick sidewalks should be preserved and maintained. Sidewalks should be separated from vehicle travel lanes by street trees and on-street parking. · Curb remm radii should be the minimum necessary as shorter radii reduce street crossing distances for pedestrians. · Crosswalks in downtown and neighborhood commercial areas should be textured or of colored material. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 4.5 VISION 2001 Chapter 4 Comprehensive Plan · Wide streets with multiple lanes such as major arterials should have center medians that create a pedestrian refuge. Transit · Commercial centers and village centers should have bus shelters and benches (without advertising). · Where warranted for safety, pullout areas for buses should be developed. Trees, Signs and Lighting · Trees are an essential element of the streetscape and should be planted along all non-suburban streets. Wherever possible, trees should be planted so that they create a canopy over the roadway. · Center medians planted with trees should be used on major arterials. · Planting strips, the area between a curb and a sidewalk, should be used to accommodate street trees. They should be provided on all urban residential access streets, neighborhood collectors and most arterials. · Lighting should be decorative and pedestrian-scaled in downtown, commercial centers and village centers. The negative appearance of overhead utility lines should be minimized through relocation to alleys or underground. Where relocation is not feasible, efforts should be made to consolidate lines onto fewer poles. Signs (private and public) should be limited in number and scaled in size to minimize visual clutter. Buildings · Building location and design should be considered as important elements of the streetscape and should be used to define the street corridor as a public place, especially at major intersections. · Building height and location should create a feeling of enclosure along a street. Residential and commercial buildings should be located very close to streets with Iow vehicle speeds. Large public and institutional buildings should generally have deeper setbacks. Building setbacks should be consistent along the street. · Building fronts and entrances should face a street. · Major streets should terminate with monumental public/institutional buildings, parks, or civic art. 4.2 IMPLEMENTATION: A PROACTIVE DESIGN WORKSHOP A design workshop was used to develop concepts and schematics to study alternative development patterns. A similar process is proposed to proactivcly reach consensus on future development decisions through participation involving stakeholders from thc public, private and nonprofit sectors. Recommendation · Develop procedures to institutionalize a design workshop aimed at reaching consensus on program and design approaches for proposed projects at thc beginning of the development process rather than after extensive funds have been invested in preliminary or final design. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 4.6 VISION 2001 Chapter 4 Comprehensive Plan 4.3 DESIGN ILLUSTRATIONS AND SCHEMATICS Design illustrations were developed to study altemative development and design approaches for the following: Village Centers, Housing Clusters, Streetscapes, Transportation Corridors and Redeveloping Underutilized Commercial/Industrial sites. The illustrations are schematics to illustrate concepts discussed during The Planning process. Please note that these illustrations are concepts and not public proposals. As such, they do not imply intent on the part of the City or other entity to purchase or develop any of the properties examined. Village Centers Many of Roanoke's traditional neighborhoods developed as "villages," with self-contained centers that provided opportunities for people to live, work, shop, play and interact in a local setting. Village centers offer amenities typically not found in suburban areas, such as convenient access to schools, local shops and places of employment. Village centers contain higher density residential, retail, entertainment venues and office-space that contribute to the economic health of Roanoke. Two examples are illustrated: a small pedestrian-oriented one block center and a larger automobile-oriented center consisting of two to three blocks. Housing Clusters Housing clusters are market-rate residential developments consisting of a mixture of residential uses (single-family, two-family, townhouses) on a large site, located within or adjacent to existing developments of established neighborhoods. Smaller than a traditional suburban subdivision but larger than a single-lot infill home, housing clusters are partly de£med by the ability and willingness of builders to acquire and package land in a developed, urban setting. Two examples are illustrated: Downtown, higher density in-fill location requiting a single City block site, and development of a traditional neighborhood design planned unit development on a single 50+ acre site. Redeveloping underutilized commercial and industrial sites Roanoke has a significant amount of commercial and industrially-zoned land that remains vacant or underutilized. These sites are often characterized by a single structure surrounded by large expanses of parking. Two examples are illustrated: Redevelopment of older shopping center with single large footprint building and redevelopment of an underutilized industrial area with rail access and proximity to major thoroughfares. Downtown fringe area A prototype site was chosen in the northern portion of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area (SJR. A), known as the "Crossings." This area is located near the intersection of Williamson Road and Albemarle Avenue, just north of the first phase of the SJRA. The intent of the site investigation was to identify uses and improvements that could accelerate the redevelopment process. This area is typical of other underutilized areas on the fringe of downtown located along rail or highway transportation corridors. Due to deterioration or vacancy, the area has an unattractive faqade to passing residents or visitors that represent lost opportunities for job and revenue-producing uses. The current land use pattern in this area consists mainly of older industrial and commercial uses and vacant property. The properties are in the flood plain. Rail lines, roadways and the river make the site fragmented. Streetscapes and Transportation Corridors A design illustration was developed to show possible improvements to an existing four-lane roadway. Additional designs and road cross-sections will be developed as part of the Street Design Guidelines. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 4.7 VISION 2001 Chapter 4 Comprehensive Plan SMALL VILLAGE/NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER. Function: The center serves the immediate neighborhood. It is located on a major thoroughfare. The center may contain neighborhood serving commercial and office space such as a gas station/convenience store, small shops and offices. Scale: The village center is one block in length. Commercial and office uses are located on both sides of the street. The surrounding neighborhood is primarily two to three story residential single-family houses. Apartments will be located in converted older homes. Design Schematic: Small village/neighborhood center. Land Uses: Existing buildings are renovated and new mixed-use infill is added within the block to permit retail on the first floor with office and commercial uses on the second and third levels. Traffic: On-street parking is added during off-peak hours. An articulated crosswalk in brick identifies the area as "pedestrian friendly" and is a reminder to motorists to slow their speed. Off street parking is added to the rear of the buildings, the parking is paved and well lighted. Retail stores have rear entrances to encourage patrons to utilize the parking lots. New buildings in the village center are not set back and must have 75% glass on the first floor to create visual attractiveness. Awnings, canopies and other facade improvements are encouraged for existing buildings. Residential uses are permitted on the second floor of the commercial buildings. An area identity is created by careful use of plant materials, lighting, street furniture and signage. Parking: Buildings: Streetscape: FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 ~'age 4.8 1 Before New on-street parking [: contextual renovation housing ' i landscaping ~ New off-street After parking to rear Mixed infill: ground floor commercial with residential above Landscaped median to slow traffic at bridge Consistent architecture Parking behind · bu.~ngs] nstent architecture Articulated On-street parking I.S- -O.N ] 20101,a~ffi~J ROANOKE VIRGINIA OE. PA.J~'r MEN T' O F F'LA.M N'IN'C: AN0 COO~ GNPORC£ME. KT HU'~'TON AS~CI~IATES IK1C, Prototype Site Evaluation: Existing Small Center VISION 2001 ChaRter Comprehensive Plan A UTOMOBILE-ORIENTED VILLAGE CENTER Function: The center is located on a major corridor that carries local and commuter traffic. The center serves both the immediate neighborhood and surrounding community. The center may contain larger scale commercial uses such as a drug store, grocery store or fast food restaurants. Institutional uses may include churches or other public buildings such as a firehouse or community center. Scale The center is two to three blocks in length and may include some uses on the first block of the side streets. The surrounding neighborhood is comprised of two and two and a half story residential buildings. Design Schematic: Automobile-Oriented I/illage Center Land Uses: Existing buildings are renovated and new mixed-use infill is added within the block to permit retail and office uses. Residential uses at a higher density than the surrounding neighborhood (2-3 story apartments) are suggested adjacent to the central commercial area. In this schematic, a grocery store that draws its market from outside the neighborhood is illustrated as a destination store that can support other merchants. Traffic: On-street parking on arterial streets is not permitted. Articulated crosswalks in brick identify the area as "pedestrian friendly" and are a reminder to motorists to slow their speed in the commercial area. Parking: Off-street parking is located on the side and rear of buildings shielded from the street by landscaping or low walls. Buildings: New buildings are added to fill vacant spaces or expanses of surface parking. Buildings should not be set back and must have 60% glass on the first floor to create visual attractiveness. Awnings, canopies and other faqade improvements are encouraged for existing buildings. Streetscape: An area identity is created by careful use of plant materials, lighting, street furniture and signage. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 4.10 Before New apartments on vacant sites New parking (landscaped Expansion of existing fast food to define comer frontage After New Potential future grocery New median apartments store and crosswalks Potential infill: zero-lot-line development Potential infill: destination grocery store Potential infill: hi~- density residential ,.___- - ....... crosswalks Interior parking Existing church: ' · opportunity for shared parking . £' I.S. -O'N [ ROANOKE VIRGINIA D~A'tL ETM EN 'r o p P L.a.N N I~ ~ AN D CODE E N FO RC~M E~ T BENSON A~IAT~S * flI~LSYL~DIO. ~ Prototype Site Evaluation: Existing Automobile-Related Commercial Avenue VISION 2001 Chapter 4 Comprehensive Plan DOWNTOWN HOUSING C£ USTER Function: The site is a single square City block currently containing one or more underutilized st~ctures. The current uses may include residential or office. Scale: The area is adjacent to the downtown. A mix of two, three and four story multi-family and commercial buildings are adjacent to the site. Downtown Housing Cluster- Infill Land Uses: Existing buildings are purchased and removed in order to assemble a feasible development site. New 4 - 5 story structures are added. A mix of uses including residential (multi-family), office and retail would be permitted. Traffic: Access to site would be provided from side street to minimize impact. Parking: Off street parking could be added by underground garage, taking advantage of topography, or in courtyards. Buildings. Buildings will be constructed with minimal setbacks, providing private courtyard space in the center of the development. The scale and density of the development may serve as a transition between downtown (taller buildings, high density) and adjacent neighborhood (detached houses, medium density). Streetscape: Pedestrian access is encouraged by careful use of street trees and lighting. Crosswalks linking the development with the Downtown will encourage pedestrian activity. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 4.12 Central plaza area oriented to downtown, mountain views down hill VISION 2001 Chapter 4 Comprehensive Plan TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN: LARGE SITE Function: The Traditional Neighborhood Design provides for a variety of single and multi-family housing with supporting non-residential uses within a single planned development. Scale: This design requires a large site (greater than 50 acres). The overall net density will range from 4 to 24 dwelling units per acre depending on the character of the community in which it is located, limits set by the land use and location policies of The Plan. Design Schematic: Traditional neighborhood design Land Uses: A mix of single family detached, duplex, single family attached and multi-family dwelling units. Higher density residential development should be located adjacent to the village center, including apartments above shops. Compatible governmental, religious, recreational and other uses required to support the residents of the new and surrounding area is encouraged. Neighborhood service commercial, retail and office uses should be located in the village center. Open space such as neighborhood and community parks, greenways and trails should be developed. Crreenways should be connected to the surrounding neighborhoods. Roadways: Principal access points should be designed to encourage smooth traffic flow at a pedestrian friendly speed. Where possible, neighborhood streets should connect with existing neighborhood streets to complete the street grid pattern of the surrounding area. Parking: Parking in the village center should be located in the rear of the buildings or in a screened parking area. Streetscape: Higher density structures should be built to the building line with parking located in the rear or in parking areas. Single-family attached and detached structures should be built not more than 10 feet set back from the edge of the sidewalk, with parking located in the rear. Where possible alleys should be created to serve rear access garages and parking areas. An area identity is created by careful use of plant materials, lighting, street furniture and signage. Other features: Yards, fences, walls or vegetative screening at the edge of the neighborhood should be provided to screen residential areas from undesirable views, lighting, noise or other off-site impacts. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 4.14 Apartments surrounding small green o Single family houses to rear near creek. Park with new school Central 'village center' shops with housing above Church/community institution on axis with main entry road VISION 2001 Chapter 4 Comprehensive Plan REUSE OF OLDER COMMERCIAL CENTER Function: Site is a two to 10 acre parcel zoned commercial, located on a major thoroughfare. Primary access will be from main road. The current use may be retail or the site may be vacant. Scale: Single large existing structure. Building may have been divided between tenants (grocery, drug store). Building is single footprint, with loading docks in the rear. Parking is located at the front of the building, with building set back from the road to the rear of the lot. Design Schematic: Reuse of strip shopping center Land Uses: Site is rezoned to permit mixture of commercial and light industrial uses such as disthbution, warehousing and retail space. New infill buildings are added along street frontage to provide showroom, retail and/or office space. Residential uses are not relevant in this example, although could be considered as second-level space in other situations. Traffic: Impact on surrounding neighborhood area is minimized by limiting access to site from main roadways. Sidewalks are added along the main frontage of the site, with articulated crosswalks in colored pavers at the entrance to the parking area. Parking: Off street parking is provided on site. Landscaping along building edges may be used to offset requirements for landscaping on paved parking area. Maximum parking requirements will reduce amount of parking, parking requirements will be calculated by use, shared on-site parking is permitted. Buildings: New buildings along property line will be a minimum of two stories in height, will not be set back from front building line and must have 50% glass on the first floor to create visual attractiveness. Awnings, canopies and other fagade improvements are encouraged on buildings along street frontage. Streetscape: Landscaping along the street frontage will be limited to street trees planted in The Planting strip along the road frontage. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 4.16 Before Warehouse/distribution in old shopping mall store Existing neighborhood. After New retail] showroom space built in former parking lot (View below) New e. ntry New buildings define street' frontage Warehouse/distribution to rear I.S-I-O.N 2 o ROANOKE V IRGIlqlA New landscaped entry Retail/showroom defines street Prototype Site Evaluation: Underutilized "Greyfields" Former Strip Shopping Center Site VISION 2001 Chapter 4 Comprehensive Plan REDEVELOPMENT OF UNDERUTILIZED INDUSTRIAL AREA Function: The area is currently used for industrial purposes, located on a major arterial with easy access to I-81, I-581/Route 220 or major east/west corridors, although existing widths vary between two and four lanes, creating bottlenecks. The industrial area was developed over the past 50 years and many of the buildings are now vacant or underutilized. Residential areas or small lot commercial uses are often interspersed within the industrial areas, limiting their functionality. Scale: The area is linear, not less than a mile in length. Adjacent uses outside of the corridor are single and multi-family residential, with area service commercial. Retail is frequently limited to convenience stores, gas stations and auto-related uses. Design Schematic: Redevelopment of industrial area Land Uses: Existing industrial buildings and sites should continue to be used for heavy to light industry. Residential areas should be relocated over time, the land assembled, rezoned and new industrial or research and development uses located in the area. Traffic: Roadways should be improved to thoroughfares (four lane). Public transit service should be provided. New roads may need to be constructed or upgraded to intra-site access. Parking: Parking is provided on site, buffered from surrounding neighborhood. Buildings: New buildings will be developed to meet industrial, flex space and R&D requirements and take advantage of rail opportunities where they exist. Streetscape: Landscaping along main thoroughfares is required. Crreenways and pedestrian linkages should be provided to connect the employment areas with residential or recreational areas. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Pa9e 4.'18 Before After (long, term) Existing Two-Lane Existing Residential in Industrial Area Existing Four-Lane Existing Industrial Buildings Proposed Four-Lane Potential New Industrial Site ROANOKE VIRGINIA HUTTON A~IATE~ INC. Prototype Site Evaluation: Assembly of Non-Industrial Sites Surrounded by Existing Industrial Zone VISION 2001 Chapter 4 Comprehensive Plan DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT: NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SOUTH JEFFERSON REDEVELOPMENT AREA The chosen prototype site was the northern portion of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area (SJRA), known as thc "Crossings." This area is located near the intersection of Williamson Road and Albemarle Avenue, just north of the first phase of the SJRA. Thc intent of the site investigation was to identify uses and improvements that could accelerate the redevelopment process. Function: Scale: This area is typical of other underutilized areas on the southern edge of downtown located along rail or highway transportation corridors. Due to deterioration or vacancy, the area has an unattractive fafade to passing residents or visitors that represent lost opportunities for j ob and revenue- producing uses. The current land use pattern in this area consists mainly of older industrial uses (such as manufacturing and warehousing), commercial uses (such as automotive and furniture) and vacant property. The properties are in the flood plain. Rail lines, roadways and the river make the site fragmented. Design Schematic Land Uses: Land uses considered for this area should be developed for business support services such as hotel, grocery store and restaurant. Shown is a new hotel built in conjunction with renovation of adjacent loft buildings. Area across the railroad track could be used for recreational purposes (i.e. park), with new or renovated buildings containing parking on ground floors in flood plain areas and loft residential uses and live-work space in upper floors. Parking: Parking will be provided on site, screened from view by landscaping or located in interior courtyards Buildings: Second-level restaurants or clubs in this area could feature outdoor decks overlooking the river; such development would result in a mixed-use community with a 24-hour residential presence that would bring vitality to a key area near the downtown that is currently a partially-abandoned and underutilized area. Streetscape: A walkway along the riverfront will connect to the downtown and the SJRA. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 4.20 Existing elevated highway ~ ., ,.'~ %.o' I BeJbre New hotel building Possible reuse of existing ...-" New hotel entry, possible reuse of existing buildings tO re~ ~ After Landscaped Road Walkway to downtown, riverfi'ont Existing elevated highway building:~ above ._.~. New bridge to Riverfront · .main h~ote... below, rOOms Adaptive reuse: live/work, Recreation development on riverfi:ont I-$.I -O.N 2001 Prototype Site Evaluation: Accelerating Redevelopment New Construction/Building Reuse VISION 2001 Chapter 4 Comprehensive Plan URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR STREET Design Schematic: The design schematic illustrates the reconfiguration of a typical four-lane collector street to an urban boulevard. An extended median is constructed between cross streets. The median is of sufficient width to permit planting street trees. A sidewalk and parking lanes are added on each side of the street. A single travel lane allows the steady movement of vehicles. Parking can be limited during commuter hours if required. Stamped/colored pavement delineates bicycle lanes between each travel lane and the median. Mid-block crosswalks are articulated with brick or stamped pavement. Appropriate street lighting and signage complete the design. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 4.22 Section Plan Mid-block pedestrian walkway B stamped/ pavement Extended median along Ninth Street through expanded village center I.S.I-O.N 2 0 01.s l ROANOKE VIRGINIA fl U~TON A~IA~ 1NC. Prototype Road Evaluation: Urban Neighborhood Collector Street VISION 2001 Chapter 4 Comprehensive Plan THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Pa~e 4.24 VISION 2001 Chapter 5 Comprehensive Plan THE STRATEGIC MAP: MAPPING THE PLAN ELEMENTS AND THE STRATEGIC INITIATIVES The Vision 2001 Plan is an integrated set of policies, actions and strategies for successfully positioning Roanoke as a progressive, model City for urban development life in the future. The following Strategic Map provides a summary of the major actions and initiatives identified in the Plan, some of which will involve regional implementation approaches. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 5.1 - / 5.1 Strategic Map ~. ~ Gateways F:::::=1Greenways-Pedeslrian/Bicycle ~ Bicycle Connection on Roadway ~Major Corridors for Streetscape Improvement ~Blue Ridge Parkway View Protection _______] Economic Development Oppommities Conservation/Rehabilitation Dislrict Oppommities · I .S .I -O-N 2 001~,,~ ROANOKE VIRGINIA 2000 ~000 VISION 2001 Chapter 5 Comprehensive Plan THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 5.3 VISION 2001 Chapter 6 Comprehensive Plan IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN: P. riority Actions and Long- Term Policies 6.1 Regional Cooperation and Solutions The concept of regionalism is paramount to the future success of the Valley and to southwest Virginia. Over the years, Roanoke and the surrounding jurisdictions have worked together in partnership to address common issues, promote the region and creatively solve problems. There is much work yet to be done and leadership is needed to promote additional parmerships, agreements and cooperative networks. Regional approaches are critical for protecting the environment, attracting new economy businesses, providing quality public services, promoting cultural attractions and enhancing educational systems. Regional summits and joint meetings of governmental leaders and bodies should be continued to proactively work toward addressing common public goals. These meetings and continued networking could result in an agreed-upon regional plan to benefit all jurisdictions. Such partnerships also could be effective in securing additional funding for public projects, attracting new businesses and influencing state legislation and appropriations. Regional Opportunities As the urban center of the Roanoke Valley and the metropolitan area, the City can take advantage of many regional opportunities that cut across jurisdictional boundaries. The natural environment of Roanoke and the surrounding region is a true asset for both residents and business. Protection of such assets as air, rivers and lakes, mountains, trees, open space and important views are critical to maintaining and enhancing our quality of life. Economic development and business recruitment in the region provides opportunities for residents of many jurisdictions. Quality development, employers and good paying jobs provide a desirable and sustainable lifestyle for residents of the region. The economy of the region provides a foundation for all of its jurisdictions. Public services such as water and sewer, transportation, recreation, solid waste management and public safety offer additional regional opportunities to better serve citizens effectively and efficiently. Educational systems such as local schools, colleges, universities, vocational training facilities and libraries are essential in fostering lifelong learning for citizens and are fundamental to maintaining a vibrant economy and good employment opportunities. Tourism and cultural activities available in Roanoke and the surrounding region are key elements in providing entertainment, encouraging a high quality of life and attracting visitors and potential new residents to our community. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 6.1 VISION 2001 Chapter 6 Comprehensive Plan 6.2 The Plan as an Ongoing Process The Vision 2001 Plan is actually part of an ongoing planning and development process that is updated and refined over time through detailed policies, programs and projects. The following diagram summarizes the process for continuing The Planning program and evaluating its success: Planning Procedures: Plan Updates and Refinements The Vision Plan does not end with the approval of the report by The Planning Commission and City Council. As shown in the chart, The Plan is a continuing process. Continuing Planning and Implementation Detailed component plans will be created for various priority items such as Housing, Transportation and Economic Development. Specific neighborhood and area plans will be prepared (approximately six plans per year), as well as more detailed planning for village centers, corridors or other special action areas. Ongoing Reviews and Updates The Planning Commission, City Council and the City Manager charged the VISION 2001 Advisory Committee with the responsibility of building into The Plan features that would ensure implementation and accountability. The Plan must contain more than dreams; it must be an action plan that holds local government, agencies, neighborhood, businesses and schools accountable for implementation. As part of the implementation strategy, The Plan recommends the development of measurable indicators of community health and sustainability. Building on the regional indicators used in the New Century Council annual report, Vital Signs: Community Indicators for the New Century Region, Roanoke should adapt this format, recognizing the interdependence of the City's economic health and vitality with that of the region. As with Vital Signs, the data collection and reporting for the VISION 2001 report card should be done on a local basis, with comparisons to the region and state. Annually - The Plan will be reviewed and a report prepared to provide a status update on actions taken and implementation. Five Years - The Plan will be updated, examining regional and local demographic indicators, revisiting elements and strategic initiatives with task teams and round tables and revising actions and strategies as necessary: a mid-course correction of tasks, roles and responsibilities and schedule. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 page 6. 2 VISION 2001 Chapter 6 Cotnprehensive Plan Ten Years - The plan will undergo a major revision using U.S. Census data to develop a new Vision Plan (2011). Analyze new background data and include public participation for new plan and policies. Citizen Advisory Committee The participation of a Citizens' Advisory Committee is key to The Plan's implementation and success. This committee will assist the City in responding to various needs and organizations active in community-development matters. The following chart describes how a committee framework could be established to focus on community improvement and revitalization: Private Civic/ Public Sector Not-for-Profit Sector [ ~,, Sector Dept of City Planning& Planning Council Development Commission Citizens should be representative of a variety of interests and professions. For example, committee members should include persons in real estate, law, banking and health care, as well as individuals active in civic and special-interest organizations (history, environment, arts, etc.). The Committee should be organized w/th an elected chair, subcommittees and established responsibilities. Committee members could serve as community partners to advise city officials and staff on applicable issues, both locally and regionally. Members also would act as The Plan's advocate in the community. The Committee should meet regularly and assist with the annual report and any offer updates. 6.3 City Organization and Implementation Tools City Organization Like many organizations today, the City's administrative structure is being updated to be more effective, efficient, responsive and customer-oriented. City departments have been restructured and realigned to better provide public service and streamline operations. Strategic business planning is being done, and plans are being implemented and used in operational and capital budgeting. In addition, advanced technology and new administrators offer creative ideas and methods for doing business. Continued FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 6. 3 VISION 2001 Chapter Comprehensive Plan citizen participation and collaboration will be important in refining public services and developing effective programs. Regulatory Techniques Some of the most effective tools used to implement comprehensive plans are a locality's zoning and subdivision ordinances. These regulatory tools provide development standards for land uses that are based upon the policies established in the adopted comprehensive plan. To implement Vision 2001, it is recommended that the existing zoning and subdivision codes be revised to reflect the various recommendations of The Plan, particularly with regard to new economy land uses, planned developments, environmental protection and development standards. A zoning map should be developed that reflects the revised zoning code and the recommendations in the plan. Additional consideration should be given to the use of overlay districts for funding special public improvements or for ensuring quality design in special areas. Regional authorities with regulatory management of certain public services also could be explored to address such issues as storm water, water and sewer systems and solid waste. Incentives Ideally, incentives should be developed and used to help implement many of The Plan's recommendations. Various incentives that could be considered include tax credits for property rehabilitation, business enterprise programs, financial assistance for special action areas, expanded education and training programs, investment in model projects, and transfer of development rights for environmental protection. Voluntary participation in pilot programs or projects also should be encouraged by proactively soliciting stakeholders and involving a team of public and private interests and experts in championing a special project. Neighborhood organizations should consider seeking corporate sponsorship for support of their projects. Financial Planning: The Key All recommended public improvements and programs cannot be implemented at once; they must be carefully planned and financially integrated into the City's operating and capital improvement budgets. Consequently, the development and adoption of appropriate plans for public facilities (schools, utilities, public safety, etc.), business areas and neighborhoods are important tools in identifying future needs so that financial resources may be appropriately phased and budgeted. The Vision 2001 Plan should serve as a guiding reference for community development in the future. City operating departments should use The Plan and other adopted community plans in conjunction with their strategic business plans to ensure that their operations address needed public services. Public/Private/Civic Partnerships The development of partnerships is essential to the successful implementation of The Plan. Neither government nor the private sector is capable of handling the recommended strategies on its own. To be effective, teamwork and collaborative development is necessary. For example, a "village center" could be implemented by establishing a "Business Development Center" as a technical assistance resource for local businesses and a series of local business improvement districts citywide. These improvement districts would have limited capacities for local property owners to undertake capital improvement or operational programs. However, by promoting partnerships of businesses and areas, a larger non-contiguous Business Improvement District could be established to serve all the village center areas. Day-to-day operations could be provided by the Business Development FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Parle 6. 4 VISION 2001 Chapter 6 Comprehensive Plan Center and shared 'circuit rider' staff could provide technical services related to promotion, leasing and planning. 6.4 Implementation: Strategies, Responsibilities and Schedules The following section consolidates the actions recommended in the plan elements (Chapter 3) into a matrix. The matrix is further broken down by a list of participants (City, Business, and Neighborhood/Nonprofit) and a timeframe (0-5, 6-! 0, more than 10 years) to guide implementation of the actions. It is important to note that the actions listed are dependent on partnership efforts in order to be successful. The time frames recommended represent when some activity should be visible, not necessarily when the activities are to be completed. A more detailed matrix should be developed after adopting the plan outlining a project schedule and identifying strategic parmers needed to implement the plan. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page VISION 2001 Chapter 6 Comprehensive Plan THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 6. 6 VISION 2001 Chapter 6 Co/nprehensive Plan IACTIONS Participants Timeframe (years) ~ .o ~ More .5 ~ ~- 0-5 6-10 than HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS ~ ~ ~ .~ 10 Z VILLAGE CENTERS NH Al. Revise zoning ordinance to encourage the development of , [] higher-density, mixed-use village centers and strengthen site development, landscaping and signage requirements in village centers. NH A2. Identify and map existing and potential village center , [] locations. NH A3. Rezone existing and potential village center locations to , [] encourage and accommodate higher-density development and a mixture of uses. NH A4. Develop a strategy for improving existing village centers, , * * [] redeveloping underutilized centers and creating new centers in key locations through the neighborhood planning process. NH A5. Consider ND, Neighborhood Design District overlay zoning , [] for qualifying centers in Rehabilitation and Conservation Areas to encourage compatible design of development in village centers. NH A6. Develop interdepartmental and agency approaches to target , [] public improvements in village centers. NH A7. Locate City services in village centers, where feasible. , [] NEIGHBORHOOD AND AREA PLANS NH A8. Develop and adopt four to six neighborhood or area plans , [] annually. NH A9. Address the following in neighborhood plans: land use, , [] transportation, public facilities and services, greenways, utilities and economic development. NH Al0. Develop indicators for neighborhood health and , , , [] sustainability. NH A11. Involve neighborhood organizations, civic groups and , , , [] businesses in the development and implementation of neighborhood plans. MARKETING PROGRAMS NH A 12. Inventory and increase marketing of existing housing , , [] programs and incentives that encourage new residential development. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 6.7 VISION 2001 Chapter Cqmprehensive Plan ACTIONS Participants Timeframe (years) ~ 3 ~ More Continued: Housing and Neighborhoods -~ --~ ~ ~- 0 - 5 6 - 10 than = .~=;~ 10 NH A13. Develop housing marketing strategy to identify new programs , , [] and incentives. NEIGHBORHOOD APPEARANCE NH Al4. Increase infrastructure funding to improve and enhance , [] existing neighborhood streets and streetscapes; explore alternative funding sources such as grants and private contributions. NH Al5. Strengthen neighborhood organizations and civic groups to , [] develop neighborhood pride. NH Al6. Adopt design and performance standards for neighborhood , , [] streets, sidewalks and tree canopies. NH Al7. Identify gateways, key intersections and major corridors for , , , [] physical improvement that promotes neighborhood identity and pride. DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD NH A18. Revise zoning ordinance and review the application of the , [] building code to permit development of live/work space. NH A 19. Develop economic incentives to encourage residential , , [] development in the downtown. NH A20. Inventory and market vacant lots and underutilized sites for , , [] higher-density, mixed-use development. HOUSING STRATEGY NH A21. Complete a housing survey that maps sustainability indicators , , [] on a city-wide basis. NH A22. Develop a Housing Plan as a component of the , , , [] Comprehensive Plan. The Housing Plan should include guidelines for housing choice, sustainability and social and economic diversity. NH A23. Develop criteria for evaluating new residential development , [] proposals to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and supporting the City's goals of a balanced, sustainable housing supply. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 6.8 VISION 2001 Chapter 6 Co~,nprehensive Plan ACTIONS Participants Timeframe (years) Continued: Housin.g and Neighborhoods ~ ~ ~o ~g More ~ -_~ ~ ~. 0-5 6-10 than ~ .~;~ 10 NH A24. Strengthen enforcement of building maintenance codes; , , [] revise Rental Inspection Program to include periodic inspections as permitted by law and develop a strategy to increase geographic coverage of Rental Inspection Program. NH A25. Aggressively market the Real Estate Tax Abatement program , , [] to encourage rehabilitation of older homes. NH A26. Consider demolition of derelict or neglected structures, , [] outside of historic districts, when: · Rehabilitation is not economically feasible · Plans for appropriate redevelopment are approved. · Redevelopment furthers the neighborhood goals for a balanced, sustainable housing supply. NH A27. Identify and assemble vacant or underutilized land for the , , [] development of housing clusters. Consider using public or community development corporations to assemble property for housing development NH A28. Revise zoning code to permit higher-density residential and , [] mixed-use development for housing clusters. Where appropriate, rezone identified areas for development of housing clusters. AFFORDABLE HOUSING NH A29. Develop a plan for the location of shelters, transitional living , , [] facilities and day facilities that provide appropriate services in all areas of the City and the region, taking into account access to public transportation and proximity to other support services. NH A30. Develop affordable housing programs that include a mix of , , [] housing types and opportunities for both rental and homeownership. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Pa0e 6.9 VISION 2001 Chapter 6 Cq, mprehensive Plan I ACTIONS Participants Timeframe (years) ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ~' g - More ~2 ~ ~ = 0-5 6-10 ~ ~ than 10 m --~ z PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE EC Al. Establish funding mechanisms to implement the parks plan , , , [] (Phase I1 & 1II) and greenways plan in a timely manner. EC A2. Encourage regional cooperation to develop and manage parks , , , [] and recreation facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions (e.g., large recreation centers and aquatic centers). EC A3. Consider establishing appropriate user fees for recreation , [] facilities. GREENWAYS EC A4. Develop a greenway along the Roanoke River. , [] EC A5. Establish weekend bus service between downtown and · [] natural resource destinations such as Explore Park, Carvins Cove and the Appalachian Trail. EC A6. Increase funding to accelerate construction of the greenway · [] network. EC A7. Promote trails on City-owned land, where feasible and · · [] suitable !EC A8. Promote and increase access to trails and natural areas by · [] providing parking, guide maps and appropriate marking. VIEWS AND VIEWSHEDS EC A9. Encourage reduced light pollution from development, · · · [] particularly, in residential neighborhoods, by improving development or ordinances. EC Al0. Adopt zoning regulations that address communication towers · [] and minimize their visual impact. WATER QUALITY EC A11. Limit the amount of impervious surfaces to reduce runoff. · · · [] EC Al2. Plant natural vegetation, preferably indigenous plant species, · · [] on land adjacent to the Roanoke River. EC Al3. Ensure integrity of the storm and waste water systems. · · · [] EC Al4. Protect and stabilize creek banks by controlling storm water · [] flow and preventing discharge. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 6.10 VISION 2001 Chapter Co/nprehensive Plan IACTIONS Participants Timeframe (years) Continued: Environmental And Cultural Resources a. ~ More ~, o 0-5 6-10 · ~ o than 10 EC Al5. Protect the shorelines of the Roanoke River to enhance its , , , [] scenic quality and protect water quality. ArR QUALITY EC A16. Promote programs that raise awareness and reduce air , [] pollution through testing, education, incentives and policies. EC Al7. Consider use of clean-burning fuels to enhance air quality. , [] EC A18. Establish tree canopy goals that include standards for , [] preservation and planting of trees based on zoning district and density. ENVIRONMENTAL, HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES EC Al9. Develop a comprehensive regional marketing strategy that , , , [] promotes Roanoke as an outdoors destination (Blue Ridge Parkway, Carvins Cove, mountains, trails, on-road bike routes, Virginia Birding Trail, Mill Mountain). EC A20. Expand walking and driving tours of historic and cultural , , [] resources. EC A21. Develop a stable source of funding from regional resources , , , [] for greenways, marketing, cultural, historic and recreation amenities such as a Blue Ridge Asset District. EC A22. Develop local funding strategy for environmental programs, , , , [] conservation easements and cultural programs. · Earmark lodging and cigarette-tax increases for tourism and critical amenities. · Establish general fund matching-grant program to leverage additional partnership funding. · Consider voluntary contributions to critical amenities on utility bills. EC A23. Develop entertainment venues for concerts on Mill Mountain , [] and other open areas. EC A24. Undertake a comprehensive inventory of historic and cultural , [] properties and districts in the City and consider historic districts, where applicable. Solicit neighborhood and stakeholder input in the inventory, where applicable. EC A25. Promote local, state and federal incentives to encourage , , [] rehabilitation of historic structures. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Parle 6.'1'1 VISION 2001 Chapter 6 Ce 'nprehensive Plan ACTIONS Participants Timeframe (years) Continued: Environmental And Cultural Resources ~' = More ~ .~ ~o =~ 0-5 6-10 " .~ ;~ than 10 Z PUBLIC SPACES EC A26. Revise zoning regulations to better address the placement of , [] billboards in Roanoke and regulate maintenance of existing ones. EC A27. Consider the creation of a regional park authority to manage, , [] protect and develop regional recreation attractions and preserve open space. EC A28. Work with conservation organizations to identify critical open , , [] space or sensitive environmental properties and pursue the purchase of conservation easements. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 6.'12 VISION 2001 Chapter 6 Ce~nprehensive Plan I ACTIONS Participants Timeframe (years) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ~' ~ ,- More ~ '~ ~ ~ 0-5 6-10 ~ .~ than 10 ECONOMIC BASE ED Al. Develop and implement an economic development strategy , [] that attracts, retains and expands businesses in the targeted industries such as biotechnology, optics, information technology/software and transportation-related manufacturing and services. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ED A2. Expand participation in regional economic development , [] efforts. Continue meetings with elected officials and administrative staff with neighboring localities to discuss regional efforts. DOWNTOWN ED A3. Adopt the Downtown Plan as a component of Vision 2001. , , [] ED A4. Support initiatives to develop a technology zone in the , , [] downtown that permits mixed-use developments containing offices, residential and commercial/retail support services. ED A5. Develop an entertainment strategy for the downtown market , , [] area. ED A6. Pursue strategies to increase availability of specialized retail , , [] and live/work space in the downtown. ED A7. Complete survey of historic structures in the downtown , [] ED A8. Facilitate the development of significant regional attractions , , , [] such as the Imax Theater. TOURISM ED A9. Develop a" brand identity" for Roanoke. Coordinate with , , , [] regional parmers to launch a marketing campaign. ED Al0. Identify and develop a consistent funding source for tourism, , [] marketing and special events. Consider increasing the current level of funding for the promotion of regional tourism through the Convention and Visitor's Bureau. ED A11. Develop and install directional signs that are clear, consistent , , [] and strategically placed to identify major attractions that capture tourists. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/200 VISION 2001 Chapter ¢~nprehensive Plan I ACTIONS Participants Timeframe (years) Continued: Economic Development ~, _~ ~ ~ More ~ ~ ~ ~ 0-5 6-10 than ~ .~;~ 10 Z ED Al2. Provide transportation connections (i.e., shuttle service) to · [] multiple sites such as Explore Park, Carvins Cove and Mill Mountain. ED A 13. Promote greenways and linkages to the downtown and · · [] surrounding areas. ED Al4. Increase efforts to provide information to tourists and · · [] residents. · Develop a primary source of consistent up-to-date information that promotes and advertises festivals, events and tourist attractions. · Develop and maintain a web site and list serve displaying public information. · Expand efforts to market attractions and programs at the airport and other key locations. · Create satellite centers for visitors at area shopping centers to capture local, regional and destination shoppers. · Develop a regional outdoors ED A15. Expand the current marketing strategy to target young · · [] families and young adults. Strengthen and expand the Newcomer's Club; create a junior newcomer's club that involves children and teenagers. ED Al6. Develop a youth hostel or other budget hotel accommodation · · [] in the downtown to encourage hikers and Appalachian Trail enthusiasts to visit Roanoke. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ED A17. Identify underutilized industrial sites and promote · [] redevelopment as part of Roanoke's economic development strategy. ED Al8. Support the redevelopment of the South Jefferson · · · [] Redevelopment Area (SJRA) by coordinating with participating organizations such as Carilion, Virginia Tech and the University of Virginia. ED Al9. Investigate a strategy for funding streetscape improvements in · [] the Franklin Road gateway corridor (between SJRA and Wonju Street) to stimulate private sector development. ED A20. Revise zoning regulations to encourage increased use of · [] planned unit developments. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 6.'14 VISION 2001 Chapter 6 Cd. 't~rehensive Plan ACTIONS Participants Timeframe (years) ~ ~ More Continued: Economic Development ~ ~ [7 '~ ~ ~ 0-5 6-10 than ~ .~;~ 10 ED A21. Review existing incentives in the Enterprise Zones and · [] consider expansion of incentives. ED A22. Increase the role of the Industrial Development Authority and · [] other redevelopment tools for areas such as West End, Plantation Road and the Shenandoah Avenue corridor. TECHNOLOGY ZONES ED A23. Develop an economic development strategy to attract, retain · · · [] and grow technology businesses. Designate a lead agency to coordinate programs, resources and planning for development of technology business. Create a web site that promotes Roanoke to technology companies. The site should contain information about available space, communication infrastructure and links to other technology resources. ED A24. Establish technology zones that provide special tax · · · [] incentives, expedited development and economic development assistance. Designate a section of downtown as the primary technology zone and key village centers as secondary technology zones. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ED A25. Identify underutilized commercial sites and promote · · [] revitalization. ED A26. Revise zoning and develop guidelines that encourage · [] maximum use .of commercial and industrial sites by addressing setbacks, lot coverage, parking requirements and landscaping to encourage development of commercial businesses in centers versus strip developments. NEW ECONOMIC INITIATIVES ED A27. Initiate small-area plans for mixed use (i.e., residential, · · [] commercial and light industrial) development in the West End, Plantation Road and Shenandoah Avenue corridors. ED A28. Initiate small-area plans considering rezoning of Crossroads · · [] area to consider a mix of high density residential, commercial, research & development and underutilized commercial centers. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page $.15 VISION 2001 Chapter 6 Ca 'orehensive Plan ACTIONS Participants Timeframe (years) ~ ~ ~ More Continued: Economic Development ~. g ~ .~ ~o =~ 0-5 6-10 than ~ .~ 10 ED A29. Develop incentives and programs to encourage , , [] redevelopment activities that create attractive commercial corridors in areas of strip development and underutilized commercial centers. ED A30. Revise zoning ordinance to permit small-acreage, mixed-use , [] (flex-space) development. ED A31. Revise zoning ordinance to permit home offices in certain , [] residential areas. ED A32. Explore redevelopment of areas identified for industrial, , , , [] commercial or mixed-use development or reuse such as: · South Jefferson Redevelopment Area (SJRA) · Franklin Road between SIRA and Wonju Street · Crossroads Mall area · Campbell Avenue between 50' and 10t~ Streets · Roanoke Salem Plaza · Shenandoah Avenue · Plantation and Hollins Road area Area plans for these sites should be include participation of stakeholders and design professionals. WORK FORCE ED A33. Invest in education and training to create a labor force that , , [] can succeed in an information-based economy. ED A34. Support and expand workforce development efforts that link , , , [] economic development agencies and educational institutions. Develop work/study (co-operative) programs linking industry, high schools, colleges and economic development agencies. VILLAGE CENTERS ED A35. Encourage village centers through identification of potential , , [] locations in neighborhood plans. ED A36. Develop design guidelines for village centers. , [] ED A37. Revise zoning code to permit mixed-use , [] residential/commercial development and live/work space in village centers and on the periphery of the central commercial areas. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 6.16 VISION 2001 Chapter 6 Co~, .rehensive Plan ACTIONS Participants Timeframe (years) INFRASTRUCTURE a- More ~ '~, ~ ~ 0-5 6-10 ~a ~ ~ than 10 Z ROAD SYSTEM IN Al. Adopt standard design principles for streets and develop a , [] manual to guide construction that affects the streetscape and includes attractive designs for traffic calming devices. IN A2. Develop an inventory of City streets based on transportation , [] corridor classifications and identify priorities for design improvements. IN A3. Develop a transportation plan as a component of Vision 2001 , [] that uses the recommended design principles to implement and prioritize street improvements. Identify priorities for streetscape improvements through neighborhood plans and through a street design inventory. IN A4. Expand the urban forestry program to increase the number of , , [] street trees planted and replaced. IN A5. Change zoning, subdivision and other development , [] ordinances to include revised street design principles. IN A6. Coordinate with state and regional transportation agencies to , [] include revised design standards for new and existing public roadways. Pursue public transportation links between the New River Valley and Roanoke. PEDESTRIAN, GREENWAY AND BICYCLE SYSTEMS IN A7. Develop a greenway system to provide pedestrian and bicycle , , , [] linkages between the region's parks, rivers, creeks, natural areas, recreation areas, business centers, schools and other institutions. IN A8. Identify long-term funding for sidewalk construction. , [] IN A9. Develop procedures that link or expand greenways when , [] obtaining rights-of-way when developing utilities IN Al0. Develop and adopt a bicycle and pedestrian transportation , , , [] plan that uses the recommended design principles. TRANSIT SYSTEM IN A11. Develop programs to increase ridership of Valley Metro. , , [] FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Pa~e 6.17 VISION 2001 Chapter Cdt.~rehenstve Plan ACTIONS Participants Timeframe (years) Continued: Infrastructure ~ g ,- More ~ '~ .g ~' 0-5 6-10 = .= than 10 IN Al2. Encourage employers to establish motor pools for work- · · · [] related trips during the day so employees can walk or bike to work. IN A13. Continue programs that provide public transportation to · · [] [] [] disabled citizens; consider expansion of service to employment and medical centers. IN Al4. Explore streetcars or other mass transit systems. · [] AIRPORT IN A15. Encourage expanded direct air service to major national , · [] destinations. IN Al6. Provide accessible shuttle service between the airport and · [] other local destinations. RAIL SYSTEM IN A 17. Encourage expansion of rail service to relieve track · · [] congestion on Interstate 81. IN A 18. Explore development of a regional facility for truck-to-rail · · [] inter-modal transfer facility and inland port. IN Al9. Pursue passenger rail service. · · [] TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE IN A20. Create a task force responsible for developing a technology · · [] strategy. IN A21. Inventory and map technology resources such as available · · [] buildings, communications infrastructure and existing technology businesses. IN A22. Foster strong partnerships and cooperative projects with · · [] Virginia Tech and other local universities. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page $.18 VISION 2001 Chapter 6 Co' 'orehensive Plan ACTIONS Participants Timeframe (years) Continued: Infrastructure ~ ._~ - ~ More ~ ~ .a = 0-5 6-10 ~' ~ than 10 WATER AND WASTEWATER IN A23. Promote regional solutions to storm water and public water , [] and sewer needs and services, including consideration of water conservation strategies. IN A24. Maintain and upgrade sanitary sewer lines to eliminate , [] infiltration and inflow of storm water. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 6.19 VISION 2001 Chapter 6 Co~ ,~rehensive Plan ACTIONS Participants Timeframe (years) PUBLIC SERVICES .~ ._ ~ '* ~ ~ ~ ~ 0-5 6-10 More ~a .~ than 10 PUBLIC SAFETY PS Al. Develop strategies that strengthen community policing (i.e., , , , [] C.O.P.E.) efforts between the police department, residents, business and community groups. PS A2. Public safety agencies will maintain or exceed nationally , [] recognized standards. PS A3. Revise zoning ordinance to integrate crime prevention , [] through environmental design in the development review process. PS A4. Promote citizen participation in public safety programs such , , [] as the Citizens Police Academy. PS A5. Study and promote regional approaches to providing public , [] safety services that ensure their location and operation provide the most equitable, effective and efficient service to citizens. CODE ADMINISTRATION, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS PS A6. Revise zoning code regarding nuisance offenses to provide , [] for civil fines and on-site ticketing to increase compliance. PS A7. Provide code enforcement information to residents and , [] inspectors in satellite service facilities. PS A8. Provide ongoing training for boards and commissions , [] related to zoning, property maintenance and development codes through certified training programs. PS A9. Revise zoning and other ordinances to address new , [] development patterns and land uses. PS Al0. Coordinate regulations, where feasible, with neighboring , [] jurisdictions for consistency. PS A11. Increase the use of information technology to improve , [] services. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PS Al2. Develop and expand recycling and educational programs , * * [] that promote its use. PS Al3. Consider developing a staffed recycling center with a , [] household hazardous waste component. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 ~'a~e 6.20 VISION 2001 Chapter 6 CoL ,~rehensive Plan ACTIONS Participants Timeframe (years) Continued: Public Services ~' = More ~ ~ ~ =~ 0-5 6-10 m .~ ~ than 10 Z CITY ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICE DELIVERY PS Al4. Pursue innovative service-delivery strategies that improve · [] customer service. Increase the use of computers and information technology to reduce reliance on paper and provide greater access and sharing of information. PS Al5. Ensure that all schools and City-owned facilities are located, · [] designed and maintained to complement neighboring land USES. PS Al6. Pursue regional efforts for solid waste management and · [] recycling. PS Al7. Consider development of community service facilities to · · [] provide direct services and serve as information and referral centers. · Identify community service needs for two pilot locations (north and south) for centers. · Develop an administrative plan that provides services and management of the centers. · Involve private and non-profit sector organizations such as the Council of Community Services in plannin~ for th~ facilities. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page VISION 2001 Chapter 6 C&~rehensive Plan ACTIONS Participants Timeframe (years) PEOPLE ~ ~ More ~ ~ .g ~ 0-5 6-10 thanl0 EDUCATION AND L~ELONG LEARNING PE Al. Develop and expand strategies that encourage parents and , , , [] children to make the commitment for children to attend and participate in school everyday. PE A2. Create programs that provide opportunities for education and , , [] coaching in local institutions such as churches, neighborhood groups and businesses to increase awareness and value of education. PE A3. Develop plans for constructive altematives for students in in- , [] school suspension. PE A4. Create ways to encourage churches and civic groups to adopt , , [] a school and provide after-school programs/activities to build youth interest and provide role models for success. LIBRARIES PE A5. Improve the downtown main library to provide greater , [] accessibility, better service delivery and access to technology. Consider building improvements, a new building or relocation of the library. PE A6. Continue to support the Virginia Room as the premier , [] [] [] resource center for genealogy and history. PE A7. Explore inclusion of business-development services at the , , [] main library PE A8. Develop a plan that identifies branch library facilities that , [] have become outdated or cannot be expanded; consider relocation to sites that have improved technology facilities, access to bus service and provide adequate, and safe parking. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PE A9. Promote programs that educate citizens regarding public and , , [] private programs to make health care more accessible. PE Al0. Develop a strategy that addresses duplication of inter-related , , [] services in health and human service programs PE A11. Promote health-care programs related to pre-natal care, , , [] immunization, dental and vision care and health screening by using the internet, television and other forms of media FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 6.22 VISION 2001 Chapter C~?rehensive Plan ACTIONS Participants Timeframe (years) ~ ~ ~ More Continued: People a. ~ ~2 .~ ~o =~ 0-5 6-10 thanl0 PE Al2. Inventory existing day-care facilities; develop a plan aimed at , , [] increasing the availability of affordable, day and evening care for children, elderly and the handicapped. PE A13. Develop special needs programs that are accessible and , , [] connected to housing and support networks. PE Al4. Provide accessible information in satellite service facilities. , [] PE A15. Promote development of a regional cost-sharing program for , , [] health and human services. PE Al6. Establish new regional public transportation routes in the , [] valley to provide better access to health care and support services. PE Al7. Develop strategies that support greater use of recreational and , , [] exercise programs in schools, parks and greenways. FINAL DRAFT: 08/20/2001 Page 6.23 A-1 Report of the City Planning Commission with regard to the Vision 2001 Comprehensive Plan will be forwarded on Friday, August 17, 2001. The Roanoke Times Roanoke, Virginia Affidavit of Publication The Roanoke Times CITY OF ROANOKE, PLA 215 CHURCH -RM 166 ROANOKE VA 24011 REFERENCE: 80021768 01726915 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 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 Augus~ 2~91.~i,tp~ss my hand and official seal.~~_~__~__ , Notary Publis My commission expires~ ' ~ _~/_~ PUBLISHED ON: 08/04 08/11 TOTAL COST: 242.78 FILED ON: 08/14/01 TO WHOM IT MAY CO~CERN: a JOMt pu~glc hoofing on Moo- day, August 20, 2001, ~t 7:00 d~n m olmortunity to ~pe~r pre~n~ve p~n.. Idde for f~ ~ the Of~ of ¢. T~4or Mun~ BuHd~ 2~ Oltur(~h Avemz~, ~ ~ 2,4011, Any of Plknnln~ Buildin~ ~md ~ (~0) 8~3.2344, If yOU ~ ' p~mon WI~., db- tk,~ for th~ h~dn& (853-2541), before 1:2:00 noon on l~u~, August 16, 2001. M~ry F. Mm~m P..R'onklln, Commil~on Authorized Signature: , Billing Services Representative NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Council of the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke City Planning Commission will hold a joint public heating on Monday, August 20, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to consider Vision 2001 Comprehensive Plan, City of Roanoke, Virginia, dated August 3, 2001, the proposed comprehensive plan for the City of Roanoke. Citizens of the City shall be given an opportunity to appear and be heard by Council on the subject of the proposed comprehensive plan. Copies of the proposed comprehensive plan to be considered by City Council are available for review in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, and the Department of Planning, Buildings and Development, Room 166, located in the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011. Any questions about the content of the comprehensive plan should be directed to the Department of Planning, Buildings and Development (540) 853-2344. If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this heating, please contact the City Clerk's Office (853-2541), before 12:00 noon on Thursday, August 16, 2001. GIVEN under my hand this 8th day of August .,2001. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, Planning Commission Note to Publisher: Please publish twice in The Roanoke Times on Saturday, August 4 and 11, 2001. Send Publisher's Affidavit and Bill to the following individuals: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Room 456 Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, Planning Commission Room 166 Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 H:\NOTICEXaN-Comprehcnsive Plan (Joint Notice) (PH 8-20-01) Publish in the Roanoke Tribune on Thursday, August 8, 2001, and Thursday, August 15, 2001. Send affidavit to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Send bill to: Martha P. Franklin, Secretary City Planning Commission 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 853-2344 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #51 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35536-082001 rezoning that certain tract of land containing approximately 2.80 acres, more or less, located on Colonial Avenue, S. W., and designated as Official Tax No. 1570101, from RS-2, Residential Single-family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain proffers contained in the Petition filed in the Office of the City Clerk on July 5, 2001; and dispensing with the second reading of the ordinance by title. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001, and will be in full force and effect ten days following the date of adoption. ~ a~'~ ~t~°~Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment H:kAgenda.01XAugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd Darlene L. Burcham August 22, 2001 Page 2 pc: Gregory E. and Vicky L. Roseberry, 3502 Robyn Road, S. W Roanoke Virginia 24015 " Verity Jane Callender, 2750 Creston Avenue, S. W., Roanoke Virginia 24015 Trustees S. W. Congregation, c/o Grey Gregory, 1315 Hamilton Terrace, S. E., Roanoke Virginia 24014 Berlin C. Flora and Grace Marie Flora, 3349 Colonial Avenue, S. W., Roanoke Virginia 24015 Gerald B. and L. Lorene Hatcher, 3508 Robyn Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015 P. W. and India I. Moore, 3517 Robyn Road, S. W., Roanoke Virginia 24015 James K. Metz, 5844 Lakemont Drive, S. W, Roanoke Virginia 24018 Richard and Becky Robertson, 2920 Hollowell Avenue, S. W., Roanoke Virginia 24015 Dennis M. and Linda S. Wright, 528 Elmcrest Street., N. E., Roanoke Virginia 24019 Joseph and Corinth Treadway, 1633 Persinger Road, S. W., Roanoke Virginia 24015 Steve E. and Patricia M. Wilcher, 2908 Hollowell Avenue, S. W., Roanoke Virginia 24015 Walter S. Frazier, 3719 Strother Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Allen Oberlin, John W. and Patricia Oberlin, 3652 Brambleton Avenue, S. W., Roanoke Virginia 24018 William F. Ball, 7715 Fort Mason Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Donald Williams, Occidental Development, 7901 Crawfords Village, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46204 Ethel J. Virgili, 3380 Woodland Drive, S. W., Roanoke Virginia 24018 Robert B. Pandlis, 3368 Woodland Drive, S. W., Roanoke Virginia 24018 Nancy K. Carson, 3358 Woodland Drive, S. W., Roanoke Virginia 24018 Benjamin McCoy, 3350 Woodland Drive, S. W., Roanoke Virginia 24018 Mark A. Graham, 3346 Woodland Drive, S. W., Roanoke Virginia 24018 R. Edward Mitchell, Route 1, Box 235A, Moneta, Virginia 24121 Reginald and Carla Rodgers, 3207 Fox Chase Drive, Midlothian, Virginia 23112 Khoi Anh Tran, 3352 Colonial Avenue, S. W., Roanoke Virginia 24018 Kenneth Lynch, 3344 Colonial Avenue, S. W., Roanoke Virginia 24018 Jay R. Hillison, 3334 Colonial Avenue, S. W., Roanoke Virginia 24018 Mildred A. Berry, 3328 Colonial Avenue, S. W., Roanoke Virginia 24018 John W. Oberlin, 3412 Overbrook Drive, S. W., Roanoke Virginia 24018 D. Kent Chrisman, Chair, City Planning Commission, 2319 Avenham Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Willard N. Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission Ronald L. Smith, Acting Building Commissioner Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City A.~orney Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development H:~Agenda.0 l~August 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35536-082001. AN ORDINANCE 'to amend §36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 157, 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. WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke has made application to the Council of the City of Roanoke to have the hereinafter described property rezoned from RS-2, Residential Single- family District, to C-2, General Commercial Districi, subject to certain conditions proffered by the applicant; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving proper notice to all concerned as required by §36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and after conducting a public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to Council; and WHEREAS, a public heating was held by City Council on said application at its meeting on August 20, 2001, after due and timely notice thereof as required by §36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which heating all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the aforesaid application, the recommendation made to the Council by the Planning Commission, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the matters presented at the public hearing, is of the opinion that the hereinafter described pi'operty should be rezoned as herein provided. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. Section 36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 157 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other: That certain tract of land containing approximately 2.80 acres, more or less, located on Colonial Avenue, S.W., and designated on Sheet No. 157 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax No. 1570101, be, and is hereby rezoned from RS-2, Residential Single-family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to the proffers contained in the Petition filed in the Office of the City Clerk on July 5, 2001, and that Sheet No. 157 of the Zone Map be changed in this respect. 2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke City Department of Planning A.2. and Code Enforcement Room 166, Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (540) 853-2344 (Fax) 853-1230 Email: planning@ci.roanoke.va.us August 20, 2001 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: Request from the City of Roanoke, Virginia, represented by William M. Hackworth, City Attorney, that a 2.80 acre portion of property located on Colonial Avenue, S.W., designated as Official Tax No. 1570101, be rezoned from RS-2, Residential Single Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District. Planning Commission Action: Planning Commission held a public hearing on this request on August 16, 2001. The Commission voted 3-2-1 in favor of the request. (Messrs. Butler, Chrisman and Dowe voting for the request, Messrs. Hill and Rife voting against it, Mr. Marietta abstaining and Mr. Campbell absent.) Background: The City of Roanoke owns a tract of land containing approximately 29.2 acres along Colonial Avenue, S.W. The property is currently zoned RS-2, Residential Single-Family District. In July 2001, Carilion Health Systems approached the City with an offer to purchase a portion of the property along Colonial Avenue for the purpose of developing medical offices, which are not permitted in the RS-2 district. The City requests that a 2.8 acre portion of the property be rezoned from RS-2 to C-2, General Commercial District. There are no conditions associated with this rezoning request. All issues pertaining to the development of the 2.8-acre site will be handled through the City's development review process, or through conditions contained in the City's sales agreement with Carillon. Roanoke City Planning Commission Architectural Review Board Board of Zoning Appeals At the Planning Commission public hearing held on August 16, 2001, Planning Commission discussion focused on traffic issues and procedural questions regarding the sale of public property. Commission members questioned whether a traffic study had been performed. Staff advised that the City Traffic Engineer had reviewed the plans for the proposed development, coordinated with VDOT and determined that turn lanes will be required for the new development. Messrs. Hill and Rife expressed concern about proceeding with the rezoning and sale of public land without first undertaking a master plan for the entire area. Mr. Rife questioned whether the City could legally sell public land without a public bidding process. Mr. Edward Mitchell, 3377 Woodland Drive, S.W., expressed concern about traffic congestion on Colonial Avenue. Mr. Steve Wilson, 2651 Creston Avenue, S.W., expressed concern about the potential density of new development on the 29.2-acre tract, stating that he would not be in favor of multifamily apartments or intense commercial activity on the site. Mr. Hugh Thornhill, 2715 Rosalind Avenue, S.W., spoke on behalf of Carilion Health Systems, Inc., in favor of the rezoning request. Considerations: The subject property, containing approximately 2.8 acres, is part of a larger 29.2-acre tract owned by the City of Roanoke. If successful in this rezoning request, the City intends to subdivide the 29.2-acre tract and sell the 2.8-acre portion to Carilion Health Systems. The remainder of the 29.2 acre tract will remain RS-2, Residential Single Family District. The subject property is located on Colonial Avenue, S.W., immediately east of the intersection of Colonial Avenue and Ogden Road. The subject property contains approximately 300 feet of frontage along Colonial Avenue. The property abuts an existing RS-l, Residential Single Family District to the east. Adjoining property to the south and west is located in Roanoke County, and is zoned R-3 (Multi-family Residential) and C-1 (Office). Neighboring land uses include a single-family neighborhood, a multi-family apartment complex, a church, a private school, and a medical office. Utilities are available to adequately serve the proposed development. Storm water management will be required to be handled on site in accordance with City development regulations and in keeping with any conditions agreed to at the time of purchase. The City Traffic Engineer has coordinated the proposed development plan by Carilion with VDOT. Left- and right-turn lanes (shown on plan) will be required to accommodate increased traffic volumes associated with the development. The City will also reserve a 50-foot wide piece of property perpendicular to Colonial Avenue as ingress/egress for development. In additon,the City will reserve a 20-foot wide section of land immediately adjacent to the existing Colonial Avenue right-of-way for potential future road improvements to accommodate additional development. In November 2000, Roanoke County adopted a Corridor Study for the portion of Colonial Avenue extending from the City limits to Brambleton Avenue. The study designates the area immediately south and west of the subject property as a transitional area. The County anticipates that future land uses at or near the intersection of Colonial Avenue and Ogden Road could include a mixture of commercial, multi-family residential, and single-family residential development. Staff believes that C-2 represents the most appropriate zoning designation for the subject property, given its ample frontage along a busy corridor and its close proximity to a major traffic intersection. Roanoke Vision Comprehensive Plan recommends that neighborhood character and environmental quality should be protected. Possible changes in land use or new development in or near residential areas should be carefully evaluated and designed to conserve and enhance neighborhood quality. Recommendation: Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the request to rezone the subject 2.8-acre tract from RS-2, Residential Single Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District. Respectfully submitted, D. Kent Chrisman, Chairman Roanoke City Planning Commission Attachments cc: Dadene Burcham, City Manager Rolanda Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development William Hackworth, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, IN RE: REZONING OF A 2.80-ACRE PORTION OF A : TRACT OF VACANT LAND LOCATED ON : COLONIAL AVENUE, S.W., CONTAINING : PETITION TO REZONE A TOTAL OF 29.52 ACRES, MORE OR LESS; : AND DESIGNATED AS OFFICIAL TAX : NO. 1570101, FROM RS-2, RESIDENTIAL : SINGLE- FAMILY DISTRICT, TO C-2, GENERAL : COMMERCIAL DISTRICT : TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: The Petitioner, City of Roanoke, owns vacant land located in the City of Roanoke containing approximately 29.52 acres, more or less, on Colonial Avenue, S.W., also known as Official Tax No. 1570101. The parcel is currently zoned RS-2, Residential Single-Family District. A parcel to be created containing 2.80-acres, more or less, is proposed for sale to Carilion Health Systems, Inc., for the purpose of establishing a medical clinic. A preliminary subdivision plat of the property, showing the 2.80-acre parcel to be rezoned, is attached as Exhibit A, along with a metes and bounds description. A preliminary concept plan for development of the property is attached as Exhibit B. Pursuant to §36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Petitioner requests that the 2.80-acre parcel to be created be rezoned from RS-2, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District. The Petitioner believes the rezoning of this tract of land will further the intent and purposes of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its Comprehensive Plan, in that it will be consistent with other existing land uses in the area and provide needed health care services to residents of the area and the region. Attached as Exhibit C are the names, addresses and tax :numbers of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately adjacent to and immediately across a street or road from the property to be rezoned. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-described tract of land be rezoned as requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke. Respectfully submitted this 5th day of July, 2001. CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA By of counsel William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney 464 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Darlene L. Burcha/:d', City Manager City of Roanoke 364 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 On behalf of City of Roanoke H:~C~-Re~one (City - 1570101) (7-05-01) DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY NEW PARCEL A PROPER'Pr OF ROANOKE WATER WORKS COMPANY PORTION OF CITY OF ROANOKE TAX PARCEL 1570101 BEGINNING at a point on the northerly side of Colonial Avenue, S.W. (VA Rte. 720), said point being the south°dy boundary comer of property of Richard P. Wimberley, Dennis R. West, and Michael D. Sassard, as recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of the City of Reanoke, Virginia in Deed Book 1535, Page 211, and as shown as boundary comer number 9 on a "Preliminary Subdivision Map from Records for Cadlion Health System' by Caldweil White Associates, dated June 15, 2001, said point being further described as boundary comer number 4 as shown on a Plat of Survey and Subdivision for W.H. Masterson and Hazel L Masterson, prepared by C.B. Malcolm & Son, dated March 15, 1955; and recorded in the aforementioned Clerk's Office in Deed Book 950, Page 335; thence with the northerly fight of way of Colonial Avenue, said right of way line being the southeastern limits of the property of Roanoke Water Works Company, Deed Book 240, Page 334, S 28°0T27' W, 303.66' to a point; thence leaving Colonial Avenue, and with a new line through the property of Roanoke Water Works company N 52°58'00- W, 407.25' to a point; thence with another new line through the property of Roanoke Water Works Company N 28°07'27- E, 303.66' to a point at the northwi~stedy comer of the property of Wimbedy, West, and Saesard, said point being further described as b?.undary ~m..er number 3 as shown on the aforementioned Malcolm plat for Masterson; mence with me property of Wimbedy, West, and Sassard S52°58'00'E, 407.25' to the POINT OF BEGINNING, and containing 2.80 acres. This description is based upon said Preliminary Subdivision Map from Records for Cadlion Health System, and is not based on a current field survey by Caldwell White Associates. . .u ! Exhibit C - Adjoining Property Owners Roanoke City Tax Number/Property Address 1570103 1570112 1570113 3359 Colonial Avenue, SW 1570115 1570117 1570126 1570118 3514 RobynRoad, SW 1650916 1650917 2916 Hollowell Avenue, SW 1650918 2912 Hollowell Avenue, SW 165O919 1650924 Property Owner Gregory E. and Vicky L. Roseberry Verity Jane Callender Trustees S.W. Congregation c/o Grey Gregory Berlin C. Flora Grace Marie Flora Gerald B. and L. Lorene Hatcher P. W. and India I. Moore James K. Metz Richard and Becky Robertson Dennis M. and Linda S. Wright Joseph and Corinth Treadway Steve E. and Patficia M. Wilcher Walter S. Frazier blailing Address 3502 Robyn Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 2750 Creston Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 1315 Hamilton Terrace, SE Roanoke, VA 24014 3349 Colonial Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 3508 Robyn Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 3517 Robyn Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 5844 Lakemont Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 2920 Hollowell Avenue,SW Roanoke, VA 24015 528 Elmcrest Street, NE Roanoke, VA 24019 1633 Persinger Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 2908 Hollowell Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 3719 Strother Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 EXHIBIT C ~(oanoke County Parcel ID/Property Address 077.11-01-59.00-0000 Colonial Avenue 077.11-01-57.00-0000 3390 Colonial Avenue 077.11-01-55.00-0000 077.11-01-55.00-000A 3455 Colonial Avenue 077.11-01-54.00-0000 077.11-01053.00-0000 077.11-01-52.00-0000 077.11-01-51.00~0000 077.11-01-50.00-0000 077.11.01-10.00-0000 3377Woodland Drive 077.11-01-09.00-0000 3389Woodland Drive 077.11-01-08.00-0000 077.11-01-07.00-0000 077.11-01-06.00-0000 077.11-01-05.00-0000 077.15-01-01.00-0000 Colonial Avenue' Property Owner Allen Oberlin John W. and Patricia Oberlin William F. Ball Occidental Development Attn. Donald Williams Ethel J. Virgili Robert B. Pandlis Nancy K. Carson Benjamin McCoy Mark A. Graham R. Edward Mitchell Reginald and Carla Rodgers Khoi Anh Tran Kenneth Lynch Jay R. Hillison Mildred A. Berry John W. Oberlin Mailing Address 3652 Brambleton Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 7715 Fort Mason Roanoke, VA 24018 7901 Crawfords Village Indianapolis, IN 46204 3380 Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 3368 Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 3358 Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 3350 Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 3346WoodlandDrive Roanoke, VA24018 Route 1, Box 235A Monet~VA24121 3207 Fox Chase Drive Midlothian, VA 23112 3352 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 3344 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 3334 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 3328 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 3412 Overbrook Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 The Roanoke Times Roanoke, Virginia Affidavit of Publication The Roanoke Times CITY OF ROANOKE, MGR. 215 CHURCH, RM. 364 ATTN: DARLENE BURCHA ROANOKE VA 24011 REFERENCE: 80072609 01726475 COLONIAL AVE 2.80 AC 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 August__~7 // C~--, ~- ---~.--2D01(~tne~s my hand and official seal._L_~~___~__--~~-_-- , Notary Public -' My commission expires .~_~__/J_~__~_~-- PUBLISHED ON: 08/03 08/10 TOTAL COST: 206.96 FILED ON: 08/14/01 TO WHOM.IT MAY CONCERN: A~lcle VII of Chapt~ 36.1, (1979), ~ antended, Ihe Court- p.m., io tho Coondl C~ in the No~ C. Te~or Monk~p~ Bulldir~ 215 Church Avenue, S.W., o~ the quee~m Of rezon- lng from R$-2, R(~ldantial. mn~e-femey m,i~ct, to c-2, That cortahl trm~. of la~:l con- tainln8 approxlmatMy 2.80 Colonial Avenue, S.W., bain8 a p~n of a lar~er ~ 6f land bearin8 Official Tax No. ~570101. 4.~, Monmp~ s~ Ali If you are a ~ with a dis: amity who needs m:Commoda- 16, 2001. GIVEN under my hand th~ 3:l~t dray of July, 2001. Ma~y F. Parker, Cay (1726475) Authorized Signature: , Billing Services Representative NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Pursuant to the provisions of Article VII of Chapter 36.1, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, August 20, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber in the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., on the question of rezoning from RS-2, Residential Single-family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, the following property: That certain tract of land containing approximately 2.80 acres, more or less, located on Colonial Avenue, S.W., being a portion of a larger tract of land bearing Official Tax No. 1570101. A copy of this proposal is available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Municipal Building. All parties in interest may appear on the above date and be heard on the question. If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this public heating, contact the City Clerk's Office, 853-2541, by Thursday, August 16, 2001. GIVEN under my hand this ~ 1.~ t day of .T, 1 y ,2001. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. H:\NOTICE\NRez-City (Colonial Ave 2.80-acre) (PH 8-20-01) Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Friday, August 3, 2001, and once on Friday, August 10, 2001. Send affidavit to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Send bill to: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 853-2333 Publish in the Roanoke Tribune on Thursday, August 8, 2001, and Thursday, August 15, 2001. Send affidavit to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Send bill to: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 853-2333 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ROANOKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Roanoke City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, August 16, 2001, 1:30 p.m. or as soon as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., to consider the following: Request from the City of Roanoke, Virginia, represented by William M. Hackworth, City Attorney, that a 2.80 acre portion of property located on Colonial Avenue, S.W., designated as Official Tax No. 1570101, be rezoned from RS-2, Residential Single Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District. A copy of said application is available for review in the Department of Planning and Code Enforcement, Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be heard on the matter. If you are a person who needs accommodations for this hearing, please contact the Department of Planning and Code Enforcement at 853-2344 before 12:00 noon on the Monday before the date of the hearing listed above. Martha P. Franklin, Secretary Roanoke City Planning Commission Please print in newspaper on Tuesday, July 31 and August 7, 2001 Please Bill: Darlene Burcham City Manager Room 364, Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853-2333 Send affidavit of publication to: Department of Planning Building and Development Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853-1230 (fax) TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA PERTAINING TO KEZONING REQUEST OFL, City of Roanoke on Colonial Avenue, S.W., pt. of Tax No. 1570101, from RS-2 to C-2 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF ROANOKE ) ) AFFIDAVIT ) ) TO-WIT: ) The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail on the 18th day of July, 2001, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 16th day of August, 2001, on the request captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels listed below at their last known address: Tax Number/Property Property Owner Mailing Address Address 1570103 Gregory E. and Vicky L. Roseberry 3502 Robyn Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 1570112 Verity Jane Callender 2750 Creston Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 1570113 Trustees S.W. Congregation 1315 Hamilton Terrace, SE 3359 Colonial Avenue, c/o Grey Gregory Roanoke, VA 24014 SW 1570115 Berlin C. Flora 3349 Colonial Avenue, Grace Marie Flora SW Roanoke, VA 24015 1570117 Gerald B. and L. Lorene Hatcher 3508 Robyn Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 1570126 P.W. and India I. Moore 3517 Robyn Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 1570118 James K. Metz 5844 Lakemont Drive 3514 Robyn Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 1650916 Richard and Becky Robertson 2920 Hollowell Avenue,SW Roanoke, VA 24015 1650917 Dennis M. and Linda S. Wright 528 Elmcrest Street, NE 2916 Hollowell Avenue, Roanoke, VA 24019 SW 1650918 Joseph and Corinth Treadway 1633 Persinger Road, SW 2912 Hollowell Avenue, Roanoke, VA 24015 SW 1650919 Steve E. and Patricia M. Wilcher 2908 Hollowell Avenue, SW Ro~noke, VA 24015 1650924 Walter S. Frazier 3719 Strother Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 Roanoke County Parcel ID/Property Property Owner Mailing Address Address 077.11-01-59.00-0000 Allen Oberlin 3652 Brambleton Avenue Colonial Avenue John W. and Patricia Oberlin Roanoke, VA 24018 077.11-01-57.00-0000 William F. Ball 7715 Fort Mason 3390 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 077.11-01-55.00-0000 Occidental Development 7901 Crawfords Village 077.11-01-55.00-000A Attn. Donald Williams Indianapolis, IN 46204 3455 Colonial Avenue 077.11-01-54.00-0000 Ethel J. Virgili 3380 Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 077.11-01053.00-0000 Robert B. Pandlis 3368 Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 077.11-01-52.00-0000 Nancy K. Carson 3358 Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 077.11-01-51.00-0000 Benjamin McCoy 3350 Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 077.11-01-50.00-0000 Mark A. Graham 3346 Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 077.11.01-10.00-0000 R. Edward Mitchell Route 1, Box 235A 3377 Woodland Drive Moneta, VA 24121 077.11-01-09.00-0000 Reginald and Carla Rodgers 3207 Fox Chase Drive 3389 Woodland Drive Midlothian, VA 23112 077.11-01-08.00-0000 Khoi Anh Tran 3352 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 077.11-01-07.00-0000 Kenneth Lynch 3344 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 077.11-01-06.00-0000 Jay R. Hillison 3334 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 077.11-01-05.00-0000 Mildred A. Berry 3328 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 077.15-01-01.00-0000 John W. Oberlin 3412 Overbrook Drive Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 Notice also mailed to: Gary Agee, GCCL Jim Gear, GCCL Martha Pace Franklin SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this 18th day of July, 2001. Notary Public ~ My Commission expires: 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: clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us July 6, 2001 File #51 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk D. Kent Chrisman, Chairperson City Planning Commission 2319 Avenham Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dear Mr, Chrisman: Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of a petition received in the City Clerk's Office on July 5, 2001, from William M. Hackworth, City Attorney, representing the City of Roanoke requesting that a 2.80-acre portion of a tract of vacant land located on Colonial Avenue, S. W., containing 29.52 acres, more or less, identified as Official Tax No. 1570101, be rezoned from RS-2, Residential Single-family District, to C-2, General Commercial District. Sincerely, Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk Enclosures N:\cksml\Rezoning.01\City of Roanoke - Colonial Avenue, S. W D. Kent Chrisman July 6, 2001 Page 2 pc~ The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Willard N. Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission Ronald L. Smith, Acting Building Commissioner Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney N:\cksml\Rezoning.01\City of Roanoke - Colonial Avenue, S. W IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRG~A, IN RE: '6~ ' .~ :.'-,.,~ REZONING OF A 2.80-ACRE PORTION OF A · TRACT OF VACANT LAND LOCATED ON ' COLONIAL AVENUE, S.W., CONTAINING ' PETITION TO REZONE A TOTAL OF 29.52 ACRES, MORE OR LESS; ' AND DESIGNATED AS OFFICIAL TAX ' NO. 1570101, FROM RS-2, RESIDENTIAL ' SINGLE- FAMILY DISTRICT, TO C-2, GENERAL · COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ' TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: The Petitioner, City of Roanoke, owns vacant land located in the City of Roanoke containing approximately 29.52 acres, more or less, on Colonial Avenue, S.W., also known as Official Tax No. 1570101. The parcel is currently zoned RS-2, Residential Single-Family District. A parcel to be created containing 2.80-acres, more or less, is proposed for sale to Carilion Health Systems, Inc., for the purpose of establishing a medical clinic. A preliminary subdivision plat of the property, showing the 2.80-acre parcel to be rezoned, is attached as Exhibit A, along with a metes and bounds description. A preliminary concept plan for development of the property is attached as Exhibit B. Pursuant to §36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Petitioner requests that the 2.80-acre parcel to be created be rezoned from RS-2, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District. The Petitioner believes the rezoning of this tract of land will further the intent and purposes of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its Comprehensive Plan, in that it will be consistent with other existing land uses in the area and provide needed health care services to residents of the area and the region. Attached as Exhibit C are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately adjacent to and immediately across a street or road from the property to be rezoned. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-described tract of land be rezoned as requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke. Respectfully submitted this 5th day of July, 2001. CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA By of counsel William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney 464 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Darlene L. Burcha~, City Manager City of Roanoke 364 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 On behalf of City of Roanoke H:~PCXP-Rczone (City - 1570101) (7-05-01) H. & CORWlN $ TREAD~44Y SIEVE E. m PA1RtCM ¥. VILCHER DE~D ACREAGE = 2~ ACMES, ~OUNO~D BY CORNERS I THROUCH 10 TO 1 LESS '~W PAR~L A' = 2,~ AC~ B~D BY "NE~ P~CEL ~' = ~.20 ACRES. B~N~D BY C~RS I ~R~ 8 TO 11 TO 10 TO I, BEING ~E ~MA~/NO PR~ERTY ~ ROAN~E ~A~R ~KS C~PANY 26.20 ACRES rroposed Rezonlng · COLONIAL A VE'NU[ ,50' ~fDT~'~, ~ VAP IE A MRE"UMIttARY ~ lION OF A YAILABLE RECORDS, AND IS NOT BASED ON 4 CURRENT FIELD SURVEY BY CALDWZLL #~ITE ASSOCIATES. fi{IR'lNG PREPARA110N OF THIS MAP. 1TiE SURVEYOR COULD NOT LOCATE A METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPtiON OF THE SUBJECT 29 ACRE PARCEL (ROANOKE CITY TAX PARCEL 1570101). THE BOUNDARY LINE OF THIS PARCEL AS I[ ADJOINS COLONIAL AVENUE. S.~. IS SHO#N HEREON AS A STRAIGHT LINE CONNECTION BETON THE 'RONK' PROPERTY AND THE '~MBERL Y, WES~ AND SASSARD° PROPERTIES. AS SUCH, THE ACIUAL FRONTAGE CONDI~7ONS FOR 'NEW PARCEL A' ANO 'NEW PARCEL B' SHALL BE VERIRED BY A BOUNDARY SURV[Y BY A LICE~VSED SURVEYOR, THIS PROPERTY I$ SUBJ~CCT TO DEDICATION OF PROPERTY FOR STREET PURPOSES. THE CRE'AI1ON OF "'NEW PARCEL A' IS SUBJECT 1'0 A FIELD- RUN BOUNDARY SURVEY BY A VIRGINIA LICENSED SURVEYOR, APPROVAL OF 4 SUBDIVISION I~AP BY THE CITY OF ROANOKE. AND RECORDATION OF SAME MAP IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, ~IRGINIA. DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY NEW PARCEL A PROPERTY OF ROANOKE WATER WORKS COMPANY PORTION OF CITY OF ROANOKE TAX PARCEL 1570101 BEGINNING at a point on the northerly side of Colonial Avenue, S.W. (VA Rte. 720), said point being the southerly boundary comer of property of Richard P. Wimberley, Dennis R. West, and Michael D. Sassard, as recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of the City of Reanoke, Virginia in Deed Book 1535, Page 211, and as shown as boundary comer number 9 on a "Preliminary Subdivision Map from Records for Cadlion Health System" by Caldwell White Associates, dated June 15, 2001, said point being further described as boundary comer number 4 as shown on a Plat of Survey and Subdivision for W.H. Masterson and Hazel L Masterson, prepared by C.B. Malcolm & Son, dated March 15, 1955; and recorded in the aforementioned Clerk's Office in Deed Book 950, Page 335; thence with the northerly right of way of Colonial Avenue, said right of way line being the southeestem limits of the property of Roanoke Water Works Company, Deed Book 240, Page 334, S 28°07'27, W, 303.66' to a point; thence leaving Colonial Avenue, and with a new line through the property of Roanoke Water Works Company N 52°58'00" W, 407.25' to a point; thence with another new line through the property of Roanoke Water Works Company N 28°0T27" E, 303.66' to a point at the northwesterly comer of the property of Wimberly, West, and Sassard, said point being further described as boundary comer number 3 as shown on the aforementioned Malcolm plat for Masterson; thence with the property of Wimberly, West, and Sassard S52°58'00"E, 407.25' to the POINT OF BEGINNING, and containing 2.80 acres. This description is based upon said Preliminary Subdivision Map from Records for Carilion Health System, and is not based on a current field survey by Caldwell White Associates. F:~sersVa~al~WO vePurclm~.~ 1 I Exhibit C - Adjoining Property Owners Roanoke City Tax Number/Property Address 1570103 1570112 1570113 3359 Colonial Avenue, SW 1570115 1570117 Property Owner 1570126 1570118 3514 RobynRoad, SW 1650916 1650917 2916 Hollowell Avenue, SW 1650918 2912 Hollowell Avenue, SW 1650919 1650924 Gregory E. and Vicky L. Roseberry Verity Jane Callender Trustees S.W. Congregation c/o Grey Gregory Berlin C. Flora Grace Marie Flora Gerald B. and L. Lorene Hatcher P. W. and India I. Moore James K. Metz Richard and Becky Robertson Dennis M. and Linda S. Wright Joseph and Corinth Treadway Steve E. and Patricia M. Wilcher Walter S. Frazier Mailing Address 3502 Robyn Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 2750 Creston Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 1315 Hamilton Terrace, SE Roanoke, VA 24014 3349 Colonial Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 3508 Robyn Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 3517 Robyn Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 5844 Lakemont Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 2920 Hollowell Avenue,SW Roanoke, VA 24015 528 Elmcrest Street, NE Roanoke, VA 24019 1633 Persinger Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 2908 Hollowell Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 3719 Strother Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 gXHIBI? C Roanoke County Parcel ID/Property Address 077.11-01-59.00-0000 Colonial Avenue 077.11-01-57.00-0000 3390 Colonial Avenue 077.11-01-55.00-0000 077.11-01-55.00-000A 3455 Colonial Avenue 077.11-01-54.00-0000 077.11-01053.00-0000 077.11-01-52.00-0000 077.11-01-51.00-0000 077.11-01-50.00-0000 077.11.01-10.00-0000 3377Woodland Drive 077.11-01-09.00-0000 3389Woodland Drive 077.11-01-08.00-0000 077.11-01-07.00-0000 077.11-01-06.00-0000 077.11-01-05.00-0000 077.15-01-01.00-0000 Coloni~ Avenue Property Owner Allen Oberlin John W. and Patricia Oberlin William F. Ball Occidental Development Attn. Donald Williams Ethel J. Virgili Robert B. Pandlis Nancy K. Carson Benjamin McCoy Mark A. Graham R. Edward Mitchell Reginald and Carla Rodgers Khoi Anh Tran Kenneth Lynch Jay R. Hillison Mildred A. Berry John W. Oberlin Mailing Address 3652 Brambleton Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 7715 Fort Mason Roanoke, VA 24018 7901 Crawfords Village Indianapolis, IN 46204 3380WoodlandDrive Roanoke, VA24018 3368Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA24018 3358Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA24018 3350Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA24018 3346Woodland Drive Roanoke, VA24018 Route 1, Box 235A Moneta, VA24121 3207 Fox Chase Drive Midlothian, VA 23112 3352 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 3344 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 3334 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 3328 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 3412 Overbrook Drive Roanoke, VA 24018 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #2-166-221 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35537-082001 authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement, deed and any related and necessary documents providing for the sale and conveyance of City-owned property located on Colonial Avenue, S. W., containing approximately 2.80 acres, more or less, and being a portion of Official Tax No. 1570101, and a five-year ingress/egress easement to CHS, Inc., for the consideration of $375,000.00, upon certain terms and conditions; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001, and will be in full force and effect ten days following the date of adoption. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: Dr. Edward Murphy, CEO, Carilion Health Systems, Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital, P. O. Box 13367, Roanoke, Virginia 24033 James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Elizabeth A. Neu, Director of Economic Development H:La, gen~a.0lkAugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35537-082001. AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement, deed and any related and necessary documents providing for the sale and conveyance of City-owned property located on Colonial Avenue, S.W., containing approximately 2.80 acres, more or less, and being a portion of Official Tax No. 1570101, and a five-year ingress/egress easement to CHS, Inc., upon certain terms and conditions, and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 20, 2001, pursuant to §§15.2- 1800(B) and 15.2-1813, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were afforded an opportunity to be heard on the proposed conveyance. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the City, to execute and attest, respectively, an agreement, deed and any related and necessary documents providing for the sale and conveyance of City-owned property located on Colonial Avenue, S.W., containing approximately 2.80 acres, more or less, and being a portion of Official Tax No. 1570101, along with a five-year ingress/egress easement across a portion of such tax parcel to CHS, Inc., for the consideration of $375,000.00, upon the terms and conditions set forth in the City Manager's letter to this Council dated August 20, 2001. 2. The City Manager is authorized to execute the subdivision plat necessary to create the parcel to be conv~yed. 3. All documents necessary for this conveyance shall be in form approved by the City Attorney. 4. Pursuant to the provisions of § 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: City Clerk. H:XlvlF=A SURES'~-.~lecarilion r. olonial. 1 Office of the City Manager August'20, 2001 The Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor The Honorable William Carder, Vice-Mayor The Honorable William Bestpitch, Council Member The Honorable Nelson Harris, Council Member The Honorable Alvin Hudson, Council Member The Honorable William White, Council Member The Honorable Linda Wyatt, Council Member Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council: Subject: Sale of City Property on Colonial Avenue to Carilion Health Systems (CHS, Inc.) Carilion Health Systems (CHS, Inc.) has offered to purchase 2.8 acres of city property located on Colonial Avenue, part Tax Map Parcel #1570101 for the purpose of establishing a medical clinic and / or medical office. The Roanoke City Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed rezoning of this parcel on August 16, 2001. The City recently had this 2.8-acre parcel appraised at $365,000. Recommendation: Following the public hearing, authorize the City Manager to execute a real estate sale agreement between the City of Roanoke and Carilion Health Systems, Inc. for the City of Roanoke to sell to Carilion Health Systems, Inc. a tract of City-owned property containing 2.80 acres, more or less, and a 50 foot easement for a term of five years (identified as "New Parcel A" and "New Private Drive and Ingress/Egress Easement" respectively, on attached plat entitled "Preliminary Subdivision Map") in an amount of $375,000. Respectfully submitted, City Manager DLB:clw Attachments c: James D. Grisso, Director of Finance William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Beth Neu, Director of Economic Development CM01-00189 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 AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY This Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property ("Agreement"), is made this day of , 2001, by and between the CITY OF ROANOKE, a Virginia municipal corporation ("Seller") and CHS, Inc., a Virginia corporation ("Purchaser"). WHEREAS, Seller is the sole owner in fee simple of certain real property and improvements thereon located in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, described on the attached Exhibit 1. WHEREAS, Seller is desirous of selling the said real property together with other property related thereto and Purchaser is desirous of purchasing said property. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand paid by Purchaser to Seller, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and the mutual promises hereafter set forth and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is also hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be fully and legally bound, hereby agree as follows: DEFINITIONS. As used in this Agreement unless the context otherwise requires or it is otherwise herein expressly provided, the following terms shall have the following meanings: "Deposit" shall mean Ten Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($10,000.00) cash paid to Seller. B. "Effective Date" shall mean the date of the last signature of a party hereto. "Property" shall mean the lot or parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.8 Acres and improvements thereon, as the same is described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto. The Property is also known as a portion of City Tax Map # 1570101 and includes any and all improvements thereon The Property shall also include all of Seller's right, title and interest in and to the Improvements and modifications, additions, restorations, repairs and replacements thereof; and all right, title, and interest of the Seller in and to all inchoate rights, easements, and appurtenances. "Purchaser" shall mean CHS, Inc., a Virginia corporation, and its assignees, designees or nominees, with an address at: 213 South Jefferson Street, Suite 720, Roanoke, Virginia 24011. E. "Purchase Price" shall mean $375,000.00. F. "Seller" shall mean the City of Roanoke, Virginia with an address at: 364 Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, SW, Roanoke, Virginia 24011, with a copy of any notices sent to Seller sent to William Hackworth, City Attorney, 464 Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, SW, Roanoke, Virginia 24011. "Settlement" and/or "Closinq" shall mean the consummation of the sale and purchase provided for in this Agreement to occur as provided in Paragraphs 11 and 12 hereof. PURCHASE AND SALE. The Seller agrees to sell and convey and the Purchaser agrees to purchase the Property upon the terms set forth hereinafter. DEPOSIT, PURCHASE PRICE AND PAYMENT. Purchaser will provide the Deposit in the amount of Ten Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($10,000.00) The Deposit shall be returned to Purchaser if this Agreement terminates without a breach of this Agreement by Purchaser. B. The Purchase Price shall be paid as follows: (1) In addition to the Ten Thousand and 00/00 Dollars ($10,000.00) representing the Deposit, the Purchaser shall pay Three Hundred sixty-five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($365,000.00) in cash at Settlement less any appropriate closing cost attributable to Seller PLANS, ENGINEERING, TITLE EXAMINATION AND OPERATIONAL RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS TO PURCHASER. In consideration of the execution of this Agreement, the Seller agrees to provide to the Purchaser, at no cost, immediately, but not later than five (5) days after the Effective Date, any surveys, development information, soil boring data, and other agreements affecting the Property, all title examination records and a copy of the title insurance policy, if any, now held by the Seller which relate to the Property as well as any other records relating to the Property including but not limited to true copies of all other records. DEFAULT/TERMINATION. Ao In the event Purchaser fails or refuses to go to Settlement in compliance with the terms hereof, and the Seller has not defaulted hereunder, the Seller shall so notify Purchaser, in writing and within five (5) business days, the Deposit shall be paid over to Seller as its sole remedy, as liquidated damages, and Purchaser shall forfeit its Deposit and neither party shall have any further obligations hereunder. The parties acknowledge that the Deposit represents a reasonable effort to ascertain the damages to Seller in the event of Purchaser default, which damages are difficult or impossible to quantify. In the event Seller fails or refuses to go to Settlement or to perform its obligations in compliance with the terms hereof; Purchaser shall have all 2 o Co remedies available to it at law or in equity, including the right to specific performance. While all remedies shall be cumulative in no case shall monetary damages exceed $10,000. No delay by Purchaser in pursuing any remedy or taking any action shall be construed as a waiver of any breach by Seller. Purchaser shall have the right, until all contingencies set forth in Paragraph 9 below have been satisfied, to notify Seller of its election to terminate this Agreement and shall immediately be refunded the Deposit referred to herein and neither party shall have any further rights against the other arising out of this Agreement. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF SELLER. The Seller represents and warrants to the Purchaser as follows: Co The title to the Property is, and at Settlement will be, marketable and good of record and in fact, free and clear of all liens, encumbrances or leases, except those (i) to be removed at or prior to Settlement; and (ii) agreed to prior to Settlement and which shall be permitted exceptions ("Permitted Exceptions"), which exceptions do not interfere with the Purchaser's intended use of the Property as a medical clinic and/or medical office. Title will otherwise be free of covenants, conditions, restrictions and will be insurable at standard title insurance company rates at the title company chosen by Purchaser. To the best of the knowledge of Seller, there are no title conditions adversely affecting title insurability. The Property is also sold "subject to" such state of facts as an accurate survey of the Property would disclose, provided that: (i) nothing contained therein would render title unmarketable or would prevent or interfere with the intended use of the Property and improvements thereon; (ii) no easements of record are shown except an easement for a power line; (iii) there are no encroachments upon the Property; (iv) the Improvements on the Property do not encroach upon adjoining properties; and (v) the title company insuring Purchaser's title will agree to remove the "survey exception" from Purchaser's title policy upon receipt of a survey. The Seller is the sole fee simple owner of the Property and has all necessary authority to sell the Property. There are no other contracts for sale or options involving the Property, and no other party has any right, title or interest in the Property. There are no leases affecting the Property except for a lease for the school building that expires September 1, 2001. The Property is zoned Residential Single-Family District 2 (RS-2) as defined by the City of Roanoke Zoning Ordinance. There are no eminent domain or condemnation proceedings pending against the Property, and Seller has no knowledge of such proceedings or of any intentions or plans definite or tentative that such proceedings might be instituted. 3 Fo Ho There are no actions or suits in law or equity or proceedings by any governmental agency now or pending or, to the knowledge of Seller, threatened against Seller in connection with the Property. There is no outstanding order, writ, injunction or decree of any court or governmental agency affecting the Property. There has not been made and will not be made, without the Purchaser's consent, any proffers or other commitments to any state, county, federal or local governmental or quasi-governmental authority, utility company, school board, church or other religious body, or any public or private organization or individual, relating to the Property, which would impose any obligation on Purchaser or its successors and assigns, after Settlement, to make any contribution of money or dedications of land or to construct, install or maintain any improvements of a public or private nature on or off the Property. The execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, and the fulfillment of the terms hereof will not result in a breach of any of the terms or provisions of, or constitute a default under, or conflict with, any agreement, indenture, or other instrument to which Seller is a party or by which it or the Property is bound, any judgment, decree, order, or award of any court, governmental body or arbitrator, or any law, rule, or regulation applicable to Seller. To the best of Seller's knowledge: (i) none of the Property has been excavated (except for standard grading related to site development); (ii) no hazardous materials, toxic chemicals, or similar substances, as defined by 42 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. or 42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq. or 42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq., or 33 U.S.C. 1317(1), or 15 U.S.C. 2606(0, or49 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., or regulations adopted pursuant thereto, or any similar provision of any applicable state, Federal, or local law (collectively "Hazardous Materials"), are or were stored or used on or under or otherwise were or are in existence or were in any way dealt with on or under the Property; and (iii) no owner or occupant of the Property has received any notice from any governmental agency with regard to such Hazardous Materials. Seller knows of no materially adverse fact affecting or threatening to affect the Property, which has not been disclosed to Purchaser in writing. Under penalty of law, Seller is not a "foreign person" as contemplated in Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended. Seller agrees to execute at Settlement an affidavit in the form required by the Internal Revenue Service to exempt Purchaser form any withholding requirements under Section 1445. 4 In the event any of the representations, warranties, additional undertakings of Seller in this Paragraph 6 and/or other responsibilities of the Seller, as set forth in this Agreement, are not accurate and cannot be or are not ratified or fulfilled prior to Settlement, then the Purchaser shall have the right at its sole option, to take any or none of the following actions: (i) waive the inaccurate, unratified or unfulfilled representation, warranty, additional undertakings and/or responsibility of Seller, and proceed with Settlement hereunder, provided, however, that such waiver shall be in writing, or (ii) terminate this Agreement, whereupon all rights and responsibilities hereunder shall be null and void, and neither party shall have any further obligation hereunder, other than the obligation of Escrow Agent to return the Deposit, or (iii) proceed to Settlement, and to offset an amount up to One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) to pay for such ratification or fulfillment against the amounts otherwise due to Seller under Paragraph 3. B. of this Agreement. Remedies of Purchaser under this Paragraph are in addition to the remedies of Purchaser under Paragraph 5. B. hereof and the rights of Purchaser under Paragraph 9. C. hereof. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF PURCHASER. The Purchaser represents and warrants to Seller that the Purchaser has the financial ability to purchase the Property. ADDITIONAL UNDERTAKINGS OF THE PARTIES. The Seller shall give to the Purchaser and their designated agents and representatives full access to the Property during normal business hours throughout the Study Period as defined in paragraph 9. B, including the right, at the Purchaser's own risk, cost and expense, to cause its agents or representatives to enter upon the Property for the purpose of making surveys or soil boring, engineering, water, sanitary and storm sewer, utilities, topographic and other similar tests, investigations or studies and to perform zoning and economic feasibility studies as the Purchaser may desire, provided, that the Purchaser, at its expense, restores the Property to its prior condition to the extent of any changes made by its agents or representatives in the event it does not purchase the Property. The Seller shall furnish to the Purchaser during such periods all information concerning the Property, which the Purchaser may reasonably, request and which is in the possession of Seller. Purchaser indemnifies and agrees to hold Seller harmless and defend the Seller from claims for damages to Seller or its agents caused by the actions of Purchaser or its agents in the course of conducting the studies described under this paragraph. Bo At Settlement, the Seller agrees to execute, acknowledge and deliver to the Purchaser a special warranty deed ("Deed") in proper form for recording, conveying the Property to the Purchaser free and clear of all conditions, restrictions, liens, encumbrances or agreements except for the Permitted Exceptions. 5 The Seller agrees to give possession and occupancy of the Property on the date of Settlement, free and clear of any and all leases or other rights. As to any matter relating to title which is not a Permitted Encumbrance ("Non-Permitted Encumbrance") Seller shall take all required actions to eliminate the Non-Permitted Encumbrance. Seller agrees to deliver the following to the Purchaser at Settlement: (1) The fully executed Deed. (2) Any other documents reasonably required by title insurance company or Purchaser. Purchaser agrees to develop the property in substantial conformance with the attached Development Plan attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Purchaser agrees to develop the property in conformance with the following restrictions. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Exterior lighting shall be directed downward on poles that shall not exceed fifteen feet in height. Dumpsters shall be screened from view with either fencing or landscaping. There will be one tree planted in or immediately adjacent to the parking lot for every five parking spaces. All utilities to be connected to any buildings constructed on the Property shall be underground. All HVAC units, if mounted on the roof, shall be screened by a pitched roof like structure or if placed on the ground, shall be screened with fencing or landscaping. Trees shall be planted along the lot lines adjacent and parallel to Colonlial Ave and the new street depicted on the Development Plan. These trees are to be planted in the setback area every twenty-five feet. The roof on any building constructed on the Property shall have minimum pitch of 4/12 There can be no more than two identification signs with a combined 6 o surface area of forty square feet. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT (CONTINGENCIES) TO THE OBLIGATIONS OF PURCHASER TO SE I I LE. The obligations of the Purchaser to settle upon the Property pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement shall be subject to all of the following conditions: The representations and warranties of the Seller set forth in this Agreement shall be true and correct on and as of the Settlement as though such representations and warranties were made on and as of such date. Notwithstanding that certain of Seller's representations and warranties may be limited to the extent of actual knowledge of the facts stated therein, it shall be a condition precedent to Purchaser's obligation to go to Settlement that the facts stated in all such representations and warranties shall be correct as of the time of Settlement. Purchaser shall have days from the Effective Date, or the date that all information and data and the copies of all documents to be provided hereunder are in fact provided to Purchaser by Seller, whichever occurs last, ("Study Period") to complete the studies described in Paragraph 8. A. Above and to determine in its sole discretion that the condition of the Property is satisfactory for the intended use of Purchaser. In the event that the Purchaser is not so satisfied for any reason whatsoever, at any time prior to the expiration of the Study Period and Purchaser has advised the Seller in writing of its intention not to proceed to Settlement under the terms of this Agreement, then, in such event, this Agreement shall automatically be deemed to be terminated, the Deposit shall be returned other than the Permitted Exceptions, all at the cost of the Purchaser. Should a Non- Permitted Encumbrance be discovered and Seller advised in writing prior to Settlement then Purchaser, at its sole discretion, may take any action authorized by paragraph 6.J. hereof. In addition, the time for Settlement may be extended, at Purchaser's option, for a period to be specified by Purchaser not to exceed sixty (60) days from the date of notice by Purchaser to Seller of a Non-Permitted Encumbrance, in order to allow Seller to remove the Non- Permitted Encumbrance. If it cannot be removed within that time period, then Purchaser may take any action authorized by paragraph 6. K. hereof. This contract is subject to Seller having property rezoned Office District (C-1) or other zones suitable for Purchaser's intended use. Should the Roanoke City Planning Commission not recommend said rezoning at its August 2001 meeting or Roanoke City Council not grant final approval at it's 2001 meeting subject only to a ten (10) day waiting period which shall expire on 2001, the City of Roanoke will promptly refund the deposit in full to Purchaser and this Agreement shall thereupon be null and void and of no further force and effect. D. The persons executing this contract have been authorized to do so by the 7 10. 11. 12. 13. party they represent. Purchaser agrees to design and construct a private driveway across Seller's property providing ingress and egress to the Property as shown in the Design Plan attached to this Contract as Exhibit 2. Purchaser further agrees that it will be solely and exclusively responsible for all costs associated with the design, construction and maintenance of this driveway. Seller hereby agrees to provide Purchaser with a permanent easement and a temporary construction easement for purposes of construction, maintenance and use of the driveway. Purchaser and Seller agree that should Seller develop the area surrounding the Property, Seller may further develop the driveway to provide ingress and egress to the developed area as shown on the Design Plan. Both parties agree that Purchaser would not be responsible for the costs associated with further developing the driveway, and in such event the driveway would become a public street. Seller shall have discharged all obligations required of it under this Agreement and shall have provided all documents and other items required to be provided pursuant to paragraph 8. E. SETTLEMENT. The Settlement shall be held at the offices selected by the Purchaser on a date which is no later than thirty (30) days after the contingencies contained in paragraph 9 are met or satisfied in their entirety, or at an earlier date at the option of Purchaser. Notwithstanding the foregoing Settlement shall occur not later than August 30, 2001 TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE TO THIS AGREEMENT. TENDER OF SE'I-rLEMENT. The delivery to the Seller by the Purchaser of the Purchase Price, and by Seller to the Purchaser of, the executed Deed together with all other documents and instruments required to be delivered by either party to the other by the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed to be a good and sufficient tender of performance of the terms hereof. SETTLEMENT OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES. The cost of title examination and state and county taxes payable in connection with the recording of the deed and deed of trust shall be paid by Purchaser. Other settlement costs shall be charged as is customary in Virginia. Each shall pay fees charged to them and as agreed upon by them with their attorney. Real estate taxes, utilities and property owners' association fees, and lease payments will be prorated as of the Settlement. At Settlement, Seller shall satisfy all deeds of trust or similar liens to which the Property is subject or shall make provision satisfactory to Purchaser for full and complete satisfaction. RISK OF LOSS AND CONDEMNATION. Risk of loss shall be born by Seller prior to Settlement. However, in the event of any damage to the Property prior to Settlement, the Purchaser shall have the election to close as required hereunder without diminution in the Purchase Price and with the assignment by Seller of all its interest in payments for damage to the Property. In the event of a condemnation of 8 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. any part of the Property prior to Settlement, the Purchaser shall have the option in its sole discretion to terminate this Agreement or to proceed to Settlement with any condemnation award paid or credited to Purchaser at Settlement. LIMITATION ON LEASES AND OTHER CONTRACTS. Between the date of this Agreement and the Settlement, Seller shall not, without Purchaser's prior written consent, grant an oral or written lease or other agreement to any party for any purpose relating to any portion of the Property. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. The Recitals and Exhibits and documents referred to therein are hereby incorporated into this Agreement. No change or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless the same is in writing and signed by the parties hereto. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement or other agreements referred to herein shall be valid unless in writing and signed by the party against whom it is sought to be enforced. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to the purchase and sale of the Property, and all prior negotiations between the parties are merged in this Agreement, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions, undertakings, warranties, or representations, oral or written, expressed or implied, between them other than as herein set forth. BURDEN AND BENEFIT. All terms of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective legal representatives, successors and assigns. GOVERNING LAW. Notwithstanding the place where this Agreement may be executed by any of the parties hereto, the parties expressly agree that all terms and provisions hereof shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia as now adopted or as may be hereafter amended. NOTICES. All notices, requests, demands or other communications hereunder shall be in writing and shall be effective when delivered personally or three (3) business days after mailing if sent by U.S. registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, and postage prepaid, addressed as first set forth above or to such other address as may be given by any party to the other party by notice in writing. Copies of notices are provided as a courtesy and are not themselves notice and notice hereunder shall be accomplished with or without the forwarding of such copies. HEADINGS. The captions and headings herein are for convenience and reference only and in no way define or limit the scope or content of this Agreement or in any way affect its provisions. ASSIGNMENT. This Agreement may be assigned at the option of Purchaser to any entity which is controlled by the Purchaser and which is subject to the payment of real estate. Otherwise, Purchaser may assign this Agreement upon written notice to Seller. COUNTERPART ORIGINALS. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterpart originals all of which counterparts shall have the same force and effect 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. as if all the parties hereto had executed a single original of this Agreement. ADVICE OF COUNSEL AND CONSTRUCTION. All parties to this Agreement have been represented by counsel or have had the opportunity to be so represented. Accordingly, the rule of construction of contract language against the drafting party is hereby waived by both parties. SURVIVAL. The representations, warranties, covenants, agreements and indemnities set forth in this Agreement shall survive the Settlement under this Agreement and the execution and delivery of any deed shall not be merged therein. OBLIGATION OF SELLER. The obligations of Seller under this Agreement are joint and several. BROKERAGE. Each party warrants and represents to the other that no real estate broker or agent has been involved in negotiations leading to the execution of this Agreement and that no commission is owed to any broker or agent as a result of the action of such party. Each party agrees to hold the other harmless from any loss, cost or charge (including reasonable attorneys' fees), arising from the assertion by any broker or agent that any fee or commission is owed because of the acts or agreement of such party. OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE. The presentation of an executed counterpart of this Agreement to Seller by Purchaser constitutes an offer by Purchaser which may be accepted if Seller executes and returns a counterpart original to Purchaser two (2) days after authorization of such of sale by Roanoke City Council becomes effective. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed. DATE: ,2001 PURCHASER: CHS, Inc. BY: TITLE: DATE: ,2001 SELLER: CITY OF ROANOKE BY: 10 TITLE: 11 State of Virginia City/County of Subscribed and sworn before me this day of ,2001, by (Seal) Notary Public My Commission Expires: State of Virginia City/County of Subscribed and sworn before me this __ day of ,2001, by (Seal) Notary Public My Commission Expires: 12 Exhibit 1 List of Exhibits Description of Real Property EXHIBIT 1 DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY NEW PARCEL A PROPERTY OF ROANOKE WATER WORKS COMPANY PORTION OF CITY OF ROANOKE TAX PARCEL 1570101 BEGINNING at a point on the northerly side of Colonial Avenue, S.W. (VA Rte. 720), said point being the southerly boundary corner of property of Richard P. Wimberley, Dennis R. West, and Michael D. Sassard, as recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia in Deed Book 1535, Page 211, and as shown as boundary corner number 9 on a "Preliminary Subdivision Map from Records for Carilion Health System" by Caldwell White Associates, dated June 15, 2001, said point being further described as boundary corner number 4 as shown on a Plat of Survey and Subdivision for W.H. Masterson and Hazel L. Masterson, prepared by C.B. Malcolm & Son, dated March 15, 1955, and recorded in the aforementioned Clerk's Office in Deed Book 950, Page 335; thence with the northerly right of way of Colonial Avenue, said right of way line being the southeastern limits of the property of Roanoke Water Works Company, Deed Book 240, Page 334, S 28007'27" W, 303.66' to a point; thence leaving Colonial Avenue, and with a new line through the property of Roanoke Water Works Company N 52058'00" W, 407.25' to a point; thence with another new line through the property of Roanoke Water Works Company N 28007'27" E, 303.66' to a point at the northwesterly corner of the property of Wimberly, West, and Sassard, said point being further described as boundary corner number 3 as shown on the aforementioned Malcolm plat for Masterson; thence with the property of Wimberly, West, and Sassard S52°58'00"E, 407.25' to the POINT OF BEGINNING, and containing 2.80 acres. This description is based upon said Preliminary Subdivision Map from Records for Carilion Health System, and is not based on a current field survey by Caldwell White Associates. F:\users\rachel\WORD\RealEstate\ColonailAvePurchaseAgree.doc 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 01733102 CHA 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 _J~ day of__~, ,-- . -Aug~t~2001'/~Wit~ess my hand and official sea .~~_~_~~ .......... Notary Public My~/6/commission expires ~/~//~7~-'~ . PUBLISHED'ON: 08/i2 TOTAL COST: i59.12 FILED ON: 08/14/01 tO I:~)nvey to CH~, lu~., e trect of CiO/owned prope~q contain- lng 2.80 acr~ more or le~ and a 50 foot easement for a tefra of ave years acre,s adla- cent City-owned propm~y, Private Drive and Ingress/ on a piat entitled "Re-Zoning Family Practice Center and Colonial Avenue Improve- merits,' d~ed July 27, 200.1, bein~ a pmtlon of Ofil~iml Tax Map No. :].570].01., a ~opy of which Is on file In the Oftl~e of amended, notioe Il hereby be held on Monday, August 20, 2001, comrnat~m~ at 7:00 p.m., in Ute Council Ctmmbers, Ip~l Bulk:ling, 215 Church A~e- nu~, $.W., Ro~ke, 24011. Fu~ in~ Is City Cle,~k for Um City of Rmm~e ~t (540) 853-2541. If you are e person with a dis- ability who needs acoomnmda- at (540) 853-2542, before '12:00 noon on Thursday, Au~uat 16, 2001. C~' Ck~ (1733102) Authorized Signature: , Billin9 Services Representative NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Roanoke proposes to convey to CHS, Inc., a tract of City-owned property containing 2.80 acres, more or less, and a 50 foot easement for a term of five years across adjacent City-owned property, located on Colonial Avenue, S.W., more particularly defined as "New Parcel A" and "New Private Drive and Ingress/Egress Easement" respectively, on a plat entitled "Re- Zoning Plan for The City of Roanoke Showing a New Private Drive, Family Practice Center and Colonial Avenue Improvements,"dated July 27, 2001, being a portion of Official Tax Map No. 1570101, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the requirements of §§15.2-1800(B) and 1813, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of' Roanoke will hold a public hearing on the above matter at its regular meeting to be held on Monday, August 20, 2001, commencing at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 4th Floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, 24011. Further information is available from the Office of the City Clerk for the City of Roanoke at (540) 853-2541. Citizens shall have the opportunity to be heard and express their opinions on said matter. If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (540) 853-2541, before 12:00 noon on Thursday, August 16, 2001. GIVEN under my hand this 8th day of August ,2001. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. Note to Publisher: Please publish once in The Roanoke Times on Sunday, August 12, 2001. Send Publisher's Affidavit and Bill to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 H:~Notices~N-ph-colonialavcnue.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: clcrk@ci.roanok¢.va.us August 22, 2001 File #51 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk Robert R. Copty 310 First Street, S. W., Suite 450 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Mr. Copty: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No: 35538-082001 amending certain conditions presently binding upon a tract of land lying on the north side of Orange Avenue, N. E., and designated as Official Tax No. 7140114, which property was previously conditionally rezoned pursuant to Ordinance No. 33516-080497, adopted August 4, 1997; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001, 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 H:XAgcnda.01XAugust 20, 2001 corrcspondenc.wpd Robert R. Copty August22,2001 Page 2 pc~ Harriet G. and Everette J. Rogers, 4450 Royce Road, Troutville, Virginia 24175 Old Dominion Auto Salvage, Inc., Route 1, Box 198, Rustburg, Virginia 24588 Wayne Gould, c/o Roanoke Gravely Sales, 3042 Orange Avenue, N. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 F & D Land Company, P. O. Box 8636, Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Hickory Woods Apartments, LLC, 102 South First Street, Suite 301, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Douglas Caton, P. O. Box 5608, Charlottesville, Virginia 22905 D. Kent Chrisman, Chair, City Planning Commission, 2319 Avenham Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Willard N. Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission Ronald L. Smith, Acting Building Commissioner Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney H:%genda.01~August 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd 1N THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35538-082001. AN ORDINANCE to amend {}{}36.1-3 and 36.1-4, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 714, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in order to amend certain conditions presently binding upon certain property previously conditionally zoned C-2, General Commercial District, and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance. WHEREAS, Lee Hi Land Group filed an application to the Council of the City of Roanoke to amend certain conditions presently binding upon a tract of land lying on the north side of Orange Avenue, N.E., and designated as Official Tax No. 7140114, which property was previously conditionally rezoned by the adoption of Ordinance No. 33516-080497, adopted August 4, 1997; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving proper notice to all concerned as required by §36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and after conducting a public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by City Council on said application at its meeting on July 16, 2001, after due and timely notice thereof as required by §36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, such meeting being carried over and continued to a date on which the applicant could be present; and WHEREAS, a public heating was held by City Council on said application at its meeting on August 20, 2001, after due and timely notice thereof as required by §36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard, both for and against the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the aforesaid application, the recommendation made to the Council by the Planning Commission, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the matters presented at the public hearing, is of the opinion that the conditions now binding upon a tract of land lying on the north side of Orange Avenue, N.E., and designated as Official Tax No. 7140114, and the matters presented at the public hearing, should be amended as requested. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that §§36.1-3 and 36.1-4, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 714 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be amended to reflect the changes in proffered conditions as shown in the Third Amended Petition to Amend Proffered Conditions filed in the City Clerk's Office on July 10, 2001, and as set forth in the report of the Planning Commission dated July 16, 2001, and Ordinance No. 33416-080497, adopted August 4, 1997, is amended to reflect the changes in proffered conditions. BE IT FINALLY ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that 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. H:\ORD-RF..~OAP-I. xe Hi Land (PH-08-20*OI) Roanoke City Department of Planning and Code Enforcement Room 166, Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (540) 853-2344 (Fax) 853-1230 Email: planning@ci.roanoke.va.us August 20, 2001 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: Request from Lee Hi Land Group, represented by Bob Copty, Managing Partner, that conditions on property located on the north side of Orange Avenue, one-quarter mile east of Granby Street, N.E., designated as Official Tax No. 7140114, and approved under Ordinance No. 33516-080497, be amended. Planning Commission Action: On June 21,2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed request. By a vote of 7-0, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment of proffered conditions. Background: The property is a vacant lot in the 3000 block of Orange Avenue (Route 460) between Granby Street and Seibel Drive. In 1997, the property was rezoned from LM to C-2, with the following proffered conditions: That the property will be developed in substantial conformity with the development plan. That the property will not be used for neighborhood or highway convenience store, a fast-food restaurant or outdoor advertising. A petition to amend the conditions of the rezoning was filed on February 1,2001. A second amended petition was filed on April 11, 2001. The second amended petition proffers the following conditions: 1 Roanoke City Planning Commission Architectural Review Board Board of Zoning Appeals That the property will not be used for a neighborhood or highway convenience store, a fast-food restaurant, or outdoor advertising. 2. A maximum of one entrance off of Route 460. A Third Amended Petition was filed on July 10, 2001, to clarify the street extension of Granby Street, N.E. None of the conditions proffered in the Second Amended Petition changed. The surrounding land uses are commercial and industrial in nature. To the west, there is a restaurant and a motel. To the north is an auto salvage business. On the west is a tractor/equipment dealer. Across Orange Avenue is Hickory Woods, an apartment complex. The zoning of the adjacent parcels is LM. Across Orange Avenue, the zoning is a mixture of RM-2, C-2, and LM. Staff received one call from an adjoining property owner (Wayne Gould of Gravely Sales) who wanted information about how the site would be developed. Staff advised that the petitioner did not provide a plan for development. Staff made arrangements for the petitioner to contact Mr. Gould to discuss plans for the property. At the Planning Commission public hearing on June 21,2001, Mr. Robert Copty presented his request to the Commission. Mr. Chris Chittum gave the staff report and recommended approval of the amendment of the proffered conditions. There was no one present in the audience who was either opposed to or in favor of the request. Considerations: The major constraint of the site is its topography. Roughly 175' back from the road, there is a steep upward slope, making the back third of the lot unusable. The reasoning behind the 1997 rezoning was that the usable portion of site is too small to support most industrial uses and the site is thus more appropriate for a commercial use. A plan that specified the location of a 19,000 square foot building and associated parking areas was proffered as part of the 1997 rezoning. However, the site was not developed and is currently vacant. Elimination of the development plan proffer will provide more flexibility in developing the site. The zoning ordinance strongly encourages limits on the number of entrances on arterial roads. The petitioner has responded to this concern by proffering the condition that access to the property will be limited to one entrance. Inappropriate commercial uses are addressed by retaining the proffered condition that the property will not be used for neighborhood or highway convenience store, a fast- food restaurant or outdoor advertising. Ken King, City Traffic Engineer, commented that the existing drive location should be adjusted slightly. The existing drive runs through the adjacent property. A new 2 entrance may be constructed when the property is developed. Mr. King also noted that the deceleration lane might need to be extended, depending on the use of the property. These issues will be addressed administratively during development review. Recommendation: Planning Commission recommends that Council approve the request to amend the proffered conditions. The amended conditions address inappropriate uses of the site as well as limiting the number of curb cuts to one. Respectfully submitted, D. Kent Chrisman, Chairman Roanoke City Planning Commission CC:mpf cc: Darlene Burcham, City Manager Rolanda Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Bob Copty, Petitioner 3 THIRD AMENDED PETITION VIRGINIA: IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE In re: Repeal of Conditions ) of a Tract of Land Located on Route ) 460 East, Official Tax # 7140114 ) PETITION TO AMEND PROFFERED CONDITIONS TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Petitioner Lee Hi Land Group, a Virginia corporation, is the owner of a tract of land in the City of Roanoke located on the north side of Orange Avenue, Route 460 East, one quarter mile east of Granby Street intersection, bearing City of Roanoke Official Tax No. 7140114. (the "Property"). A portion of City Appraisal Map 714 showing the Property is attached to this Petition as Exhibit A. By Ordinance No. 33516-080497, enacted by the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia on August 4, 1997, the Property was rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing, to C-2, General Commercial, subject to conditions proffered by the applicant of the Petition, GFW Construction Co., which at that time had a contract to purchase the Property. The contract between Lee Hi Land Group & GFW Construction Co. (the Former Petitioner) herein was not closed, and the effort to develop for the original petitioner was terminated. Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, Petitioner requests that the conditions previously proffered on Tax Parcel 7140114 be repealed and the Property continue to be classified as C-2, General Commercial, subject only to the conditions proffered herein, in order that the Petitioner may sell the property to a new purchaser. The change hereby requested will be consistent with the zoning to C-2, General Commercial, as previously rezoned and conform to the properties that predominates along the Orange Avenue frontage, and, Petitioner believes, thereby further the intent and purpose of the City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the Property's conditions are amended as requested, the Petitioner will abide by, the following conditions: (a) That the property will not be used for a neighborhood or highway convenience store, a fast-food restaurant or outdoor advertising. (b) A maximum of one entrance off of Route 460. (7) Attached to this petition as Exhibit B is a list of the names and addresses of the owners of all lots immediately adjacent to or across a street from the Property, together with the Official Tax Number of each lot. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the parcel bearing City of Roanoke Official Tax No. 7140114 continue to be zoned C-2 in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke, subject only to the conditions set forth above. Respectfully submitted this 1 lth day of April, 2001 LEE HI LAND GROUP Bob Copty 310 First Street, S.W. Suite 450 Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 344-1144 / Bob Copty, Managing P~ner / 19 1634 161 1568 1639 1613 1601 16O4 1534 prot3oseCt Ame~ctme~t Co~ct%tio~at p. ezO~9 1529 7140114 3353 2802 1520 3330 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ROANOKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Roanoke City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, June 21,2001, 1:30 p.m. or as soon as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., to consider the following: Request from Lee Hi Land Group, represented by Bob Copty, Managing Partner, that conditions, on property located on the north side of Orange Avenue, one- quarter mile east of Granby Road, designated as Official Tax No. 7140114, and approved under Ordinance No. 33516-080497, be amended. A copy of said application is available for review in the Department of Planning and Code Enforcement, Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be heard on the matter. If you are a person who needs accommodations for this hearing, please contact the Department of Planning and Code Enforcement at 853-2344 before 12:00 noon on the Monday before the date of the hearing listed above. Martha P. Franklin, Secretary Roanoke City Planning Commission Please print in newspaper on Tuesday, June 5 and 12, 2001 Please Bill: Bob Copty 310 First Street, S.W., Suite 450 Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 344-1144 Send affidavit of publication to: Department of Planning and Code Enforcement Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853-1230 (fax) 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 July 30, 2001 File #51 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk Robert Copty, Managing Partner Lee Hi Land Group 310 First Street, S. W., Suite 450 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Mr. Copty: Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, I have advertised a public hearing for Monday, August 20, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., on the request of Lee Hi Land Group that proffered conditions presently binding on a tract of land lying on the north side of Orange Avenue, N. E., identified as Official Tax No. 7140114, as set forth in Ordinance No. 33516-080497 adopted on August 4, 1997, be amended. For your information, I am enclosing copy of a notice of the public hearing, an Ordinance and a report of the City Planning Commission. Please review the documents and if you have questions, you may contact Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney, at 540-853-2431. Questions with regard to the City Planning Commission report should be directed to the Department of Planning and Code EnfOrcement at 540-853-2344. It will be necessary for you, or your representative, to be present at the August 20 public hearing. Failure to appear could result in a deferral of the matter until a later date. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:sm Enclosure N:\cksml \Public Hearings.01~August 20, 2001 w!0d 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: cierk@ci.manoke.va, us July 30, 2001 File #51 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk Mr. and Mrs. Everette J. Rogers Wayne Gould, c/o Roanoke Gravely Sales Hickory Woods Apartments, LLC Bobby Dillon, President, Wildwood Civic League Old Dominion Auto Salvage, Inc. F & D Land Company Mr. Douglas Caton Ladies and Gentlemen: Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, I have advertised a public hearing for Monday, August 20, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., on the request of Lee Hi Land Group that proffered conditions presently binding on a tract of land lying on the north side of Orange Avenue, N. E., identified as Official Tax No. 7140114, as set forth in Ordinance No. 33516-080497 adopted on August 4, 1997, be amended. The City Planning Commission is recommending approval of the above-described request. If you would like to receive a copy of the report of the City Planning Commission, please contact the City Clerk's Office. This letter is provided for your information as an interested property owner and/or adjoining property owner. If you have questions with regard to the matter, please call the Department of Planning and Code Enforcement at 540-853-2344. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:sm N:~cksml\Public Headngs.01~August 20, 2001 .w~d TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA PERTAINING TO AMENDMENT OEpROFFE~D CONDITION iREQUEST OF: Lee Hi Land Group, Orange Avenue, N.W., Official Tax No. 7140114 ) AFFIDAVIT 'Ol COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) ) TO-WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE ) The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail on the 4th day of June, 2001, notices of a public heating to be held on the 21st day of June, 2001, on the request captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels listed below at their last known address: Parcel 7140123 7140112 714011O Owner's Name Harriet G. and Everette J. Rogers Old Dominion Auto Salvage, Inc. Mailing Address 4450 Royce Road Troutville, VA 24175 Route 1, Box 198 Rustburg, VA 24588 7140115 7140502 Wayne Gould c/o Roanke Gravely Sales F & D Land Company 7140521 7090522 Hickory Woods Apartments, LLC 7090409 Douglas Caton Also notified: Bobby Dillon and Roy Stroop, Wildwood - Martt:ia Pace Franklin 2948 Orange Avenue, NE Roanoke, VA24012 3042 Orange Avenue, NE Roanoke, VA24012 P O Box 8636 Roanoke, VA24014 102 S. First St. Suite 301 Charlottesville, VA 22902 P O Box 5608 Charlottesville, VA 22905 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this 4th day of June, 2001. Notary Public O My Commission expires: ~-',, ~ ~ ~)~ TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA PERTAINING TO AMENDMENT OF PROFFERED CONDITION REQUEST OF: Lee Hi Land Group, Orange Avenue, N.W., Official Tax No. 7140114 ) AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) ) TO-WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE ) The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail on the 30th day of April, 2001, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 17th day of May, 2001, on the request captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels listed below at their last known address: Parcel 7140123 7140112 7140110 Owner's Name Harriet G. and Everette J. Rogers Old Dominion Auto Salvage, Inc. Mailing Address 4450 Royce Road Troutville, VA 24175 Route 1, Box 198 Rustburg, VA 24588 7140115 7140502 Wayne Gould c/o Roanke Gravely Sales F & D Land Company 7140521 7090522 Hickory Woods Apartments, LLC 7090409 Douglas Caton Also notified: Bobby Dillon and Roy Stroop, Wildwood 2948 Orange Avenue, NE Roanoke, VA 24012 3042 Orange Avenue, NE Roanoke, VA 24012 P O Box 8636 Roanoke, VA 24014 102 S. First St. Suite 301 Charlottesville, VA 22902 P O Box 5608 Charlottesville, VA 22905 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this 30th day of April, 2001. Notary Public ~ My Commission expires:~ _~X3x~ ~. ~ ~/~'~:~:~ The Roanoke Times Roanoke, Virginia Affidavit of Publication The RoanOke Times COPTY, BOB SUITE 450 310 FIRST STREET, ROANOKE VA 24011 REFERENCE: 80066164 01703381 Orange Avenue 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 __~zk day of July./2001' Witness my hand and official seal.__~_~_~ .... Notary Public My commission expires PUBLISHED ON: 06/29 07/06 TOTAL COST: 191.04 FILED ON: 07/13/01 S ignat' '~-~'~~___//~_~_.~_~_~./~_~~ , Billing Set vices Representative The Roanoke Times Roanoke, Virginia Affidavit of Publication The Roanoke Times COPTY, BOB SUITE 450 310 FIRST STREET, ROANOKE VA 24011 REFERENCE: 80066164 01726441 Orange Avenue 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 _j~7~ day of Augu~gt~2001/nWitmess~~r my hand and official seal -_O~_~__~/~2~ ........... Notary Public My commission expires ~_/_~/_~._~_~ PUBLISHED ON: 08/03 08/10 TOTAL COST: 187.06 FILED ON: 08/14/01 A~k:le V~I m' CI~ 3~.1, (1979), a~ amended, the Court- hold a Public He~dn~ on Mon. d~, ~ 20, 2~1, ~ 7:~ p.m., In ~ ~ll.~r in ~ N~ C. T~ Mu~l ~ 2~ ~h ~, S.W., on ~e q~.~n of ~ la~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ ~ Av~~ N.E., ~ 71~114, ~ ~ ~ In ~- na~ No. ~516-~497, ~~4, ~7. ~1~ ~ ~ ~a- '~ F. ~r. (~72~) Authorized Signature: , Billin9 Services Representative NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Pursuant to the provisions of Article VII of Chap~ei~36.1, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, August 20, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber in the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., on the question of amending proffered conditions presently binding upon a tract of land lying on the north side of Orange Avenue, N.E., and designated as Official Tax No. 7140114, as set forth in Ordinance No. 33516- 080497, adopted August 4, 1997. A copy of this proposal is available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Municipal Building. All parties in interest may appear on the above date and be heard on the question. If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this public hearing, contact the City Clerk's Office, 853-2541, by Thursday, August 16, 2001. GIVEN under my hand this 17th day of July, 2001. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. H:hNOTICE'uNAP-Lee Hi Land -(PH 8-20-01) Please publish in the Roanoke Times once on Friday, August 3, 2001, and once on Friday, August 10, 2001. Send Affidavit to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Send Bill to: Robert Copty, Managing Partner Lee Hi Land Group 310 First Street, S. W., Suite 450 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Publish in the Roanoke Tribune on Thursday, August 8, 2001, and Thursday, August 15, 2001. Send affidavit to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Send bill to: Robed Copty, Managing Partner Lee Hi Land Group 310 First Street, S. W., Suite 450 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 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 July 11,2001 File #51 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk D. Kent Chrisman, Chair City Planning Commission 2319 Avenham Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dear Mr. Chrisman: Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of a third amended petition received in the City Clerk's Office on July 10, 2001, from Bob Copty, Managing Partner, Lee Hi Land Group, in connection with amending proffered conditions to rezoning contained in Ordinance No. 33516-080497 as said proffers relate to a tract of land located on the north side of Orange Avenue, Route 460 East, one quarter mile east of the Granby Road intersection, identified as Official Tax No. 7140114, which property was previously rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain proffered conditions. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:sm Enclosures D. Kent Chrisman July 11,2001 Page 2 pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Bob Copty, Managing Partner, Lee Hi Land Group, 310 First Street, S. W., Suite 450, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Willard N. Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission Ronald L. Smith, Acting Building Commissioner Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney VIRGINIA: THIRD AMENDED PETITION IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE In re: Repeal of Conditions ) of a Tract of Land Located on Route ) 460 East, Official Tax # 7140114 ) PETITION TO AMEND PROFFERED CONDITIONS TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Petitioner Lee Hi Land Group, a Virginia corporation, is the owner of a tract of land in the City of Roanoke located on the north side of Orange Avenue, Route 460 East, one quarter mile east of Granby Street intersection, bearing City of Roanoke Official Tax No. 7140114. (the "Property"). A portion of City Appraisal Map 714 showing the Property is attached to this Petition as Exhibit A. By Ordinance No. 33516-080497, enacted by the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia on August 4, 1997, the Property was rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing, to C-2, General Commercial, subject to conditions proffered by the applicant of the Petition, GFW Construction Co., which at that time had a contract to purchase the Property. The contract between Lee Hi Land Group & GFW Construction Co. (the Former Petitioner) herein was not closed, and the effort to develop for the original petitioner was terminated. Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, Petitioner requests that the conditions previously proffered on Tax Parcel 7140114 be repealed and the Property continue to be classified as C-2, General Commercial, subject only to the conditions proffered herein, in order that the Petitioner may sell the property to a new purchaser. The change hereby requested will be consistent with the zoning to C-2, General Commercial, as previously rezoned and conform to the properties that predominates along the Orange Avenue frontage, and, Petitioner believes, thereby further the intent and purpose of the City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the Property's conditions are amended as requested, the Petitioner will abide by, the following conditions: (a) That the property will not be used for a neighborhood or highway convenience store, a fast-food restaurant or outdoor advertising. (b) A maximum of one entrance off of Route 460. (7) Attached to this petition as Exhibit B is a list of the names and addresses of the owners of all lots immediately adjacent to or across a street from the Property, together with the Official Tax Number of each lot. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the parcel bearing City of Roanoke Official Tax No. 7140114 continue to be zoned C-2 in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke, subject only to the conditions set forth above. Respectfully submitted this 1 lth day of April, 2001 LEE HI LAND GROUP ~ Bob Copty, Managing part'er Bob Copty 310 First Street, S.W. Suite 450 Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 344-1144 MARY F. PARKER. CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue. S.W.. Room 4.56 Roanoke. Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: {540) 853-1145 E-mail: clerk~ci.roanoke.va.us April 13, 2001 File #51 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk D. Kent Chrisman, Chair City Planning Commission 2319 Avenham Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dear Mr. Chrisman: Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of a Second Amended Petition received in the City Clerk's Office on ^pdl 11, 2001, from Bob Copty, Managing Partner, Lee Hi Land Group, requesting that conditions previously proffered on Official Tax No. 7140114 be repealed and the property will continue to be classified as C-2, General Commercial District, subject to conditions contained in the Second Amended Petition relative to a tract of land located on the north side of Orange Avenue, Route 460 East, one quarter mile east of the Granby Road intersection. MFP:mth Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Enc. D. Kent Chrisman February 5, 2001 Page 2 pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Bob Copty, Managing Partner, Lee Hi Land Group, 310 First Street, S. W., Suite 450, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Willard N. Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission Ronald L. Smith, Acting Building Commissioner Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Edward R. Tucker, City Planner VIRGINIA: SECOND AMENDED PE~TITION O] !-: ~1 ?,~:26 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE In re: Repeal of Conditions ) of a Tract of Land Located on Route ) 460 East, Official Tax # 7140114 ) PETITION TO AMEND PROFFERED CONDITIONS TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Petitioner Lee Hi Land Group, a Virginia corporation, is the owner of a tract of land in the City of Roanoke located on the north side of Orange Avenue, Route 460 East, one quarter mile east of Granby Road intersection, bearing City of Roanoke Official Tax No. 7140114. (the "Property"). A portion of City Appraisal Map 714 showing the Property is attached to this Petition as Exhibit A. By Ordinance No. 33516-080497, enacted by the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia on August 4, 1997, the Property was rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing, to C-2, General Commercial, subject to conditions proffered by the applicant of the Petition, GFW Construction Co., which at that time had a contract to purchase the Property. The contract between Lee Hi Land Group & GFW Construction Co. (the Former Petitioner) herein was not closed, and the effort to develop for the original petitioner was terminated. Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, Petitioner requests that the conditions previously proffered on Tax Parcel 7140114 be repealed and the Property continue to be classified as C~2, General Commercial, subject only to the conditions proffered herein, in order that the Petitioner may sell the property to a new purchaser. The change hereby requested will be consistent with the zoning to C-2, General Commercial, as previously rezoned and conform to the properties that predominates along the Orange Avenue frontage, and, Petitioner believes, thereby further the intent and purpose of the City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the Property's conditions are amended as requested, the Petitioner will abide by, the following conditions: (a) That the property will not be used for a neighborhood or highway convenience store, a fast-food restaurant or outdoor advertising. (b) A maximum of one entrance off of Route 460. (7) Attached to this petition as Exhibit B is a list of the names and addresses of the owners of all lots immediately adjacent to or across a street from the Property, together with the Official Tax Number of each lot. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the parcel bearing City of Roanoke Official Tax No. 7140114 continue to be zoned C-2 in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke, subject only to the conditions set forth above. Respectfully submitted this 1 lth day of April, 2001 LEE HI LAND GROUP Bob Copty 310 First Street, S.W. Suite 450 Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 344-1144 By: Bob Copty, Managing Partner MARY F. PARKER, CMC CiW 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 April 10, 2001 File #51 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk D. Kent Chrisman, Chair City Planning Commission 2319 Avenham Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dear Mr. Chrisman: Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of an amended petition received in the City Clerk's Office on April 10, 2001, from Bob Copty, Managing Partner, representing Lee Hi Land Group, to amend proffered conditions contained in Ordinance No. 33516-080497 as said proffers relate to a tract of land located on the north side of Orange Avenue, Route 460 East, one quarter mile east of the Granby Road intersection, identified as Official Tax No. 7140114, which property was previously rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain proffered conditions. Sincerely, Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk SMM/mth Enclosures D. Kent Chrisman April 10, 2001 Page 2 pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Bob Copty, Managing Partner, Lee Hi Land Group, 310 First Street, S. W., Suite 450, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Willard N. Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission Ronald L. Smith, Acting Building Commissioner Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Edward R. Tucker, City Planner FIRST AMENDED PETfl~ IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE In re' Repeal of Conditions ) of a Tract of Land Located on Route ) 460 East, Official Tax # 7140114 ) PETITION TO AIVIEND PROFFERED CONDITIONS TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE crrY OF ROANOKE (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Petitioner Lee Hi Land Group, a Virginia corporation, is the owner of a tract of land in the City of Roanoke located on the north side of Orange Avenue, Route 460 East, one quarter mile east of Granby Road intersection, bearing City of Roanoke .Official Tax No. 7140114. (the '*Property"). A portion of C/.ty Appraisal Map 714 showing the Property is attached to this Petition as Exhibit A. By Ordinance No. 33516-080497, enacted by the Council of the City of Roauoke, Virginia on August 4, 1997, the Property was rezoned from LM, Light Marmf-tma/ng, to C-2, General Commercial, subject to conditions pr~ by the applicant of the Petition, GFW Constnmion CO., which at that time had a contra~ to purcha~ the Property. The camtraet betvamn Lee Hi Land ~ & GFW Consmmion Co. (the Petitioner) herein lhnmmm to Section 36.1-690, Code of tim City of Roanoke (1979), as am~4ed, Petitioner requests th~ the conditions previously ~ on Tax Parcel 7140114 be repealed and the ~offered herein, in order that the Petitioner may sell the property to a new purchaser. The change hereby reqneSt~ will be consistent with the zoning to C-2, General Commercial, as previously rezoned and confo~-m to the properties that predominates along the Orange Avenue frontage, and, Petitioner believes, thereby further the intent and purpose of the City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plar~ The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the Property's conditions are amended as requested, the Petitioner will abide by, the following conditions: (a) That the property will not be used for a neighborhood 'or highway convenience store, a fast-food restaurant or outdoor advertising. (b) A maximum of one entrance off of Route 460. (7) Attached to this petition as Exhibit B is a list of the names and address'es of the owners of all lots immediately adjacent to or across a street fi.om the Property, together with the Official Tax Number of each lot. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the parcel bearing City of Roanoke Official Tax No. 7140114 continue to be zoned C-2 in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke, subject only to the conditions set forth above. st Respectfully submitted this 1 day of February, 2001 LEE HI LAND GROUP 310 First Street, S.W. Suite 450 Roanoke, VA 24011 (54o) H44 :,. ,/ / / // / / -..' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ROANOKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Roanoke City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, April 19, 2001, 1:30 p.m. or as soon as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., to consider the following: Request from Lee Hi Land Group, represented by Bob Copty, Managing Partner, that conditions, on property located on the north side of Orange Avenue, one- quarter mile east of Granby Road, designated as Official Tax No. 7140114, and approved under Ordinance No. 33516-080497, be amended. A copy of said application is available for review in the Department of Planning and Code Enforcement, Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be heard on the matter. If you are a person who needs accommodations for this hearing, please contact the Department of Planning and Code Enforcement at 853-2344 before 12:00 noon on the Monday before the date of the hearing listed above. Martha P. Franklin, Secretary Roanoke City Planning Commission Please print in newspaper on Tuesday, April 3 and April 10, 2001 Please Bill: Bob Copty 3IQ'First Street, S.W., Suite 450 Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 344-1144 Send affidavit of publication to: Department of Planning and Code Enforcement Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853-1230 (fax) TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA PERTAINING TO AMENDMENT OF PROFFERED CONDITION REQUEST OF: Lee Hi Land Group, Orange Avenue, lq(y~/., Official T, ax BI~: 7140114 ) AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) ) TO-WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE ) The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail on the 22nd day of March, 2001, notices o:f a public hearing to be held on the 19th day of April, 2001, on the request captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels listed below at their last known address: Parcel Owner's Name 7140123 Harriet G. and Everette J. Rogers Mailing Address 4450 Royce Road Troutville, VA 24175 7140112 7140110 Old Dominion Auto Salvage, Inc. Route 1, Box 198 Rustburg, VA 24588 2948 Orange Avenue, NE Roanoke, VA 24012 7140115 7140502 Wayne Gould c/o Roanke Gravely Sales F & D Land Company 3042 Orange Avenue, NE Roanoke, VA 24012 P O Box 8636 Roanoke, VA 24014 7140521 7090522 Hickory Woods Apartments, LLC 7090409 Douglas Caton 102 S. First St. Suite 301 Charlottesville, VA 22902 P O Box 5608 Charlottesville, VA 22905 Also no.tified: Bobby Dillon and Roy Stroop~ildwood · Martha Pace Franklin SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this 22nd day of March, 2001. Notary Public My Commission expires: ~O.~,)x.L~ '~ ~)l~ ~ 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 5, 2001 File #51 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk Melvin L. Hill, Chairperson City Planning Commission 2545 Marr Street, N. W., #15F Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Dear Mr. Hill: Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of a petition received in the City Clerk's Office on February 1, 2001, from Bob Copty, Managing Partner, representing Lee Hi Land Group, to amend proffered conditions contained in Ordinance No. 33516-080497 as said proffers relate to a tract of land located on the north side of Orange Avenue, Route 460 East, one quarter mile east of the Granby Road intersection, identified as Official Tax No. 7140114, which property was previously rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain proffered conditions. Sincerely, ~ Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP/mth Enclosures Melvin L. Hill February 5, 2001 Page 2 pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Bob Copty, Managing Partner, Lee Hi Land Group, 310 First Street, S. W., Suite 450, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Willard N. Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission Ronald L. Smith, Acting Building Commissioner Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Edward R. Tucker, City Planner IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE In Partial Termination of Conditions ) of a Tract of Land Located on Route ) 460 East, Orificial Tax # 7140114 ) PETITION TO AMEND PROFFERED CONDITIONS TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL/OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE (1) (2) (3) (4) (s) (6) Petitioner Lee Hi Land Group, a Virginia corporation, is the owner of a tract of land in the City of Roanoke located on the north side of Orange Avenue, Route 460 East, one quarter mile east of Granby Road intersection, bearing City of Roanoke Official Tax No. 7140114. (the "Property"). A portion of City Appraisal Map 714 showing the Property is attached to this Petition as Exhibit A. By Ordinance No. 33516-080497, enacted by the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia on August 4, 1997, the Property was rezoued from LM, Light Mannfacturi~ to C-2, General Commercial, subject to conditions proffered by the applicant of the Petition, GFW Construction Co., which at that time had a contract to purchase the Property. The contract between Lee Hi Land Group & GFW Construction Co. (the Petitioner) herein was not closed/terminated. Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the C/ty of Roanoke (1979), as amended, Petitioner requests that the conditions previously proffered on Tax Parcel 7140114 be partially terminated and the Property continue to be classified as C-2, General Commercial, subject only to the conditions proffered herein, in order that the Petitioner may sell the property to a new purchaser. The change hereby requested will be consistent with the zoning to C-2, General Commercial~ as previously proffered and conform to the properties that predominates along the Orange Avenue frontage, and, Petitioner believes, thereby further the intent and purpose of the City's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plarr The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the Properties conditions are amended as requested, the new proffers will continue to be subject to, and the Petitioner will abide by, the following conditions (a) All existin~ conditions of the rezoning will remain the same with the exceptions of, upto 19,000 square foot of retail, office and service use, and up to three (3) structures. (b) Limited entrances off of Route 460. (7) Attached to this petition as Exhibit B is a list of the names and addresses of the owners of all lots immediately adjacent to or across a street from the Property, together with the Official Tax Number of each lot. WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the parcel beating City of Roanoke Official Tax No. 7140114 continue to be zoned C-2 in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke, subject only to the cooditions set forth above. Respech~ly submitted this I day of February, 2001 LEE HI LAND GROUP Bob Copty 310 First Stroet, S.W. Suite 450 Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 344-1144 d.~- ' c - / / Bob Copty, Managin~ Partner { ADJOIN3NG PROPERTY OWNERS Olllcial Tax No. Name ~ Adress 7140123 Harriet G. & Everette J. Rogers 4450 Royce Rd Tmutville, VA 24175 7140112 & 7140110 Old Dominion Auto Salvage Inc Rt 1, Box 198 Rustbur~, VA 245S$ 7140115 Wayne Gould & % Ro~moke Gravely Sales 3042 Orange Ave, N.E. Roanoke, VA 24012 * Exhibit B PROPERTY OWNER tax # 7140114 Lee Hi Land Group 310 First Street, S.W. Suite 450 Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 344-1144 15ol, Copty Managing partner 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: clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #51 Jess Newbern Newbem Properties, LP P. O. Box 19159 Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dear Mr. Newbem: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 35539-082001 rezoning property located at the terminus of Tuckawana Circle, N. W., containing approximately 1.67 acre, Official Tax No. 6472003, from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain proffers contained in the First Amended Petition filed in the Office of the City Clerk on July 20, 2001; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001, 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 H:XAgenda.01XAugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd Jess Newbern August 22, 2001 Page 2 pc: Rafan, LLC and Umar Farooq, P. O. Box 6284, Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Fairway #2 Countryside Golf Course, Property of U. S. Golf Properties, LP, 2100 Countryside Road, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 D. Kent Chrisman, Chair, City Planning Commission, 2319 Avenham Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Willard N. Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission Ronald L. Smith, Acting Building.Commissioner Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development H:~,Ag;-nda.0 l'.August 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 20th day of August, 2001. No. 35539-082001. AN ORDINANCE to amend §36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No.647, 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. WHEREAS, Newbern Properties, LP, has made application to the Council of the City of Roanoke to have the hereinafter described property rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the applicant; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving proper notice to all concerned as required by §36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and after conducting a public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by City Council on said application at its meeting on August 20, 2001, after due and timely notice thereof as required by §36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the aforesaid application, the recommendation made to the Council by the Planning Commission, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the matters presented at the public hearing, is of the opinion that the hereinafter described property should be THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. Section 36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 647 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other: That property located at the terminus of Tuckawana Circle, N.W., containing approximately 1.67 acres, and designated on Sheet No. 647 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax No. 6472003, be, and is hereby rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to the proffers contained in the First Amended Petition filed in the Office of the City Clerk on July 20, 2001, and that Sheet No. 647 of the Zone Map be changed in this respect. 2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: City Clerk. H:\ORD-RF.~O-Rez-Newbern Pro. es (Tuckawana Cir.) (PH 8-20-01) ~CHARTERED 1882~ Roanoke City Department of Planning and Code Enforcement Room 166, Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (540) 853-2344 (Fax) 853-1230 Email: planning@ci.roanoke.va.us August 20, 2001 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: Request from Newbern Properties, LP, represented by Jess Newbern, that property located at the terminus of Tuckawana Circle, N.W., containing approximately 1.67 acres, and designated as Official Tax No. 6472003, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Planning Commission Action: On July 19, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed request. By a vote of 5-0 (Messrs. Campbell, Chrisman, Dowe, Manetta and Rife voting for the petition and Messrs. Butler and Hill absent), the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed rezoning, as proffered. Background: Newbern Properties, LP, is the owner of a tract of land containing approximately 1.67 acres at the terminus of Tuckawana Circle, N.W. On June 7, 2001, Newbern Properties filed a petition to rezone the tract from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District. A 1st amended petition to rezone was filed on July 20, 2001, with the following condition: Roanoke City Planning Commission Architectural Review Board Board of Zoning Appeals No part of the property shall be used for outdoor advertising, mini- warehouses or tractor trailer depots and repair facilities. The property and its immediate surroundings are not served by any formal neighborhood or civic organization. The City has notified each adjoining property owner by letter. To date, staff has not received communication from any of the adjoining property owners or residents. Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter on July 19, 2001. Mr. Ray Craighead presented the request on behalf of the petitioner. The staff report by given by Nell Holthouser, City Planner. Mr. Holthouser said that staff was recommending approval of the request subject to the parcel in question having the same condition attached to it that an adjacent parcel contained. The Commission and Mr. Craighead discussed the request and Mr. Craighead said that he would submit an amended petition containing the condition that no part of the property would be used for outdoor advertising, mini-warehouses, or tractor trailer depots or facilities. There was no one present in the audience to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request. Considerations: The subject property is located in a cul-de-sac at the terminus of Tuckawana Circle, N.W., and is currently zoned RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District. The property is bounded by RM-2 and LM, Light Manufacturing districts. Adjoining land uses include a multifamily apartment complex, new townhouses, Countryside Golf Course, and the Virginia Trane office and distribution facility. The subject property is currently owned by Newbern Properties, LP. The petitioner intends to form a partnership with Commonwealth Development Group, which owns property immediately east of the subject property, to develop a 22,000-square-foot distribution warehouse for Virginia Trane. If successful in this rezoning request, the subject property will be combined with the adjoining parcel, designated as Official Tax No. 647204, to create a new tract containing approximately 3.5 acres and will contain the following condition: "No part of the property shall be used for outdoor advertising, mini-warehouses, or tractor trailer depots and repair facilities." Utilities are available to adequately serve the proposed development. Storm water management will be required to be handled on site in accordance with city development regulations. The subject property is visible from Interstate 581, with vehicular access along Frontage Road between Peters Creek Road and Hershberger Road. The property is also accessible from Ferncliff Road, which is the primary access road for William Fleming High School. Large truck access along Frontage Road may present some problems due to the tight turn radius at Ordway Drive and heavy traffic along Peters Creek Road. Alternate routing for large trucks is available off of Hershberger Road using Ferncliff 2 Avenue; however, use of this route presents some problems for residents and school traffic along Ferncliff Avenue. In addition, the City Traffic Engineer recommends that Tuckawana Circle be improved to handle increased traffic and large trucks. The subject property is not located within any designated Airport Zones. However, the property's close proximity to the airport's east-west flight path presents some noise problems. Staff believes that the noise associated with the airport, as well as noise associated with 1-581, makes industrial development of this property more appropriate than residential. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies the area for potential industrial development. The Plan recommends that new industrial development be located on appropriate sites, and that development of potential industrial sites with non-industrial uses be discouraged. Recommendation: Planning Commission recommends approval of the request to rezone the subject properties from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Respectfully submitted, D. Kent Chrisman, Chairman Roanoke City Planning Commission Attachments cc: Darlene Burcham, City Manager Rolanda Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development William Hackworth, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Jess Newbern, Petitioner VIRGINIA: Re: IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE Rezoning of a tract of land at the terminus of Tuckawana Circle, designated Official Tax Number 6472003, from RM-2 Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District. 1st AMENDED PETITION TO REZONE TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: 1. 2. Newbem Properties, L.P. is a Virginia Limited Partnership Newbem Properties, L.P. is the owner ora certain property in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, containing approximately 1.67 acres and designated by Official Tax Number 6472003, according to Tax Map records of the City of Roanoke, which fronts on the cul-de-sa~ at the southeasterly terminus of Tuckawana Circle, N.W. A sketch of the surrounding lots is · attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit A-1. The legal description for the property, within the City of Roanoke, Virginia, is as follows: Lot 3, Block 20 Arrow Wood as shown on Map of Arrow Wood, Property of Arrow Wood Country Club Inc., dated July 15, 1966, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the Coumy of Roanoke, Virginia, in Plat Book 6, Pages 93-99. 4. The Property is presently zoned RM-2, Residential Multifamily District, Medium Density District. The location of the Property and the classification and extent of adjacent zoning districts are shown on the attached Tax Map sketch in Exhibit A and Exhibit A- 1. 5. The Property is currently vacant and without any development. Newbem Properties, L.P. wishes to construct a distribution facility for the Trane Company and proffers the following condition: "No part of the property shall be used for outdoor advertising, mini-warehouses, or tractor trailer depots and repair facilities." 6. A preliminary development plan is attached as Exhibit B. 7. Newbem Properties, L.P. requests that t. he Property be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily District, Medium density District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District. 8. The Property lies within an Urban Enterprise Zone. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies an area which includes the Property for future industrial development. This rezoning will encourage and promote economic developmem activities allowing employment opportunities and enlarging the tax base. 9. The proposed facility and use of the Property will not create a nuisance to the ' :. owners and users of the adjacent properties and will not create unreasonable demands on public facilities available to other citizens of the City. 10. Attached as Exhibit C are the names and addresses of all owners of property adjacent to the Property for which the rezoning is requested. WHEREFORE, Newbern Properties L.P., requests that the above described Property be rezoned as requested in accordance with applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordiance of the City of Roanoke, submitted this 20 th day of July, 2001. P.O. Box 19159 P-oanok~, VA. 24014 CRAIGHEAD IASSOCIATES Architects, Des~ners, Construction Managers SSOCIATES 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.manoke.va, us July 30, 2001 File #51 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk Jess Newbern Newbern Properties, LP P. O. Box 19159 Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dear Mr. Newbern: Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, I have advertised a public hearing for Monday, August 20, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., on the request of Newbem Properties, LP, that property located at the terminus of Tuckawana Circle, N. W., containing approximately 1.67 acres, and identified as Official Tax No. 6472003, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. For your information, I am enclosing copy of a notice of the public headng, an Ordinance and a report of the City Planning Commission. Please review the documents and if you have questions, you may contact Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney, at 540-853-2431. Questions with regard to the City Planning Commission report should be directed to the Department of Planning and Code Enforcement at 540-853-2344. It will be necessary for you, or your representative, to be present at the August 20 public hearing. Failure to appear could result in a deferral of the matter until a later date. S~e,~ ~, f~ Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:sm Enclosure N:~cksml~Public Hearings.01~August 20. 2001 .w~d 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 £-mail: ¢lerk@ci.roanok¢.va.us July 30, 2001 File #51 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk Rafan, LLC and Umar Farooq P. O. Box 6284 Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Fairway #2 Countryside Golf Course Property of U. S. Golf Properties, LP 2100 Countryside Road, N. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Ladies and Gentlemen: Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, I have advertised a public hearing for Monday, August 20, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., on the request of Newbern Properties, LP, that property located at the terminus of Tuckawana Circle, N. W., containing approximately 1.67 acres, and identified as Official Tax No. 6472003, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. The City Planning Commission is recommending approval of the above-described request. If you would like to receive a copy of the report of the City Planning Commission, please contact the City Clerk's Office. This letter is provided for your information as an interested property owner and/or adjoining property owner. If you have questions with regard to the matter, please call the Department of Planning and Code Enforcement at 540-853-2344. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:sm N'\cksml\Pub c Headngs.Ol~August 20 2001.wpd NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ROANOKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Roanoke City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, July 19, 2001, 1:30 p.m. or as soon as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., to consider the following: Request from Newbern Properties, LP, represented by Jess Newbern, that property located at the terminus of Tuckawana Circle, N.W., containing approximately 1.67 acres, and designated as Official Tax No. 6472003, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District. A copy of said application is available for review in the Department of Planning and Code Enforcement, Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be heard on the matter. If you are a person who needs accommodations for this hearing, please contact the Department of Planning and Code Enforcement at 853-2344 before 12:00 noon on the Monday before the date of the hearing listed above. Martha P. Franklin, Secretary Roanoke City Planning Commission Please print in newspaper on Tuesday, July 3 and July 10, 2001 Please Bill: Jess Newbern Newbern Propeties, LP P O Box 19159 Roanoke, VA 24014 992-2919 Send affidavit of publication to: Department of Planning and Code Enforcement Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 (540) 853-1230 (fax) TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA PERTAINING TO REZONING REQUEST OF: Newbem Properties, LP, for property at terminus of ) Tuckawana Circle, N.W., Tax No. 6472003, from RM-2) AFFIDAVIT to LM ) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) ) TO-WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE ) The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail on the 25th day of June, 2001, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 19th day of July, 2001, on the request captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels listed below at their last known address: Parcel Owner's Name Mailing Address 6472002 Petitioner 6472004 Rafan, LLC P O Box 6284 Roanoke, VA 24017 Umar Farooq P O Box 6284 Roanoke, VA 24017 6472302 Fairway # 2 Countryside Golf Course Property of U.S. Golf Properties, LP U.S. Golf Properties, LP 2100 Countryside Road, NW Roanoke, VA 24017 331 S. Florida Ave. #41 Lakeland, FL 33801-4623 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: clcrk~ci.wanokc.va.us July 23, 2001 File #51 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk D. Kent Chrisman, Chair City Planning Commission 2319 Avenham Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dear Mr. Chrisman: Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of a first amended petition received in the City Clerk's Office on July 20, 2001, from Jess Newbern, representing Newbern Properties, L.P., requesting that a tract of land located at the terminus of Tuckawana Circle, identified as Official Tax No. 6472003, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multi-family, Medium Density District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:sm Enclosures H :\Rezoning.Ol~lewburn .Rezoning.wpd °D. Kent Chrisman July 23, 2001 Page 2 pc~ The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Jess Newbern, Newbern Properties, L.P., P. O. Box 19159, Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Willard N. Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission Ronald L. Smith, Acting Building Commissioner Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney H :\Rezoning.01\Newborn .Rezoning.wpd VIRGINIA: IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE Re: Rezoning of a tract of land at the terminus of ) Tuckawana Circle, designated Official Tax ) Number 6472003, from RM-2 Residential ) Multifamily, Medium Density District, to LM, ) Light Manufacturing District. ) 1st AMENDED PETITION TO REZONE TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: 1. Newbern Properties, L.P. is a Virginia Limited Partnership 2. Newbern Properties, L.P. is the owner of a certain property in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, containing approximately 1.67 acres and designated by Official Tax Number 6472003, according to Tax Map records of the City of Roanoke, which fronts on the cul-de-sac al the southeasterly terminus of Tuckawana Circle, N.W. A sketch of the surrounding lots is attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit A-1. 3. The legal description for the property, within the City of Roanoke, Virginia, is as follows: Lot 3, Block 20 Arrow Wood as shown on Map of Arrow Wood, Property of Arrow Wood Country Club Inc., dated July 15, 1966, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, in Plat Book 6, Pages 93-99. 4. The Property is presently zoned RM-2, Residential Multifamily District, Medium Density District. The location of the Property and the classification and extent of adjacent zoning districts are shown on the attached Tax Map sketch in Exhibit A and Exhibit A-1. 5. The Property is currently vacant and without any development. Newbern Properties, L.P. wishes to construct a distribution facility for the Trane Company and proffers the following condition: "No part of the property shall be used for outdoor advertising, mini-warehouses, or tractor trailer depots and repair facilities." 6. A preliminary development plan is attached as Exhibit B. 7. Newbem Properties, L.P. requests that t, he Property be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily District, Medium density District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District. 8. The Property lies within an Urban Enterprise Zone. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies an area which includes the Property for future industrial development. This rezoning will encourage and promote economic development activities allowing employment opportunities and enlarging the tax base. 9. The proposed facility and use of the Property will not create a nuisance to the owners and users of the adjacent properties and will not create unreasonable demands on public facilities available to other citizens of the City. 10. Attached as Exhibit C are the names and addresses of all owners of property adjacent to the Property for which the rezoning is requested. WHEREFORE, Newbem Properties L.P., requests that the above described Property be rezoned as requested in accordance with applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordiance of the City of Roanoke, submitted this 20 th day of July, 2001. ~wber~ Properties, L.P. ! P.O. Box 19159 l~oanoke, VA. 24014 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 June 12, 2001 File #51 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk D. Kent Chrisman, Chairperson City Planning Commission 2319 Avenham Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dear Mr. Chrisman: Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of a petition received in the City Clerk's Office on June 7, 2001, from Jess Newbern, representing Newbem Properties, L.P., requesting that a tract of land located at the terminus of Tuckawana Circle, identified as Official Tax No. 6472003, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multi-family, Medium Density District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District. Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:sm Enclosures N:\Olddata\CKSHl\Rezoning 2001~lewbem Properties Rezo~ing.wpd D. Kent Chrisman June 12, 2001 Page 2 pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Jess Newbern, Newbern Properties, L.P., P. O. Box 19159, Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Willard N. Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission Ronald L. Smith, Acting Building Commissioner Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Stbven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney N:\Olddata\CKSHl'~ezo~ing 2001~lewbern Properties Rezoning.wpd VIRGINIA: IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE PETITION TO REZONE Re: Rezoning of a tract of land at the terminus of ) x ' Tuckawana Circle, designated Official Tax ) Number 6472003, from RM-2 Residential ) Multifamily, Medium Density District, to LM, ) Light Manufacturing District. ) TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: 1. 2. Newbern Properties, L.P. is a Virginia Limited Partnership Newbem Properties, L.P. is the owner of a certain property in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, containing approximately 1.67 acres and designated by Official Tax Number 6472003, according to Tax Map records of the City of Roanoke, which fronts on the cul-de-sac at the southeasterly terminus of Tuckawana Circle, N.W. A sketch of the surrounding lots is attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit A-1. The legal description for the property, within the City of Roanoke, Virginia, is as follows: Lot 3, Block 20 Arrow Wood as shown on Map of Arrow Wood, Property of Arrow Wood Country Club Inc., dated July 15, 1966, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, in Plat Book 6, Pages 93-99. 4. The Property is presently zoned RM-2, Residential Multifamily District, Medium Density District. The location of the Property and the classification and extent of adjacent zoning districts are shown on the attached Tax Map sketch in Exhibit A and Exhibit A-1. 5. The Property is currently vacant and without any development. Newbern Properties, L.P. wishes to construct a distribution facility for the Trane Company. 6. A preliminary development plan is attached as Exhibit B. 7. Newbern Properties, L.P. requests that the Property be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily District, Medium density District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District. 8. The Property lies within an Urban Enterprise Zone. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies an area which includes the Property for future industrial development. This rezoning will encourage and promote economic development activities allowing employment opportunities and enlarging the tax base. 9. The proposed facility and use of the Property will not create a nuisance to the owners and users of the adjacent properties and will not create unreasonable demands on public facilities available to other citizens of the City. 10. Attached as Exhibit C are the names and addresses of all owners of property adjacent to the Property for which the rezoning is requested. WHEREFORE, Newbern Properties L.P., requests that the above described Property be rezoned as requested in accordance with applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordiance of the City of Roanoke. New~ern Properties, L.P. P.O. Box 19159 Roanoke, VA. 24014 CR. AIGHEAD A550CIATE5 Amhite~ts, Designers, Comm~ction Managers Adjacent Property Owners #6472302 (RM-2 Zoning) ~6472004 Owner Fairway #2 Countryside Golf Course Property of U.S. Golf Properties, L.P. 2100 Countryside Road Roanoke, VA 24017 Rafan L.L.C. P. O. Box 6284 Roanoke, VA 24017 #6472005 (LM) Rafan L.L.C. P. O. Box 6284 Roanoke, VA 24017 #6472301 (LM) Newbern Properties, L.P. P. O. Box 19159 Roanoke, VA 24014 File: 2002apo2 Exhibit C RAY CRAIGHEAD, ARCHITECT 2721 BRAMBLETON AVENUE, S.W. * P.O. BOX 4662 * ROANOKE, VA, 24015 * (540) 774-5326 The Roanoke Times Roanoke, Virginia Affidavit of Publication The Roanoke Times NEWBERN PROPERTIES PO BOX 19159 ROANOKE VA 24014 REFERENCE: 80070474 01726510 Tuckawana Circle 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 AugusJ~)200L./~itr~ss my hand and official seal.~ ~_ ~~_' , Notary Public '/ .... ?-- Mycommi s s ion expi re s ___~/__~_/_/_~__~/~_ .......... . PUBLISHED ON: 08/03 08/10 TOTAL COST: 214.92 FILED ON: 08/14/01 Pureuant to the laxwlllm~ of (1979), M mn~r~ed, ~he C~un- cfi of Ule ~ of RoeAoM Mil hold a Publlo ~ on Mon- day, Au~u~ 20,.2001, ~: 7:00 p.m. In U,m Coundl Clmmber In me Noel C. T~o~ Munmp~ Bulldln~ 215 Ctmn~ Avenue, Mil fi'om RM.2, Re~dentiM Multlf~mlly, Medium Di~Mct, to LM, ~ M~nof~c- tudn~ Dism,~ the followh~ totmlmJi of Tud(iWll~ Cimle, N.W., (~nt~lnlnl N~etely 1.67 ~ INwln~ ~ T~ No. 64?2003, ~ to ~er- A co~ of thi~ prom II ~,MI-. ,,hie for IwlM~ in~ In I!~ 4Mi, Muni~M Bulldinl. ~ pMtIM In Intereet n~y N)lwlr o~ the M)ove elite MM be heerd on the queeUon, If you ~ e pereon ~ e dis. oonta~ theC~ Ole~c's Office, 16, 200/. M,,ry F. Parker, C~ty Cm,k. (1726510) Authorized Signature: Billing Services Representative NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Pursuant to the provisions of Article VII of Chapter 36.1, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, August 20, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber in the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., on the question of rezoning from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, the following property: That property located at the terminus of Tuckawana Circle, N.W., containing approximately 1.67 acres, bearing Official Tax No. 6472003, subject to certain proffered conditions. A copy of this proposal is available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Municipal Building. All parties in interest may appear on the above date and be heard on the question. If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this public heating, contact the City Clerk's Office, 853-2541, by Thursday, August 16, 2001. GIVEN under my hand this 30th day of .~u~.¥ ,2001. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. H:\NOTICE\NRez-Newbem (Tuckawana Cir.) (PH 8-20-0l) Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Friday, August 03, 2001, and once on Friday, August 10, 2001. Send Publisher's Affidavit to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Room 456, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Send Bill to: Jess Newbern Newbern Propeties, LP P. O. Box 19159 Roanoke, Virginia 24014 540-992-2919 Publish in the Roanoke Tribune on Thursday, August 8, 2001, and Thursday, August 15, 2001. Send affidavit to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Send bill to: Jess Newbern Newbern Properties, LP P. O. Box 19159 Roanoke, Virginia 24014 540-992-2919 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #24-54-66 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35540-082001 amending and reordaining §6-7, Limitation on keeping cattle, sheep, goats and swine, of Article I, In General, of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to prohibit the keeping of any cattle, swine, sheep or goat in any area of the City not zoned for agricultural use; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, August 20, 2001, and will be in full force and effect on October 1,2001. Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: Garvis Reynolds, President, Gateway Guardians, 440 Mountain Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 The Honorable Richard C. Pattisall, Chief Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia H:~.genda.0l ~August 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd Darlene L. Burcham August 22, 2001 Page 2 pc: The Honorable Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia The Honorable Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia The Honorable The Honorable The Honorable The Honorable The Honorable The Honorable The Honorable The Honorable District Court The Honorable District Court The Honorable Court Robert P. Doherty, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia Jonathan M. Apgar, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia Julian H. Raney, Jr., Chief Judge, General District Court George W. Harris, Jr., Judge, General District Court Vincent A. Lilley, Judge, General District Court William D. Broadhurst, Judge, General District Court Jacqueline F. Ward Talevi, Judge, General District Court John B. Ferguson, Chief Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Philip Trompeter, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District The Honorable Joseph P. Bounds, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney Sheila N. Hartman, Assistant Deputy City Clerk, (Transmittal by electronic mail to Municipal Code Corporation) Raymond F. Leven, Public Defender, 210 First Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Ronald S. Albright, Clerk, General District Court David C. Wells, Clerk, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Peggy B. Stewart, Office of the Magistrate Michael R. Meise, Law Librarian James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police H:~Agenda.01~ugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd 1N THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 20th day of August:, 2001. No. 35540-082001. AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining {}6-7, Limitation on keeping cattle, sheep, goats and swine, of Article I, In General, of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to prohibit the keeping of any cattle, swine, sheep or goat in any area of the City not zoned for agricultural use; dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title; and providing for an effective date. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. Section 6-7, Limitation on keeping cattle, sheep, goats and swine, of Article I, In General, of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is hereby amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Sec. 6-7. Limitation on keeping cattle, sheep, goats and swine. No person shall keep or maintain any cattle, swine, sheep or goat, in any area of the city not zoned for agricultural use; provided, however, cattle, sheep, goats or swine may be kept in enclosed, clean and sanitary lots or pens for not more than twenty-four (24) hours for the purpose of shipment, slaughter, or sale, when such lots or pens are not closer than three hundred (300) feet to any house or other building used for residential purposes, and cattle, sheep, goats or swine may be kept or maintained on farms five (5) acres in size or larger, regardless of zoning. As used in this section, a "farm" shall be defined as a parcel of land devoted to production for sale of plants or animals or to the production for sale of plant or animal products useful to man. 2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by rifle is hereby dispensed with. 3. This ordinance shall take effect October 1, 2001. ATTEST: City Clerk. H:\ORI)-CA\CA- Keeping Animals (08-O601) REVISED A,8 Office of the City Manager August 20, 2001 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Council Member Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council: Subject: City Code Amendment Cattle, Sheep, Goats & Swine Background: Section 6-7 of the City Code permits the keeping of cattle, sheep, goats, or swine in areas zoned for agricultural use when pens are at least 300 feet from residential property lines or on farms that are a minimum of five acres in size. In addition, the code allows a person to keep one sheep or goat as a household pet in residential areas. Recently, residents of Old Southwest reported problems with a goat and complained that the conditions were poor and the smell was a nuisance. A petition was submitted to the City Manager on July 9, 2001 complaining about the noise, smell, and flies in the city neighborhood and requested that the outdated ordinance be revised. In the interim, the property owner has been cited, by an Animal Control Officer, was convicted in court of a public nuisance, and fined. Revisions to the existing code are proposed which will prohibit the keeping of sheep or goats in residential areas, unless on a farm or at least five acres, or unless for less than 24 hours in connection with certain commercial purposes and conditions. Concern: A small number of other goats are kept within the City in residential areas. The Animal Control Office advises that they are aware of at least seven other goats in the northwest portion of the city. Owners of these goats and sheep have been notified of the proposed changes in the code and advised that they will need to move the animal to an authorized location once adopted and in effect. Representatives of the Roanoke Room 364 Municipal South 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 (1540) 853-2333 FAX (540) 853-1138 CityWeb:www. ci. roanoke.va.us Honorable Mayor and Members of Council August 20, 2001 Page 2 Neighborhood Partnership and the Animal Control Office visited property owners the week of August 3, 2001 and provided them with copies of the proposed ordinance. Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council amend the code to provide that cattle, sheep, goats or swine may not be kept in any area of the City not zoned for agriculture use, except when such animals are kept for less than twenty-four (24) hours for certain commercial purposes when more than 300 feet from any residential building, and except when such animals are kept on farms five (5) acres or more. Respectfully submitted, City Manager C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William Hackworth, City Attorney Jim Grisso, Director of Finance Garvis Reynolds, President, Gateway Guardians #CM01-00188 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 01732976 cattle, sheep, etc. 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 Augus~001./~it%~ss my hand and official s eal._~_~__~ , Notary Public My commission expires ...... PUBLISHED ON: 08/12 TOTAL COST: 112.32 FILED ON: 08/14/01 Roafloko wN! hold a public 2001, at 7:00 p.m., In the Tmylm' Munlc#~l I~ ~t 215 Churc~ Awnu~ $. W., In the City, on the issue of I~ (1979), am ~ to pmhmlt the kee~ng'of ~t. Further k~foommon with re~,d Code 1~ awdlable In ttm Ofll(m Noe~ C. ?ay~or Munickm auad- if~ 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Roaaolm, ~r~nk~. If you awe a pemon with a di~- (~3-2~41). b~o~ 12;00 (~73297e) city ~ Authorized Signature: Billing Services Representative NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a public hearing on Monday, August 20, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber of the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, at 215 Church Avenue, S. W., in the City, on the issue of whether City Council should amend the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to prohibit the keeping of cattle, sheep, goats and swine in areas of the City not zoned for agricultural use, unless on a farm five acres in size or larger. Further information with regard to this amendment to the City Code is available in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia. Citizens shall have the opportunity to be heard and express their opinions on such matter. 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, August 16, 2001. GIVEN under my hand this NOTE TO PUBLISHER: 8th day of August, 2001. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Publish once on August 12, 2001, in the Roanoke Times. Send publisher's affidavit and bill to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Ad~;ust 20, 2001 City of Roanoke Council Meeting Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue Roanoke, VA 24011 Mayor and Members of City Council: I am here as a signer of the petition for removal of the goat which formerly resided on Mountain Avenue in Historic Old Southwest. Even though the goat has been removed, I want to be certain that this goat nor any other goat has the right to live in my neighborhood from this day forward. I am requesting that Council move swiftly in this matter as the goat is a nuisance for these reasons: 1. Depending on wind direction there is an unpleasant odor. 2. The size and number of flies in warm weather has increased. 3. The goat bleats often wanting attention from caregivers. Thank you for hearing me. Wanda Kemp 444 Mountain Avenue, SW 540 345-5119 phone 540 343-5822 fax ilittlefish@home.com CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk August 22, 2001 File #54-66-132-175 Stephanie M. Moon Deputy 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 Monday, August 20, 2001, the following persons addressed Council: Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., corrected a statement made by the Mayor at the 2:00 p.m. session, in which he advised that he had met with Ms. Helen E. Davis following the last City Council meeting. She clarified that the meeting did not relate to City business, but involved Mayor Smith as a private citizen and not as a member of City Council. Ms. Bethel suggested that instead of prohibiting goats in the City of Roanoke, the City should use goats as a means of clearing overgrown City lots of grass and weeds. Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., continued her remarks which were presented atthe 2:00 p.m. Council session. She advised that there are numerous City projects, all proceeding on a fast track, and citizens are not permitted to engage in dialogue with Council Members within the confines of the three to five minutes that they are allotted to speak at City Council meetings. She suggested that Council Members meet with citizens in the four quadrants of the City to engage in dialogue on matters of mutual interest and concern. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh H:kAgenda.01kAugust 20, 2001 correspondenc.wpd