Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 04-15-02 HUDSON 35799-041502 ROANOKE CITY CO UNCIL REGULAR SESSION APRIL 15, 2OO2 12:00 NOON ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER EXHIBITION HALL AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL The Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council welcome all participants in 2002 Student Government Day activities. Call to Order--Roll Call. (Council Member White was absent.) The invocation was delivered by Sherman P. Lea, Chair, Roanoke City School Board. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Ralph K. Smith. THE MEETING OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL WAS DECLARED IN RECESS TO BE RECONVENED AT 2:00 P.M., IN THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, NOEL C. TAYLOR MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 215 CHURCH AVENUE, S. W., ROANOKE, VIRGINIA. ROANOKE CITY CO UNCIL REGULAR SESSION APRIL 15, 2OO2 2:00P. M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL Call to Order--Roll Call. (Council Member White was absent.) The Invocation was delivered by Claudia A. Whitworth, Secretary of the Local Spiritual Assembly of Baha'i of Roanoke. 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, April 18, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, April 20, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. Council meetings are now being offered with closed captioning for the hearing impaired. 2 ANNOUNCEMENTS: THE PUBLIC IS ADVISED THAT MEMBERS OF COUNCIL RECEIVE THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AND RELATED COMMUNICATIONS, REPORTS, ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, ETC., ON THE THURSDAY PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL MEETING TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TIME FOR REVIEW OF INFORMATION. CITIZENS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF ANY ITEM LISTED ON THE AGENDA MAY CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, ROOM 456, NOEL C. TAYLOR MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 215 CHURCH AVENUE, S. W., OR CALL 853-2541. THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE NOW PROVIDES THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ON THE INTERNET FOR VIEWING AND RESEARCH PURPOSES. TO ACCESS AGENDA MATERIAL, GO TO THE CITY'S HOMEPAGE AT WWW.ROANOKEGOV.COM, CLICK ON THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL ICON, CLICK ON MEETINGS AND AGENDAS, AND DOWNLOAD THE ADOBE ACROBAT SOFTWARE TO ACCESS THE AGENDA. ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO REGISTER WITH THE STAFF ASSISTANT WHO IS LOCATED AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. ON THE SAME AGENDA ITEM, ONE TO FOUR SPEAKERS WILL BE ALLOTTED FIVE MINUTES EACH, HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE MORE THAN FOUR SPEAKERS, EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOTTED THREE MINUTES. ANY PERSON WHO IS INTERESTED IN SERVING ON A CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED AUTHORITY, BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE IS REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT 853-2541 TO OBTAIN AN APPLICATION. 2. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Proclamation declaring Monday, April 15, 2002, as Student Govemment Day 2002. File//3-304 3 Proclamation declaring the week of April Telecommunicator's Week. File #3-262 14 - 20, 2002, as National A resolution recognizing the City's E-911 Center personnel as Roanoke Public Safety Telecommunicators for the Year 2002. Adopted Resolution No. 35799-041502. (6-0.) File #188-262 Proclamation declaring the month of April 2002 as Fair Housing Month. File #3-178 0 CONSENT AGENDA (APPROVED 6-0) ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. C-1 Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Monday, March 18, 2002. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispense with the reading thereof and approve as recorded. C-2 A communication from Mayor Ralph K. Smith requesting a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in the request. File #110-132 C-3 A communication from the City Manager requesting a Closed Meeting to discuss disposition of publicly-owned property, where discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in the request. WITHDRAWN C-4 Qualification of William F. Clark as a member of the Towing Advisory Board for a term ending June 30, 2004. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. File #5-15-110-530 REGULAR AGENDA 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. 5. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: mo A communication from John R. Hubbard, Chief Executive Officer, Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, transmitting the Resource Authority's Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-03, totaling $8,269,925.00. Adopted Resolution No. 35801-041502. (6-0.) File #60-253 6. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: a. CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: Presentation of the City of Roanoke Fiscal Year 2002-03 Recommended General Fund Budget and HUD Budget (15 minutes). File #10-60-178 ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: o A communication recommending rejection of all bids in connection with the City's new Risk Management Information System; and authorization to use competitive negotiation to secure vendors for the new system. Adopted Resolution No. 35802-041502. (6-0.) File #301-396 Council Member Wyatt and Mayor Smith spoke in support of preparing a Technology Master Plan for the City of Roanoke. ge A communicationrecommending execution of Change Order No. 3 to the contract with H. & S. Construction Co., for construction of storm drain improvements at Guildhall Avenue and Cove Road, N. W., in the amount of $37,500.00 and 30 additional days of contract time; and transfer of funds in connection therewith. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35803-041502 and Ordinance No. 35804-041502. (6-0.) File #27-57-60 A communication recommending execution of Change Order No. 8 to the contract with T. P. Parker and Son, Engineers and Surveyors, LTD, for surveying and mapping services for the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project, in the amount of $33,990.00, and extension of contract time through December 31, 2002. Adopted Ordinance No. 35805-041502. abstained from voting.) File #237 (5-0, Mayor Smith 6 A communication recommending execution of a contract with Appalachian Power Co., d/b/a American Electric Power for relocation of a transmission line in connection with the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project, in an amount not to exceed $2,060,384.00. Adopted Ordinance No. 35800-041502. (6-0.) File #29-237-433-472 o o A communication recommending acceptance of the bid submitted by Sheldon C. Nichols Construction Corp., to provide an emergency generator, a new uninterruptible power system, an automatic transfer switch and re-work present battery back-up for the Department of Technology, in the amount of $97,000.00; reject all other bids received by the City; and transfer of funds in connection therewith. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35806-041502 and Ordinance No. 35807-041502. (6-0.) File #60-301-472 A communication recommending acceptance of the bids submitted by Magic City Motor Corp. for two cab/chassis, in the total amount of $82,140.00; and Mid-State Equipment Co., Inc., for two 11 cubic yard bodies, in the amount of $54,550.00, for use by Solid Waste Management; and reject all other bids received by the City. Adopted Resolution No. 35808-041502. (5-1, Council Member Wyatt voted no.) File #144-472 o A communication recommending execution of a Lease Agreement with the Commonwealth of Virginia Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired for the dining facility located in the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, for a term of one year with four additional one-year renewal options. Adopted Ordinance No. 35809-041502. (6-0.) File #32-209-373 7 A communication in connection with a Performance Agreement with Advance Stores Co., Inc., and a Traffic Signals Term/nation Agreement with Roanoke County. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35810-041502, Resolution No. 35811-041502, and Ordinance No. 35812-041502. (6-0.) File//20-60-450-514 10. A communication with regard to award of a contract in connection with the Roanoke Civic Center Expansion and Renovation, Phase I Project. Adopted Ordinance No. 35813-041502. (6-0.) File//192 11. A communication with regard to emergency water supply projects. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35814-041502 and Ordinance No. 35815-041502. (6-0.) File #60-468 7. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. 9. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: mo Ordinance No. 35791, on second reading, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2001-2002 General Fund Appropriations. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35791-041502. (6-0.) File #60-144-472 A resolution establishing the date of a Special Meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke. Adopted Resolution No. 35816-041502. (6-0.) File #60-132 10. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: go Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Members of City Council. Council Member Hudson reiterated previous remarks with regard to using a smaller bus for the employee shuttle from the Roanoke Civic Center to downtown Roanoke. File #55-192 The Mayor inquired as to the status of a briefing with regard to the transit system; whereupon, it was the consensus of Council that a special meeting of the GRTC Board of Directors will be held on Monday, April 29, 2002, to discdss transit operations. File #55 Council Member Wyatt commended the City Manager for her prompt response to certain questions regarding tattoo parlors in the Williamson Road area. She expressed appreciation to Ms. Marion Vaughn-Howard, Youth Planner, for including students from Westside Elementary School in the Student Government Day Luncheon which was held on April 15. She called attention to concerns expressed by owners of businesses located in the Williamson Road area in regard to teenagers congregating at the intersection of Williamson Road and Trinkle Avenue, N. W. File #20-66-80-304-467 The Mayor expressed concern with regard to teenagers also congregating at Trinkle Avenue and Winsloe Drive, N. W. File #20-66-304 9 Vice-Mayor Carder expressed concern with regard to a decrease in State funding of the Higher Education Center, and that the Senate Finance and House Appropriations Committee has encouraged the Higher Education Center to seek funding from the local governments in its primary service area to complement state funding. File #60-414 bo Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council. 11. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: As water conservation tips, the City Manager presented a card that will be supplied to local restaurants for display asking that water be served by request only with meals, and an additional card that hotels are requested to display in hotel rooms in regard to laundering linens and towels. File #468 12. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. IT IS ALSO A TIME FOR INFORMAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITIZENS. MATTERS REQUIRING REFERRAL TO THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE REFERRED IMMEDIATELY FOR ANY NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT TO COUNCIL. Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., addressed Council in connection with screen doors for residents of Lincoln Terrace. File #66-178 The meeting was declared in recess for one closed session. 10 CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION. (5-0, Council Member Wyatt was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was recorded.) Kirk A. Ludwig was appointed as a member of the Advisory Board of Human Development for a term ending November 30, 2005. File #15-110-318 AT 4:57 P.M., THE MAYOR DECLARED THE MEETING IN RECESS TO BE IMMEDIATELY RECONVENED IN THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM. 11 o o CITY CO UNCIL/BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS JOINT MEE TING 5:00P. M. EMERGENCY OPERA TIONS CENTER CONFERENCE ROOM AGENDA Introduction and General Comments. Benjamin S. Motley, Chair, Board of Zoning Appeals. Update on training for Board of Zoning Appeals Members. Mr. Motley. Board Attendance. Mr. Motley. Telecommunications Ordinance. Mr. Motley. Efforts to make procedures of the Board of Zoning Appeals more citizen friendly. Mr. Motley. Zoning Enforcement. Mr. Motley. General Discussion. City Council/Board of Zoning Appeals. AT 6:10 P.M., THE MAYOR DECLARED THE MEETING IN RECESS TO BE RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER. 12 ROANOKE CITY CO UNCIL REGULAR SESSION APRIL 15, 2002 7:00 P.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 the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Smith. Welcome. Mayor Smith. NOTICE: Tonight's meeting will be televised by RVTV Channel 3 to be replayed on Thursday, April 18, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, April 20, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. Council meetings are now being offered with closed captioning for the hearing impaired. 13 Ae PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public hearing to receive the views of citizens regarding appointment of two Trustees to the Roanoke City School Board for three year terms of office, commencing July 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2005. Candidates are: o Carl D. Cooper Edward Garner William H. Lindsey William E. Skeen Robert J. Sparrow All comments were received and filed. File #110-467 Public hearing on the request of Cesar Dominguez that a tract of land located at 325 Jefferson Street, N. E., identified as Official Tax No. 3012801, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multi-family Medium Density District, to C-3, Central Business District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Cesar Dominguez, Spokesperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 35817-041502. (6-0.) File #51 Public hearing on the request of Michael A. Wells on the question of amending, repealing or replacing proffered conditions authorized by Ordinance No. 32294-121994 presently binding upon Official Tax No. 2761409 and rezoning Official Tax No. 2761409 from RS-3, Residential Single Family, Low Density District, to C-2, General Commercial District; and rezoning Official Tax No. 2761421 from RS-3, Residential Single-Family Low Density District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Michael A. Wells, Spokesperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 35818 on first reading. Members Wyatt and Bestpitch voted no.) File #51 (4-2, Council 14 Public hearing to consider amendments to the Enterprise Zone Program. Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 35819-041502 and Ordinance No. 35820-041502. (6-0.) File #266 o Public hearing on the request of The Rescue Mission of Roanoke, Inc., that a tract of land containing 3.56 acres located on Tazewell Avenue, 4th Street and Dale Avenue, S. E., consisting of 25 tracts of land, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multi-Family Medium Density District, and C-2, General Commercial District, to INPUD, Institutional Planned Unit Development District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney. Adopted Ordinance No. 35821-041502. Wyatt voted no.) File #51 (5-1, Council Member Council Member Harris called attention to the need for a "Zero Tolerance Policy" in addressing crime issues in the area of the Rescue Mission. o Public hearing on the request of The Rescue Mission of Roanoke, Inc., that certain alleys in the vicinity of Dale Avenue and 4th Street, S. E., be permanently vacated, discontinued and closed. Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney. Adopted Ordinance No. 35822-041502. Wyatt voted no.) File #514 (5-1, Council Member B. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. IT IS ALSO A TIME FOR INFORMAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITIZENS. MATTERS REQUIRING REFERRAL TO THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE REFERRED IMMEDIATELY FOR RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT TO COUNCIL. 15 Presentation by the Washington Park Improvements and Memorial Committee. Evelyn D. Bethel and Freddie Monk, Co-Chairs, Spokespersons. The matter was referred to the City Manager for review and report to Council within 30 days. File #67-110 Ms. Wyatt requested that the comfort station issue be addressed as soon as possible. Mr. Robert Gravely, 617 Hanover Avenue, N. W., addressed Council with regard to the pay scale for City employees. File #66-184 THE COUNCIL MEETING WAS DECLARED IN RECESS UNTIL THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 2002, AT 12:00 NOON, FOR A MEETING OF THE ROANOKE VALLEY LEADERSHIP SUMMIT AT THE CENTER FOR APPLIED TECHNOLOGY AND CAREER EXPLORATION, TECHNOLOGY DRIVE, ROUTE 220 NORTH (BUSINESS) (NORTH MAIN STREET), ROCKY MOUNT, VIRGINIA; TO BE HOSTED BY THE COUNTY OF FRANKLIN; AND THE MEETING WILL AGAIN BE DECLARED IN RECESS UNTIL 4:30 P.M., ON THE SAME DATE IN THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, NOEL C. TAYLOR MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 215 CHURCH AVENUE, S. W., FOR FIVE INTERVIEWS FOR APPOINTMENTS TO THE ROANOKE CITY SCHOOL BOARD. 16 Office of the Mayor CITY OF (? ROANOKE WHEREAS, the future of our community, our State and our nation depends upon the young people of today who will be the leaders of tomorrow; and WHE~S, it is the duty of all citizens, parents, and youth organizations to develop a proper attitude among the young people o four community and to provide them with the right examples, environment and opportunities; and WHEREAS, it is through united efforts that young people will develop to their fullest potential and become healthy, caring adults, with respect for themselves and for others; and WHEREAS, Student Government Da9' has been established to reinforce to young Americans the importance and the excitement of helping others; and their involvement in government creates a public awareness of the positive contributions that young people make in the progress of the nation; and WHEREAS, through Student Government Day, an effort is made to link the talents and resources of students by addressing some of the major issues facing the cities of America, such as drug and alcohol abuse. education, hunger and homelessness, and assisting elderly citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ralph It Smith, Mayor of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, do hereby proclaim Monday, April 15, 2002, throughout this great All- America City, as STUDENT GO VERNMENT DA Y 2002. Given under our hands and the Seal of the City of R~anoke this fifieenth day of April in the year two thousand and two. Mary F. Parker Ralph K. Smith City Clerk Mayor oJ ce o] the ayor CITY OF ROANOKE 1'i1 fi/ill WHEREAS, emergencies can occur at any time, and the prompt response of police officers, fire fighters and paramedics is critical to the protection of life and the preservation of property; and WHEREAS, the safety of police officers and firefighters is dependent upon the quality and accuracy of information obtained from citizens who telephone the Roanoke City E-9ll Center; and WHEREAS, public safety dispatchers are the first and the most critical contact citizens have with emergency services, and they are the single vital link for police officers and firefighters by monitoring activities by radio, providing information and insuring safety; and WHEREAS, public safety telecommunicators of the Roanoke City Communications Center have contributed substantially to the apprehension of criminals, suppression of fires and treatment of patients, and each dispatcher has exhibited compassion, understanding and professionalism during the performance of their duties. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ralph K Smith, Mayor of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in honor of the men and women whose diligence and professionalism keep the City and its citizens safe, do hereby proclaim the week of April 14 - 20, 2002, throughout this great All-America City, as NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICA TOR 'S WEEK. Given under our hands and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this fifieenth day of April in the year two thousand and two. Mary F Parker City Clerk Ralph K. Smith Mayor IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35799-041502. A RESOLUTION recognizing all of the City's E-911 Center personnel as Roanoke Public Safety Telecommunicators of the Year 2002. WHEREAS, the Director of Technology has instituted a program to recognize the services and contributions of outstanding members of the E-911 Center by designating Employees of the Year; and WHEREAS, the selection of the employees of the year coincides with the observance of National Public Safety Telecommunicator Week, the second week of April; and WHEREAS, the E-911 Center personnel have demonstrated their ability to perform by providing outstanding emergency responses to citizens of Roanoke even while short staffed and responding to a flood of calls triggered by the September 11, 2001 event; and WHEREAS, the E-911 center personnel have demonstrated their dedication to providing 911 services to the citizens of the City of Roanoke and insuring that all calls for assistance are handled in a professional and expedient manner; and WHEREAS, all E-911 Center personnel have been selected as Public Safety Telecommunicators of the Year 2002; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. Council adopts this means of recognizing and commendin8 the outstanding services rendered to the City by E-911 Center, Public Safety Telecommunicators. 2. The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this resolution to City ofRoanoke's E-911 Center personnel. ATTEST: H:XMeasurm\Teleo~nicators of the year 2002.de~ City Clerk. WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States passed the Civil Rights Act o fl 968, and Title VIII declared that the law of the land would now guarantee the rights of equal housing opportunity; and the City of Roanoke has provided a Fair Housing Program for its residents, and today many realty companies and associations support fair housing laws; and in the year 2001, the City of Roanoke and the Fair Housing Board received a Comprehensive Evaluation of the barriers to fair housing; and WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke and the Fair Housing Board have reviewed and evaluated through participatory citizen meetings, the Analysis of Impediments Study; and WHE ~, in the years 2002 and 2003, the City of Roanoke and the Fair Housing Board will undertake an extensive educational program which will include numerous neighborhood workshops and a Fair Housing Conference during the fall of 2002; and nfflEREA& equal housing opportunity is a condition of life in the City of Roanoke that can and should be achieved and all citizens are encouraged to abide by the letter and spirit of the Fair Housing Law. NOI4; THEREFORE, I, Ralph K. Smith, Mayor of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the month of April, 2002, throughout this great All-America City, as FAIR HOUSING MONTH. Given under our hands and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this fifieenth day of April in the year two thousand and two. A T~FEST: Mary ~ Parker City Clerk Ralph K. Smith Mayor C-1 REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ..... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL March 18, 2002 2:00 P. M. The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday, March 18, 2002, at 2:00 p.m., the regular meeting hour, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, City Council, Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure, Rule 1, Regular Meetings, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended. PRESENT: Council Members William D. Bestpitch, Linda F. Wyatt, William H. Carder, W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., C. Nelson Harris, William White, Sr., and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ................................................................................................. -7. ABSENT: None ...................................................................................... O. (Council Member White left the meeting at the conclusion of agenda item 5.a.) OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. The meeting was opened with a prayer by The Reverend W. Ray Douglas, Pastor, Price Memorial African Episcopal Zion Church. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Smith. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: None. CONSENTAGENDA 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 four requests for Closed Session. MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Monday, February 4, 2002, were before the body. 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 Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris, White, and Mayor Smith ..................................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0. PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the City Manager requesting a Closed Meeting to discuss disposition of publicly-owned property, where discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before Council. Mr. Carder moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss the disposition of publicly-owned property, where discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris, White, and MayorSmith ..................................................................................................... 7. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0. PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the City Manager requesting a Closed Meeting to discuss acquisition of real property for public purpose, where discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the City, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before Council. Mr. Carder moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss acquisition of real property for public purpose, where discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the City, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris, White, and Mayor Smith ................................................................................................. -7. NAYS: None ......................................................................................... -0. CITY ATTORNEY-CITY COUNCIL: A report of the City Attorney requesting a Closed Meeting in order that Council may consult with legal counsel on a matter of probable litigation, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Mr. Carder moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attorney to convene in a Closed Meeting in order that Council may consult with legal counsel on a matter of probable litigation, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris, White, and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7. NAYS: None ............................................................................................ 0. CITY ATTORNEY-CITY COUNCIL: A report of the City Attorney requesting a Closed Meeting in order for Council to consult with legal counsel on a matter of probable litigation, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Mr. Carder moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attorney to convene in a Closed Meeting in order for Council to consult with legal counsel on a matter of probable litigation, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris, White, and Mayor Smith ................................................................................................. 7. NAYS: None ......................................................................................... -0. CITY MANAGER-ENTERPRISE ZONE: A communication from the City Manager advising that on January 1, 1984, the Commonwealth of Virginia designated Enterprise Zone One, then known as the City of Roanoke's Urban Enterprise Zone; on January 1,1996, the Commonwealth of Virginia designated Enterprise Zone Two; 3 and the City's Department of Economic Development completed an evaluation of local incentives for the City's two Enterprise Zones in 2001 and concluded that amendments were needed to increase the effectiveness of the program, was before Council. It was further advised that in accordance with the Department of Housing and Community Development's Virginia Enterprise Zone Program Regulations, the local governing body must hold at least one public hearing before submitting an application for amendments to the Department of Housing and Community Development for approval; whereupon, the City Manager recommended that Council authorize the City Clerk to advertise a public hearing on the above amendments on Monday, April 15, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard by the Council. 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 Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris, White, and MayorSmith ................................................................................................ 7. NAYS: None ............................................................................................ -0. REGULAR AGENDA SCHOOLS: A communication from the City Clerk advising that the deadline for receipt of applications for appointment to the Roanoke City School Board for two three-year terms of office, commencing July 1,2002 and ending June 30, 2005, was Friday, March 8, 2002, at 5:00 p.m., was before Council. The City Clerk advised that applications were received from the following persons: James P. Beatty Robert H. Bird Carl D. Cooper Edward Garner William H. Lindsey William E. Skeen Robert J. Sparrow Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the applications would be received and filed. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: PARKS AND RECREATION-ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Vice-Mayor Carder presented a communication advising that the City of Roanoke has struggled to identify a memorial befitting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; public debate on the issue of renaming Orange Avenue saw polarization in the community, leaving the City divided on the issue; and Council and the City Manager, in order to mend the fences of division, sought to establish a committee with the assistance of the local branch of the SCLC that would be charged with the goal of bringing forward to the City Manager and to City Council a recommendation for a memorial to Dr. King, which committee was established and its representation was diverse and reflective of the diversity of the City. He further advised that the committee met for over 18 months, solicited opinions and suggestions through a variety of methods and made its recommendation to the City Manager; i.e.: the renaming of Elmwood Park to Martin Luther King Jr. Park, which recommendation was received with resistance from some elements in the community, citing the historical nature of the Elmwood Park name. Vice-Mayor Carder explained that an alternative proposal was submitted to the committee and to the SCLC; i.e.: that the north side of Elmwood Park consisting of the lily ponds, bordered by Williamson Road, the Jefferson Lodge to Franklin Road be designated as Martin Luther King, Jr. Plaza, and that the remainder of the park would keep the name of Elmwood, which alternative was approved by the committee, the local SCLC, the National Office of the SCLC, and the King Family Foundation. Vice-Mayor Carder expressed appreciation to the committee and encouraged the Members of Council to adopt a measure designating the above referenced portion of Elmwood Park as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Plaza, and refer design and cost issues to the City Manager for review and recommendation to Council. He stated that it has been said by some persons in the community that the memorial is not befitting to Dr. King; however, he advised that the memorial itself has yet to be designed and it is hoped that citizens and organizations will come forth to provide assistance and input to the design process. He explained that the proposed plaza is not contingent upon Bullitt Avenue going through to Williamson Road which can be accomplished without the cut through of Bullitt Avenue. Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution: "A RESOLUTION renaming a portion of Elmwood Park the Martin Luther King, Jr. Plaza, in honor of the slain civil rights leader." Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of the abovereferenced resolution. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder. Mr. W. G. Ammen, 3948 Greenlee Road, S. W., appeared before Council in opposition to the proposal offered by Vice-Mayor Carder, and stated that there are other sites and locations in the City of Roanoke that are worthy of Dr. King's name. He expressed concern that the City Manager declined to provide him with the names of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Selection Committee, and called attention to a conflict of interest by the Vice-Mayor in his dual capacity as a member of City Council and as a member of the memorial committee. Mr. James R. Olin, 175 27th Street, S. W., suggested that the City honor Dr. King in a way that will call attention to the location that is named in his honor. He spoke in favor of the proposal of Vice-Mayor Carder, which recommendation has been approved by the selection committee, and requested that Council support the north side of Elmwood Park as abovereferenced by Vice-Mayor Carder as a proper and fitting memorial to Dr. King. Ms. Barbara N. Duerk, 2607 Rosalind Avenue, S. W., expressed appreciation to the memorial committee for its unanimous support of Vice-Mayor Carder's alternative proposal. She advised that the citizens of the City of Roanoke have been patient; in January 1998, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) requested Council to designate an appropriate memorial in honor of Dr. King, in January 1999, the SCLC requested that Route 460 to Eureka Park be named in Dr. King's honor, the matter was referred to the City Planning Commission and on November 15, 1999, Council directed the City Manager to appoint an ad hoc committee which began meeting in the fall of 2000. She stated that there were no preconceived opinions on what would be an appropriate location by members of the committee, which consisted of leaders from all four quadrants of the City. She called attention to an extensive campaign to garner public input, multiple ideas were explored including the civic center, the Higher Education Center, the School of Diversity within the Higher Education Center, the plaza at the Higher Education Center, Eureka Park, Victory Stadium (present and future locations), Interstate 581, the main library, the main post office, Lee Plaza, RNDC Plaza, Roanoke Academy for Math and Science, and many others, and on April 3, 2001, the recommendation of the memorial committee was submitted to the City Manager. Ms. Brenda Hale, 3595 Parkwood Drive, S. W., advised that north Elmwood Park is located in the heart of the City of Roanoke, but most of all, naming the north side of Elmwood Park in honor of Dr. King will provide a profound legacy to the youth of the City of Roanoke who treasure Dr. King's dream. She stated that the Roanoke Valley community is representative of over 70 nations, therefore, the north side of Elmwood Park is a fitting location and an area that all persons can share and appreciate because it is the right place at the right time. Ms. Dorothy Moore, 1327 Moorman Road, N. W., spoke in support of the recommendation of Vice-Mayor Carder. Ms. Lee Walker, 1048 Hunt Avenue, N. W., spoke in support of naming the north side of Elmwood Park in honor of Dr. King for the enjoyment of all persons as they live and work together as one people. Mr. Edward Mitchell, 1570 16th Street, N. W., advised that the memorial committee was requested by Council and the City Manager to recommend a fitting and appropriate location to honor Dr. King; the committee solicited data from schools, colleges, and persons from outside the community and the committee compiled all of the data into various categories. He stated that the goal of the committee was not to place the memorial in a black community or a white community, but at a location where people will come together in one common place; and the memorial committee agreed that Elmwood Park provided the ideal location. He advised that the memorial committee supports the alternative proposal, and requested that Council designate the north side of Elmwood Park as a fitting location to honor the memory of Dr. King. Mr. Troy Eichelberger, 1621 Downing Street, N. W., advised that Dr. King represented freedom; those persons that the City honors reflect who we are as a City, and that which is honored for the honoree reflects the City's respect for that individual. He stated that Dr. King's name is written in eternity, but let the City of Roanoke write his name the best way it can in time. He advised that if this is the best the City of Roanoke can do, then let it be; however, the City can do better because Dr. King was bigger and greater than the north side of Elmwood Park. Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., advised that without rules, anything can happen. She inquired as to why Council is voting on this ill conceived proposal which originated with another Member of City Council and is now brought forth by Vice-Mayor Carder. She advised that it would be wonderful if the City of Roanoke would honor Dr. King by establishing a proper and fitting memorial because his life and legacy will be known by generations yet to be born. She stated that Dr. King is recognized throughout the world as a symbol of freedom, peace, and non-violence, and this ill conceived compromise of unevenly dividing Elmwood Park is an insult to both Dr. King's memory and to the City of Roanoke, and could be seen as a way to divide people which is the very concept that Dr. King worked so diligently to erase. She urged that Council not accept the alternative proposal because it appears that Council is unable to make a decision regarding a proper memorial to Dr. King. She suggested that the voters of the City of Roanoke be allowed to decide the issue based on the following locations: (1) Roanoke Civic Center, (2) Roanoke Higher Education Center, and (3) the new stadium/amphitheater to be constructed. Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., referred to the untold number of hours devoted by the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Selection Committee in reaching its recommendation. She inquired about the status of the original unanimous recommendation of the memorial committee that Elmwood Park, in its entirety, be named in honor of Dr. King; she inquired as to why the City Manager did not send the original recommendation of the memorial committee to City Council; what happened to the opportunist, who based on the proposal that Bullitt Avenue be extended to Williamson Road, suggested a win-win compromise; and what happened that a win-win concept would permit the library, the amphitheater and the majority of park land on the south side to retain the name of Elmwood Park, while the majority of park land on the north side would be named in honor of Dr. King, which would consist only of a rectangular park containing lily ponds and a plaza, bordered by two tall buildings. She asked what happened to the attempt to over throw the authority given to the committee and why do Roanoke City officials continue to compromise where the black community is always given the shortest end of the stick. Ms. Perneller C. Wilson, 3045 Willow Road, N. W., advised that Dr. King wanted to be remembered as a drum major for righteousness, a drum majOr for peace, and a drum major for justice. She stated that Roanoke's indecisiveness has been going on for approximately three years, City leaders should be trying to solve the racial problems in the City of Roanoke, and she will not continue to stand by and see Dr. King's name drug through the mud in this City any longer. Mr. Hudson advised that he has always been a strong supporter of Dr. King; however, the north side of Elmwood Park does not provide a fitting memorial to Dr. King's memory. He stated that the City of Roanoke can do better, and for that reason, he will not support the resolution. He expressed appreciation to the memorial committee for its work. Mr. White also thanked the members of the memorial committee. He stated that he has been consistent in his opinion that the north side of Elmwood Park is not the proper location to recognize Dr. King's memory, and many citizens have also expressed their concern that it is an inappropriate location. Therefore, he advised that he could not support the resolution. Vice-Mayor Carder advised that since he was a member of the Memorial Selection Committee, it was his responsibility to bring forth the alternative recommendation. He called attention to resolutions adopted by Downtown Roanoke, Inc., and the History Museum in support of the recommendation due primarily to economic development issues. He stated that numerous suggestions were considered by the committee and the committee, which is composed of representatives from the entire community, was unanimous that the memorial should be located at a site in the center city. He expressed frustration in that the process will not end after today, someone will suggest a site or a location, a committee will be appointed, the process will repeat itself with protests throughout the community, and it will be impossible to reach unanimity in either the black community or the white community. He explained that Council must make the decision, and sometimes difficult decisions must be made which is the goal of governing. He advised that it is unfair to say that the proposed location is not a fitting memorial to Dr. King because the type of memorial has not been determined. He quoted Dr. King as saying, "The time is always right to do what is right." Ms. Wyatt expressed appreciation to committee members for their time, effort and dedication to the project. She stated that the committee initially made a recommendation to name all of Elmwood Park in honor of Dr. King, and whether she agreed or disagreed with the recommendation, that was the committee's best effort and heartfelt decision; however, when there was disagreement in the community, the committee compromised. She expressed concern that the committee compromised because Dr. King was a man of principle and honor, and would not compromise that which he believed in. She advised that until the community is ready to honor Dr. King in the way in which he should be remembered, it is less than honorable to do anything, and the honorable thing at this point is to do nothing. She added that the City of Roanoke should take its divisiveness as a wake up call that it has a long way to go when it comes to race relations and Council should take the lead to address the matter. The Mayor advised that the City has come a long way. He stated that the alternative proposal is a compromise, which is what serving on City Council is about - not compromising principles, but compromising for the good of the mass. He stated that he supports the alternative proposal presented by Vice-Mayor Carder. There being no further discussion, the resolution was lost by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Carder, Bestpitch and Mayor Smith ........................ 3. NAYS: Council Members Wyatt, Hudson, Harris and White .......................... -4. (At this point, Council Member White left the meeting.) SCHOOLS: Sandra Burks, Director of Magnet Programs, Roanoke City Public Schools, presented a briefing on the International Baccalaureate Programme (lB). She advised that Roanoke City Schools is the only school district in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and one of a few in the nation, to explore a K-12 lB option, which includes a Primary Years Programme serving grades K-5, Middle Years Programme serving grades 6 -10, and a diploma program for students in Grades 11 and 12. She further advised that currently, the school district offers an lB diploma program at William Fleming High School and a Middle Years Programme housed at William Ruffner Middle School and William Fleming High School; the school district has applied for a second Middle Years Programme at James Breckinridge Middle School and will apply in June for authorization of a Primary Years Programme at Highland Park Learning Center; and with the addition of these two schools, more than 2,200 students in Roanoke City will participate in an International Baccalaureate Programme this year. Details of the International Baccalaureate Programme are as follows: William Fleming High School offers the lB diploma, which is a prestigious college-prep program that is recognized by colleges and universities around the world; it was created by a non-profit educational foundation based in Geneva, Switzerland, and is available only at schools that have met the stringent academic requirements of the lB organization; and it is currently available in 1,182 schools in 101 countries. Initially funded through a Federal Magnet Schools Grant, the program began during the 1994-95 school year when William Fleming High School became an authorized lB site. Fleming is one of only three high schools in Virginia to have the distinction of offering the lB diploma. International Baccalaureate is different from other college-prep programs in that it offers a rigorous, comprehensive study exceeding the Virginia Standards of Learning, coupled with challenging, external assessments. Courses include mathematics, sciences, social studies, languages, technology and the arts. To earn the diploma, students must take a minimum of six end-of-course examinations in a variety of course work and earn a minimum of 24 cumulative points on a 1 - 7 point scale. In addition, students participate in the Theory of Knowledge course called by many the "cement" of the lB program. Theory of Knowledge examines the philosophical differences among various systems of knowledge crossing all content areas. Students are also required to submit an extended essay of some 4,000 words and perform a minimum of 150 hours of community service. ]0 Students may also choose to seek an lB certificate in a specific course. The certificate is earned by participating in a specific lB course and successfully passing the lB end of course exam. Many students choose to participate in more than one lB course. End-of-course exams by students at the end of their junior or senior year are rated by over 3,400 lB examiners worldwide using an international standard of excellence. Students who meet the scoring criteria on the exams are awarded the lB diploma or certificates. Both are recognized by colleges and universities worldwide, and diploma graduates can be awarded sophomore standing in their first year of college. Additionally, students have better opportunities for scholarships and easier college admission. In the spring of 1997, Roanoke City Public Schools' first lB graduating class included one full lB diploma graduate and 19 students who received lB certificates. The program is growing and currently, 286 students are taking lB classes in grades 6 - 12 and this spring six full diploma graduates and 27 certificate students are anticipated. The program also involves extensive teacher training in subject areas. Since 1996, more than 161 Fleming-Ruffner and Breckinridge teachers have participated in lB training, including more than 100 who have attended workshops throughout the United States, as well as in Canada and Puerto Rico. Subject area training is required because of the depth of content delivered through the lB courses. William Fleming recently completed the International Baccalaureate Five Year Program Review and thus continues its status as a fully authorized International Baccalaureate Organization school. In 1998, William Ruffner Middle School became one of the first ten schools in the country authorized to offer the lB Middle Years Programme. The program offers a philosophical framework for teaching various subjects in grades 6 - 10. The framework is organized around three fundamental concepts: intercultural awareness, communication and a holistic view of knowledge. The Middle Years Programme is currently available at 47 authorized sites throughout the nation. Henrico has the only other authorized Middle Years Programme in the state. In 1999, Roanoke City Public Schools received funding to apply for a Middle Years Programme at James Breckinridge Middle School. The district was awarded approximately $1 million in a three-year "Innovative Programs" grant from the U. S. Department of Education. The grant is intended to improve student achievement at Breckinridge by establishing an lB Middle Years Programme and an after-school tutoring program. Breckinridge is concluding the third and final year of the grant. Unlike the magnet center, Breckinridge serves only students living in its attendance zone; however, with the addition of Breckinridge, both main feeder schools for Fleming will offer excellent academic preparation for successful completion of high school. Highland Park Learning Center, an elementary magnet school in old southwest, is also in the process of applying for authorization to offer an lB Programme. In September, 1997, the lB organization extended its inquiry-based framework to youngsters ages 3 to 12 with its new Primary Years Programme. The program provides an international approach to learning based on best research and teaching practices in use at schools around the world. Using an interdisciplinary approach that combines primarily the subject areas of language arts and social studies, the Primary Years Programme is organized around six essential questions: Who are we? Where are we in place and time? How do we express ourselves? How does the world work? How do we organize ourselves and how should we share our planet? The staff at Highland Park has developed units that revolve around these questions using the elementary curriculum based on the Standards of Learning. Currently, there are 13 authorized Primary Years Programmes in the United States; however, dozens of schools throughout the nation have already expressed interest in the program and are pursuing authorization. Highland Park is completing its second-year of implementation. Schools are required to implement the program for two years prior to authorization. To date, all staff members have either traveled to an International Baccalaureate workshop or participated in on-site training. Authorization is contingent upon the district's meeting the lB foreign language requirement. Additional resources are difficult to fund given current budget constraints; however, the district continues to explore ways to deliver foreign language to Highland Park in 2002-2003 so that the school may be authorized as an International Baccalaureate Primary Years Porgramme. The lB program affords unlimited opportunity for the students of Roanoke City to compete and succeed on equal footing with students from around the world. Students participating at the middle school and high school levels presented remarks in regard to the merits of the lB Programme. Students participating at the middle school and high school levels presented remarks in regard to the merits of the lB Programme. Without objections by Council, the Mayor advised that the briefing would be received and filed. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: LIBRARIES-OUTDOOR DINING: The City Manager introduced a briefing on outdoor dining to be presented by Sally Sappenfield, Economic Development Specialist. Ms. Sappenfield advised that based on requests from area restaurants and the success of other cities regarding outdoor dining, research was conducted with the goal of implementing a program for restaurant owners to use the public right-of- way in designated areas of the City of Roanoke. She stated that the core of Roanoke offers a dynamic mix of office, commercial, retail, hotel, convention and entertainment uses, and outdoor dining is seen as a cultural asset to residents and visitors, and a potential to increase business for restaurants; therefore, retaining and expanding businesses creates a vibrant downtown atmosphere. During the research phase of the program, she advised that meetings were held with representatives of Downtown Roanoke, Inc., restaurant owners and City staff to determine the needs and other potential locations in Roanoke, other cities were researched, such as Charlottesville, Norfolk, and Richmond regarding code provisions, outdoor dining applications, and implementation. She noted that such issues as ADA compliance, provision of adequate sidewalk space, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board requirements, Department of Health requirements, policing policies, fire marshal approval of all engineering drawings to date, refuse collection issues, street cleaning and timing, and traffic and safety issues for pedestrians and restaurant patrons, were addressed. Ms. Sappenfield explained that Section 30-9.1 of the City Code will require amendment in order to provide for outdoor dining, along with development of an outdoor dining permit application. She added that outdoor dining is proposed in all commercial districts in the City of Roanoke on designated ]3 sidewalks and streets, with exceptions in the City Market area inasmuch as the farmer's market occupies the area from 5:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday - Saturday. She advised that the permit application requires that the restaurant owner submit a description and drawings of furniture, etc., to be used in connection with the outdoor dining area for the City Manager's approval; and the application fee is $75.00 plus a square foot rate (first year $6.50, second year $7.00 and third year $8.00 and for every year thereafter which averages approximately $.67 per square foot per month)on a first come, first served basis. She added that outdoor dining will be allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. on the following morning, restaurants will be required to abide by all rules and regulations regarding zoning, Board of Health, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board laws, etc., they will be required to keep the area clean, and to provide a $1 million insurance policy on the outdoor dining location which would be a rider on the current insurance policy. She stated that the goal of outdoor dining is to increase options for diners, to improve the overall vitality of the City, to be revenue neutral, to retain and expand businesses, and to provide an increase in the meals tax. She advised that on March 12, 2002, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., voted to support the proposed ordinance amendment to allow outdoor dining and some businesses in the City Market area have already indicated a willingness to participate in the program. Logan Forsythe, representing the Board of Directors, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., spoke in support of outdoor dining in the core area of downtown in the business district surrounding the City Market area. He advised that outdoor dining will be a significant enhancement to downtown opportunities, which translates into higher meals tax revenues, and an enhancement to the overall flavor of the City Market area. In addition to the City Market area, Vice-Mayor Carder advised that outdoor dining will apply to other commercial neighborhood districts throughout the City. He inquired about the Century Plaza area; whereupon, the City Manager advised that it is tentatively scheduled to present an amendment to the ordinance that would allow outdoor vendors in select locations, and initially at the Century Plaza location, for consideration by Council at its meeting on Monday, April 1, 2002. The Mayor stressed the need to work with merchants currently operating in the City Market area. He stated that the City Market has served as an anchor for the downtown area for many years and the City should do everything it can to protect the farmer's market. Mr. Bestpitch suggested that a restauranteur be encouraged to develop a restaurant on property along the Roanoke River for outdoor dining purposes. He advised that the Roanoke River is a resource that has not been utilized to its fullest. Mr. Harris advised that he has received numerous telephone calls from farmers doing business on the City Market who have expressed issues of concern and requested that City staff meet with the farmers to address their questions/concerns. He inquired if customers will be required to order food along with drinks, or if the option will be available to order drinks only; and suggested that other Virginia localities be surveyed. Ms. Wyatt spoke in support of the concept of outdoor dining; however, she advised that she would like the assurance that citizens engaging in outdoor dining will feel comfortable in the outside dining environment and that safeguards will be enacted to protect the rights of people to enjoy their meal in peace and quiet. The City Manager introduced Wlodek Zaryczny, Director of Libraries, who presented a proposal regarding inside and outside dining at the Main Library, which is viewed as an extension of the concept to make downtown Roanoke a more vibrant area and to increase the constituency that is supportive of what is happening at the Main Library. Mr. Zaryczny advised that for the City of Roanoke to be successful in the new century, it must look for new opportunities to do business, to see old places in a new way and to recognize and to celebrate Roanoke's urban uniqueness. He advised that the shared vision of the Roanoke Public Library is to insure that every citizen is satisfied with library services and to contribute to the economic development of the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Valley. He reviewed programs conducted by the library, i.e.: Poetry Slam, computer lab, Dr. Seuss Celebration 2002, Author and Artist Series, Library Book Festival, participation in area parades and Festival in the Park, just to name a few. He advised that the library has received publicity through a library show on RVTV, The Roanoke Times, and on air opportunities via radio and television. He stated that some organizations using the services of the library are Library Volunteers, Raleigh Court Garden Club, Historic Gainsboro Committee, Local Colors, NAACP Committee, Virginia Cooperative Association, and Southwest Genealogical Association; and support services include the Roanoke Public Library Board which is appointed by City Council, the Roanoke Public Library Foundation, and Friends of the Library, and called attention to an upcoming retreat by the Library Board and the Library Foundation to review operations. The City Librarian presented information with regard to two separate projects, both of which fall under the category of eateries: i.e.: a library caf~ and a patio restaurant. He advised that libraries throughout the country are opening cafes which have been successful and colorful, with remodeling costs, traffic, advertising, etc., to be funded by the vendor. He stated that Roanoke's library caf~ could be located on the Bullitt Avenue side of the library (north side) which would serve as an indoor/outdoor cafe, with an awning that would extend from the top of the building to the street, containing an entrance from the inside of the building as well. He explained that computers will be provided inside of the caf~ and the City of Roanoke will be a trend setter becoming the first library in the country to have computers installed inside its cafe. He advised that a used book shop is also proposed, along with a museum-type gift shop to be operated by Friends of the Library. Secondly, be presented a drawing of the proposed patio restaurant, the benefits of which will be increased customer satisfaction, increased library usage, increased library constituency, provide a connection with the City Market area, provide a tourist attraction and destination point, complement other outdoor dining efforts, and position the City of Roanoke as a trend setter. He stated that the Bullitt Avenue caf~ is projected to cost approximately $70,000.00 and the patio restaurant is projected to cost $145,000.00; and a request for proposals/specifications will be issued to provide that selected vendors will be responsible for assuming all remodeling costs. Ms. Wyatt inquired about the status of the iMAC computers which were installed in the libraries; whereupon, Mr. Zaryczny advised that previously no support service was available; however, the Library's automation coordinator is currently involved in a project to place the iMac computers on line in the branch libraries. Ms. Wyatt called attention to an individual who has offered to work free of charge on the iMAC computers; whereupon, Mr. Zaryczny advised that he would contact the individual. Mr. Harris inquired about the status of complimentary parking for library patrons which was available on the upper level of the parking lot across the street from the Main Library; whereupon, Mr. Zaryczny advised that the parking arrangement costs between $5,000.00 and $6,000.00 per year; therefore, in lieu of cutting library staff, it may be necessary to discontinue the parking arrangement, with AIIright Parking. There being no further questions or comments, and without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the briefings would be received and filed. RESIDENTIAL PARKING: The City Manager introduced a briefing with regard to providing special parking arrangements for those individuals residing in the downtown area; whereupon, she called upon Robert K. Bengtson, Director of Public Works, to present details of the program. Mr. Bengston advised that in 1998, representatives of Downtown Roanoke, Inc., and City of Roanoke staff met with downtown housing developers regarding the need for downtown residential parking, and developers identified parking as being critical to the success of downtown living. He further advised that this led to a strategy where downtown residents would be allowed to park free of charge in City- owned parking garages which was approved by City Council on July 1, 1998, for a period of three years; at the end of the three-year period, a total of 18 residents took advantage of these parking provisions, and since that time, City staff and representatives of Downtown Roanoke, Inc. have evaluated parking strategy in conjunction with other measures to further improve downtown parking. He stated that on October 18, 2001, Council adopted a measure that provided certain Roanoke neighborhoods with a process to create on street parking for residents only, pursuant to conditions that meet certain criteria through purchase of a residential parking permit for the street; and, to date, no groups or organizations in a neighborhood have made application under the process. Mr. Bengtson noted that City staff has now developed a parking plan for downtown residents which received input from residents, business owners and representatives of Downtown Roanoke, Inc. He called attention to the need to provide parking benefits that would serve as an incentive for moving to and remaining in downtown Roanoke, and developers of downtown housing continue to seek assurance that more opportunities for residents to park downtown will be available which helps to secure financing for residential projects. He explained that residents have identified four issues that are important to any decision to move downtown: (1) the need to increase the availability of parking or loading zones, especially between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., (2) unrestricted parking in timed parking spaces for nights and weekends, (3) continuation of free parking in City-owned parking garages, and (4) an enhanced feeling of security along the walking paths between residences, parking areas and parking garages. In response to these issues, he advised that City staff has recommended that permit parking be established in strategic locations for the use of residents purchasing a permit, while existing timed parking would remain in effect at these locations for use by vehicles without a permit. He noted that the permitted vehicle would have the convenience of two hour parking in any permit parking zone, Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and would further allow a downtown resident to park from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. the following morning without having to move their vehicle. He advised that City staff recommends re-establishing the previous free parking program for residents in the downtown parking garages which provides residents with the o of 24 hour uninterrupted parking when the convenience of on street parking necessary; and there will also be a need to continue to provide appropriate measures in the parking garages and along the walking paths to and residences. ]7 ~tion ~ not afety from Mr. Bengtson advised that City staff recommends a $5.00 fee per residential unit, with a limit of one permit per licensed resident. He stated that as Roanoke strives for a 24 hour downtown, thereby creating more critical mass for the betterment of all downtown residents, businesses and tourist destinations, there is a recognition that the number of downtown residents, currently numbering approximately 50, needs to grow and while it is desirable that downtown businesses and residents co-exist, there is clearly a need to assist the downtown housing effort by providing more convenient residential parking if the projection of 300 downtown residential units is to be attained at some point in the future. To do so, he advised that the City can proceed with either a broader parking plan for near term development of these additional housing units, or, based on a plan that addresses only current residents, revise the plan as additional units develop, and City staff is prepared to implement either approach based on the wishes of Council. He stated that a recommendation will be presented to Council at its meeting on Monday, April 1, 2002. Vice-Mayor Carder and Council Member Harris suggested that the program be implemented as broadly and as inclusively as possible and not be tied to current downtown Roanoke residents. There being no further questions or comments, without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the briefing would be received and filed. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: TOWER PARKING GARAGE-FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City of Roanoke and First Union National Bank entered into a Parking Agreement in October 1998 for provision of 200 parking permits in the Tower Parking Garage for its full time employees who work in the City's Enterprise Zone One; the Agreement was renewed in 1999 and 2000, with an expiration date of December 15, 2001, and did not provide for any further extensions; First Union National Bank has requested that the City consider a new parking agreement for the provision of 175-200 parking permits, effective retroactively from December 16, 2001 until December 15, 2002, in order to help maintain employees within the City's Enterprise Zone One; and the agreement shall allow for up to two one year extensions, upon mutual agreement of the City and First Union National Bank. It was further advised that the Parking Agreement will allow the bank to purchase 175 parking permits for the Tower Garage, or such other City owned/controlled parking facility which may be mutually agreed upon by the City and First Union National Bank, at a monthly rate of $45.00 per parking permit per month and for the purchase of up to 25 additional permits in City owned or controlled parking facilities, as determined by the City should the permits be needed; the $45.00 per permit rate is an increase over the $40.00 rate contained in the previous parking agreement and provides a contributing factor for FUNB to maintain 175-200 qualifying positions within the City's Enterprise Zone One; annual reporting is required in order to assure that First Union National Bank maintains its employment commitments; and failure to meet these commitments would require the repayment of the difference between the contracted rate and the published monthly parking rate for the garage for which the permits were issued as more fully set out in the draft Parking Agreement. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to enter into a one year Parking Agreement with up to two one year renewals, effective retroactively from December 16, 2001, with First Union National Bank for the provision of 175-200 parking permits, in order to help in efforts to retain full time First Union National Bank employees in Enterprise Zone One in downtown Roanoke, and that the City Manager be further authorized to take such action and to execute such documents as may be reasonably necessary to provide for implementation and administration of the Parking Agreement, including the authority to renew said agreement for up to two renewal periods. Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution: (#35768-031802) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to execute a new Parking Agreement between the City and First Union National Bank (FUNB) to become effective retroactively to December 16, 2001; and authorizing the City Manager to renew the Parking Agreement for up to two additional one year periods. (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 65, page 460.) Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35768-031802. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................................. -6. NAYS: None ...................................................................................... -0. (Council Member White was absent.) BUDGET-ROANOKE CiViC CENTER-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that several equipment purchases and projects are needed at the Roanoke Civic Center in order for the Civic Center to provide expected levels of service, to meet new security standards, to provide appropriate maintenance, and to provide necessary equipment storage; therefore, it is necessary to appropriate funds from Prior Year Retained Earnings to provide for acquisition of the following items: Storage Building to provide for storage of Coliseum Equipment $ 90,000.00 Dasher Boards for Arena Football2 Exit Devices to provide locks on Coliseum Interior Doors 13,500.00 17,210.00 Stage Barricade for concerts 15,000.00 3 Xenon follow spotlights for Coliseum 35,000.00 2 Concession Carts 3,600.00 500 folding chairs with dollies 29,209.00 Sweeper/scrubber 8,868.00 Carpet Extractor 1,617.00 Walk Behind Scrubber 3,783.00 Coin Machine & 2 Credit Card Machines 3,000.00 Defibrillator 3,000.00 Kitchen Equipment Total 11,213.00 $235,000.00 It was further advised that items or projects to be acquired either have already been bid or will be bid in accordance with the procurement section of the Code of the City of Roanoke; whereupon, the City Manager recommended that Council appropriate $235,000.00 from Prior Year Retained Earnings accounts, as follows: $ 220,000.00 to Civic Center Account No. 005-550-2108-9015 $ 15,000.00 to Civic Center Account No. 005-550-2105-2035 2O Mr. Bestpitch offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35769-031802) 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. 65, page 461.) Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35769-031802. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -6. NAYS: None ......................................................................................... -0. (Council Member White was absent.) BUDGET-WILLIAMSON ROAD PARKING GARAGE- GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that original construction of the Williamson Road Parking Garage was partially funded with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds; and in recognition of this use of Federal funds, an annual payment is made back to the City's Grant Fund based upon a percentage of the net income which is generated by the garage, which payment is program income to the Grant Fund. It was further advised that fiscal year 2002 expense budget for the garage allocated $107,341.00 to meet the payment requirement; annual calculation is based upon income from the garage generated in fiscal year 2001; based upon actual income generated in fiscal year 2001, the payment due is $130,998.00; and in order to make the required payment, $23,657.00 must be appropriated from Transportation Fund Retained Earnings to supplement the $107,341.00 budgeted. The City Manager recommended that Council approve appropriation of $23,657.00 from retained earnings of the Transportation Fund, to fund the full CDBG payment due for fiscal year 2002 for the Williamson Road Parking Garage. Mr. Harris offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35770-031802) 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. 65, page 462.) 2! Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35770-031802. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................................ 6. NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0. (Council Member White was absent.) BUDGET-WESTERN VA FOUNDATION FOR THE ARTS AND SCIENCES-TEA- 21-ROANOKE PASSENGER STATION RENOVATION PROJECT: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Western Virginia Foundation for the Arts and Sciences (WVFAS) received notification in 2001 that its application for Transportation Enhancement funds through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) for the Roanoke Passenger Station Renovation Project was approved in the amount of $488,000.00; the City of Roanoke subsequently entered into separate agreements with the WVFAS and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), which define responsibilities of each party, as previously authorized by Council; the Western Virginia Foundation for the Arts and Sciences would be responsible for the match requirement of $122,000.00; and the $488,000.00 of TEA-21 Enhancement funds need to be appropriated (to be reimbursed by VDOT) to project account # 008-530-9900-9007 for disbursement to the WVFAS. The City Manager recommended that Council appropriate $488,000.00 of TEA- 21 Enhancement funds (to be reimbursed by VDOT) to project account # 008-530- 9900-9007 for disbursement to the Western Virginia Foundation for the Arts and Sciences and establish a revenue estimate in the same amount for State reimbursement through the TEA-21 program. Mr. Hudson offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35771-031802) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 65, page 463.) Mr. Hudson moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35771-031802. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................................ 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0. (Council Member White was absent.) BUDGET-BRIDGES: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that annual bridge inspection reports identified Memorial Bridge, Structure No. 1826, as being in need of major repair; and design of the necessary rehabilitation has been completed and the project has been bid, with MBC Construction, Inc., submitting the Iow bid, in the amount of $1,147,789.75, for a construction time of 270 consecutive calendar days. It was further advised that funding in the amount of $1,272,568.00 is needed for the project; additional funds that exceed the contract amount will be used for miscellaneous project expenses, including advertising, printing, test services, minor variations in bid quantities, unforeseen project expenses and an estimated $10,000.00 for Norfolk Southern Railway flagging services; and funding is available as follows: Public Improvement Bonds - Series 1999 Account No. 008-052-9709-9190 $ 888,931.00 Hunter Viaduct Account No. 008-052-9636-9003 279,813.00 Broadway Street Bridge Account No. 008-052-9683-9001 35,441.00 Memorial Bridge Rehabilitation Account No. 008-530-9772-9003 68,383.00 Total $1,272,568.00 The City Manager recommended that Council accept the bid of MBC Construction, Inc., in the amount of $1,147,789.75, with 270 consecutive calendar days of contract time; that all other bids received by the City be rejected; and transfer funds in the amount of $1,204,185.00 to Capital Projects Fund Account No. 008-530-9772, Memorial Bridge Rehabilitation. Mr. Carder offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35772-031802) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 65, page 464.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35772-031802. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................................... 6. NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0. (Council Member White was absent.) Mr. Bestpitch offered the following emergency ordinance: (#35773-031802) AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of MBC Construction, Inc., for the rehabilitation of Memorial Bridge, Structure Number 1826, 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. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 65, page 466.) Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35773-031802. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................................. -6. NAYS: None ........................................................................................... -0. (Council Member White was absent.) STREET LIGHTS-BUDGET-AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER-RNDC: The City Manager submitted a communication in connection with infrastructure improvements to the Greater Gainsboro Redevelopment area, Phase II. The City Manager referred to a communication from Charles A. Price, Jr., Chair, Roanoke Neighborhood Development Corporation (RNDC), advising that RNDC has not had an opportunity to review or provide input regarding those items contained in the City Manager's communication prior to completion of the bid documents; therefore, RNDC requests that action by Council on the City Manager's communication be deferred. The City Manager advised that City staff met with representatives of the Roanoke Neighborhood Development Corporation on August 16, 2001, and discussed a plan to move forward on Phase II improvements, leaving a balance for Phase III that would address those improvements immediately around the RNDC project, and City staffwas of the understanding that RNDC was in agreement since no feedback was received on bid specifications. She advised that since there is an interest on the part of RNDC to review the matter one more time, it is requested that Council defer action on the communication until the Council meeting to be held on Monday, April 1, 2002. The Mayor advised that without objection by Council, action on the matter would be deferred until the regular meeting of Council on Monday, April 1, 2002, at 2:00 p.m. FEE COMPENDIUM-EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that in July 1989, the City of Roanoke implemented an EMS User Fee in an effort to offset the rising cost of providing emergency medical services in the City of Roanoke; in July 1993, Council approved an EMS fee schedule adjustment to cover additional staffing costs associated with providing services; and staffing increases were necessary due to a reduction in volunteer resources and an increase in service demand. It was further advised that the City of Roanoke establishes its EMS fee schedule based primarily on the region's Medicare allowances; current EMS fees are $145.00 for basic life support (BLS) transports and $290.00 for advanced life support (ALS) transports with a two-tier fee structure, with mileage charged separately at $9.00 per loaded mile; effective April 1, 2002, Medicare will increase its reimbursement for EMS transport; after a two-year process, Medicare has approved a nationwide fee schedule that all EMS providers must accept if they wish to maximize Medicare reimbursement, which fee schedule and structure is based on a patient's needs, condition and treatment requirements; and the five-tier fee structure required by Medicare allows the fee to more accurately reflect actual services rendered. It was explained that the City of Roanoke needs to adopt the new fee schedule in order to maximize Medicare reimbursement; currently, Medicare accounts for 44 per cent of the City's EMS fee revenues; the new fee schedule will allow for a more accurate reflection of services rendered and resources required to care for patients; and Medicare is requiring a five-tier fee structure as follows: Basic Life Support- Non-Emergency Basic Life Support- Emergency Advanced Life Support - Non-Emergency Advanced Life Support - Emergency Advanced Life Support - Level II * * Medicare is proposing a higher reimbursement rate for ALS Level II because it applies to patients who are critically ill requiring more resources and treatment in such cases as cardiac arrest, multi-system trauma, respiratory arrest, etc. It was advised that the percentage of EMS fees paid by citizens (out-of-pocket) is projected to remain the same with the new fee structure; currently, citizens pay less than eight per cent of the total annual EMS fees out-of-pocket; and the City's EMS billing contractor will continue to work with citizens to maximize insurance reimbursement and to make fee adjustments, in accordance with Medicare regulations, in order to minimize out-of-pocket expense. The City Manager recommended that Council concur in the following fee schedule recommended by Quantum Medical, the City's EMS billing contractor, and using the required five-tier structure, which will allow the City to maximize Medicare reimbursement: Service Level Current Current New Proposed Medicare EMS Fees Medicare EMS Fee Basic Life Support Non-Emergency Basic Life Support Emergency Advanced Life Support Non-Emergency Allowance Allowance NA $145.00 $170.54 $175.00 $114.00 $145.00 $272.86 $280.00 NA $290.00 $204.65 $210.00 Advanced Life Support Emergency Advanced Life Support Level 2 $290.00 $290.00 $324.03 $330.00 NA $290.00 $468.99 $475.00 It was explained that the percentage of EMS fees paid by citizens (out-of-pocket) is projected to remain the same with the new fee structure, which is less than eight per cent of total annual fees collected; the new fee schedule, if approved, will become effective April 1; it is estimated that the City could realize a revenue increase of $165,000.00 during the first year fiscal year (2002-03) and a graduated increase to $655,000.00 in EMS fee revenue as the new Medicare allowance matures in fiscal year 2006-07; and the additional revenue could be used to fund debt service on the construction cost of new Fire-EMS stations as proposed in the Council adopted Fire- EMS Strategic Business Plan. Mr. Carder offered the following resolution: (#35774-031802) A RESOLUTION establishing certain fees for the provision of certain emergency medical services; and providing for an effective date. (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 65, page 467.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35774-031802. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch. Mr. Hudson inquired as to how the new rates will impact those persons who cannot afford to pay for the service; whereupon, the City Manager advised that under current rates, 44 per cent of all bills received by the City come from Medicare, another 43 per cent come from other insurance providers, therefore, only eight per cent of the bills can be attributed to out-of-pocket expenses by citizens. She explained that the new system proposed by the Federal Government provides for five levels of service versus two, which will provide more latitude in the billing for actual service. In summary, she advised that under current expectations and past experience, 92 per cent of all bills received by the City are insurance paid and not out-of-pocket expenses from the citizen. Mr. Hudson expressed concern for the eight per cent who may not be able to pay for the service; whereupon, the City Manager responded that the City does not collect on all bills and there are a number of fees that are written off on an annual basis as uncollectible, which generally occur in those situations where the individual does not have health insurance or the financial ability to make payment. She stated that the City is trying to take advantage of a Federal change that increases the rates. 27 Mr. Hudson inquired as to the percentage that is written off by the City when the client cannot afford to pay. Ms. Wyatt advised that in reviewing the Medicare allowance and the proposed fee, there is a difference in the range of $4.00- $8.00 which will be billed to the client, and inquired as to the cost effectiveness when considering staff time, etc. The City Manager responded that under the current Medicare allowance, there is a $31.00 difference for basic life support and although the new Medicare allowances are more realistic in acknowledging the true cost to deliver the service, there is more work to be done. Ms. Wyatt advised that in view of staff time etc., the client billing of $4.00 - $8.00 fees will not be cost effective, and she would support the new Medicare allowances only. There being no further discussion, Resolution No. 35774-031802 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Carder, Hudson, Harris and Mayor Smith---5. NAYS: Council MemberWyatt (Council Member White was absent.) HOUSING/AUTHORITY-CONSULTANTS REPORTS-STREETS AND ALLEYS BULLITT/JAMISON PILOT PROJECT: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that on September 17, 2001, Council adopted the "Policy on HUD Funds," one provision of which is the targeting of said funds to create demonstrable and visible impact; the initial targeting activity under the policy was presented to Council at its October 29, 2001, work session and involved a multi-faceted approach to the needs of an area bordered by Bullitt and Jamison Avenues, between 6th and 13th Streets; and known as the "Bullitt-Jamison Pilot Project," approximately $1.4 million from the City's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds will form the core project financing, if approved by Council. It was further advised that needs of the project area extend to many other aspects of community life and dictate a broader conceptual and financial framework; the City's Police, Social Services, Streets and Traffic, Code Enforcement, Parks and Recreation, Neighborhood Partnership and other departments are increasing activities in the area; however, physical development of the area requires a more in-depth assessment of needs and feasibility and creation of a master plan to guide improvements; and given these needs, the City solicited proposals from firms with such capabilities and has negotiated the terms of an agreement with the top candidate, at a cost of approximately $60,000.00 which is within the City Manager's authority for executing the necessary agreement. It was explained that it is important to begin consultant activities as soon as possible, with CDBG funds providing the necessary funding source; however, to use CDBG funds at this time requires an amendment of the City's current Consolidated Plan Annual Update, a process that involves a 30-day public review and comment period; the public review and comment period was initiated on February 14, 2002, and concluded on March 15, 2002; with no objections to the plan amendment having been received; upon Council's approval of the plan amendment, the consultant agreement may be executed, which agreement allows the City the option to negotiate further services with the consultant regarding leveraging additional financing for the project; and a future report to Council may be required to authorize any amendment to the consultant agreement with a cost greater than the City Manager's authority to execute directly. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to amend the 2001-2002 Consolidated Plan Annual Update, including submission of the necessary documents to HUD, to add consultant services associated with the Bullitt-Jamison Pilot Project. Mr. Carder offered the following resolution: (#35775-031802) A RESOLUTION amending the City of Roanoke's 2001-2002 Consolidated Plan Annual Update regarding Consultant Services for the Bullitt-Jamison Pilot Project, and authorizing the City Manager to execute and submit the necessary documents to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 65, page 468.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35775-031802. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris. Vice-Mayor Carder advised that the Bullitt/Jamison Pilot Project will be quite comprehensive, and inquired as to other types of projects that the proposed consultant has been involved with. Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development, advised that the consultant has extensive experience in comprehensive master planning, downtown development, neighborhood development, neighborhood financing and management, community participation and comprehensive management projects. She further advised that the President of the corporation worked as head of the local CDC, NNEO, and therefore has experience in the Roanoke area. She noted that the consultant recently prepared a project for Craig County which involves tax credits for a 60 unit building, downtown revitalization in Franklin County, Radford University, Blue Ridge Parkway, a tax credit application for the Jefferson Center, Shenandoah Hotel tax credit, and is currently working on the Dumas Hotel tax credit project. Vice-Mayor Carder advised that his favorable vote is contingent on the consultant having a proven track record in comprehensive neighborhood service planning and he would like the assurance that the consultant has experience in coordinating such services as police, social services, streets and traffic, parks and recreation, etc. He inquired as to what experience the consultant will bring to the City that does not currently exist, and how will other partners, such as the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, be brought into the planning process. Ms. Johnson explained that Bullitt/Jamison Avenue is a pilot project which will involve working closely with the neighborhoods, along with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, but prior to proceeding, it is necessary to engage the services of a consultant with a history of consensus building and working with neighborhoods. Therefore, she stated that the process will be a learning experience which will prepare City staff in order to move on to the next targeted neighborhood. The City Manager explained that once the consultant is hired, a community meeting will be held at which various City departments will be represented, as well as neighborhood representatives, the Housing Authority, Blue Ridge Housing, various lending institutions and others. She explained that City staff needs to learn from this experience so that it will not be necessary to hire a consultant for future projects. Mr. Harris inquired as to whether action on the matter could be deferred until the Council meeting on Monday, April 1, 2002, to provide time to address certain issues raised by Vice-Mayor Carder. The City Manager responded that the matter could be delayed; however, there is a concern on the part of certain organizations that the master plan is needed before they or other organizations can spend next year's allocation of Community Development Block Grant funds. In view of the fact that certain members of Council have expressed concerns, she requested that Council approve the amendment to the Consolidated Plan Annual Update; however, execution of the consultants' contract will be delayed until staff has met with those Members of Council who have expressed concerns. Following discussion, it was the consensus of Council to act on the request of the City Manager to amend the 2001-02 Consolidated Plan Annual Update, with the understanding that the City Manager will meet with those Members of Council who have expressed concerns prior to execution of the contract with the consultant. Resolution No. 35775-031802 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris and Mayor Smith 6. NAYS: None (Council Member White was absent.) 3O BUDGET-LEASES-EQUIPMENT: The City Manager and the Director of Finance submitted a joint communication advising that the City issued its first capital lease for the purchase of equipment in fiscal year 2001, which totaled $2,503,000.00, and funded vehicular equipment, equipment for the new Police Building, and personal computers; a September 4, 2001, City Council report on the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP) recommended replacing various items of vehicular equipment, a portion of which was recommended to again be lease financed; and City Council appropriated $510,523.00 at the January 22, 2002, City Council meeting for equipment purchases in anticipation of execution of an equipment lease financing agreement. It was further advised that an Invitation for Bids for lease financing of $1,157,500.00 vehicular equipment was publicly advertised and sent to over 20 banks and leasing agencies on February 8, 2002, and nine responses were received; Koch Financial Corporation submitted the most responsive bid, proposing an interest rate of 3.74% for a five year period; annual lease payment will be $253,883.00 for each of the next five fiscal years; and pending City Council's approval, funding for lease purchase payments will be included in the annually adopted budget of the Fleet Management Fund. The City Manager and the Director of Finance recommended that Council adopt a resolution authorizing execution of the Lease Purchase Agreement with Koch Financial Corporation, and also authorizing execution of any other required documents related to the Lease Purchase Agreement; and adoption of a budget ordinance appropriating lease financing proceeds of $1,157,500.00 to an account in the Fleet Management Fund. Mr. Carder offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35776-031802) 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. 65, page 469.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35776-031802. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris, and Mayor Smith 6. NAYS: None (Council Member White was absent.) Mr. Carder offered the following resolution: (#35777-031802) A RESOLUTION of the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, accepting the bid of Koch Financial Corporation and awarding and approving the form and the terms, conditions and provisions of an equipment lease purchase agreement relating to the acquisition of vehicular equipment by the City, by and between Koch Financial Corporation, as lessor, and the City, as lessee, and authorizing the execution and delivery thereof; approving the form and the terms, conditions and provisions of an escrow agreement, by and among the City, Koch Financial Corporation and SunTrust Bank, as escrow agent, and authorizing the execution and delivery thereof; authorizing the members of the Council and the officials and employees of such City to take further action to carry out this resolution and the transactions contemplated hereby and by the aforementioned equipment lease purchase agreement and escrow agreement; making certain findings and determinations; and rejecting all other bids. (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 65, page 470.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Resolution No. 35777-031802. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris, and Mayor Smith $. NAYS: None ~ 0. (Council Member White was absent.) Council Member Hudson requested information with regard to cost savings as a result of the lease purchase arrangement. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE-BUDGET-CITY GOVERNMENT-CITY INFORMATION SYSTEM: The Director of Finance submitted a written report advising that the City of Roanoke's Department of Technology Fund accounts for technology planning and support services provided to departments; and the Department of Technology Fund recovers its costs by charging the receiving departments for services provided. It was further advised that at the beginning of fiscal year 2002, the methodology for calculating Department of Technology charges to user departments was revised to more accurately allocate costs; an update in billing methodology was necessary due to substantial changes and advances in technology used by the City organization; a proposed budget ordinance will make appropriations transfers among departments to reallocate funds for Department of Technology charges for the fiscal year; the modified billing method resulted in lower than budgeted charges to the General Fund, while charges are larger than budgeted amounts in other funds; thus, funding of $88,000.00 will be transferred from the General Fund to the Civic Center Fund to cover Department of Technology charges in excess of current budgeted amounts; the General Fund will supplement excess DOT charges to the Civic Center Fund in fiscal year 2002 since revenues were not budgeted to cover these charges; furthermore, the General Fund has budgeted more than it will ultimately need in fiscal year 2002 for DOT charges, allowing the flexibility to provide for said charges in other funds; and in subsequent years, expense budgets for technology costs in the Civic Center Fund will be increased to acknowledge actual technology costs of operations. The Director of Finance recommended that Council adopt the above referenced budget ordinance: Mr. Carder offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35778-031802) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 General, Civic Center and Department of Technology Funds Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 65, page 473.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35778-031802. The motion as seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris and Mayor Smith 6. NAYS: None. 0. (Council Member White was absent.) REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board requesting that Council appropriate $189,291.00 for the Urgent School Renovation and Technology Grant to be used for infrastructure modifications and equipment to meet requirements for funding, which include upgrades and modifications in support of networking, intercom and cable systems at various schools, said new program will be funded with Federal funds, was before the body. A report of the Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in the request of the School Board, was also before the body. 33 Mr. Carder offered the following emergency budget ordinance: (#35779-031802) 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. 65, page 479.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35779-031802. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hudson and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris and Mayor Smith 6. NAYS: None--~ (Council Member White was absent.) None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: BUDGET: Vice-Mayor Carder referred to a communication from the City Manager in connection with the impact on the City's budget as a result of State budget reductions for fiscal year 2003. He called attention to a decrease of $174,000.00, which is basically cuffing Blue Ridge Behavioral Health Care by 26 per cent for all types of mental health services in the City of Roanoke; and the State has cut the equivalent of one Assistant Commonwealth Attorney, ten full time Deputy Sheriffs, one Deputy Tax Clerk, and one Treasurer Clerk in the category of shared expenses. In terms of other categorical aid, he stated that there is a reduction of $751,000.00, or the equivalent of the elimination of seven full time Police Officers, five full time Deputy Sheriffs, and seven full time positions with Youth Services, the Crisis Intervention Center, and Youth Haven. In summary, he advised that basically, the State has cut the equivalent of 40 jobs in the City of Roanoke. To address the matter, he stated that at some time in the future, it is hoped that the Governor and the General Assembly will review tax restructuring. FIRE DEPARTMENT: Council Member Wyatt expressed concern with regard to a fungus-like material that is growing in the air vents in the kitchen area at Fire Station #10, 5202 Aviation Drive, N. W. 34 BUSES-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER: Mr. Hudson inquired if a small bus could be used for the employee shuffle from the Roanoke Civic Center to downtown Roanoke; whereupon, the City Manager advised that two buses were purchased as a part of a pilot project through a special Federal grant. She explained that the General Manager of Valley Metro was charged with the responsibility of identifying the type of buses to be used, with the goal of using the buses for other purposes in the future. The Mayor requested a work session on the public transit system. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: WATER RESOURCES: The City Manager advised of a slight increase in the water level at the Carvins Cove Reservoir as a result of rainfall over the weekend. She presented copy of the following publications that are available to Roanoke's citizens; i.e.: Every Drop Counts, A Citizens Guide To Mandatory Water Conservation, and The Roanoke Citizen Magazine. PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that an existing surface parking lot located between 117 and 123 Salem Avenue S. W., consists of approximately 95 parking spaces situated on ten separate parcels of land; three of the parcels, identified as Official Tax Nos. 1010409, 1010410 and 1010411, contain approximately 35 parking spaces; the owner of the three parcels, Virginia Vaughn, represented by First National Managed Properties, has offered the City first option to purchase the property for the appraised value of $205,000.00; last year, the City purchased two warehouses located at 117- 119 Norfolk Avenue and intends to market the structures as technology space for small businesses; and in order to make this area a desirable location, technology companies have stressed the importance of providing parking adjacent to the property. It was further advised that funding, in the amount of $205,000.00, for purchase of the parcels of land is available in the Transportation Fund retained earnings; whereupon, the City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute the appropriate documents, in a form to be approved bythe City Attorney, to purchase said property from Virginia Vaughn, represented by First Union Managed Properties, in the amount of $205,000.00, subject to an acceptable title search, and appropriation of $205,000.00 from retained earnings of the Transportation Fund to an account to be established by the Director of Finance. Mr. Carder offered the following ordinance: (~35780-031802) AN ORDINANCE providing for the acquisition of property located between 117 and 123 Salem Avenue, S. W., and identified by Roanoke City Tax Map Nos. 1010409, 1010410, and 1010411, from Virginia Vaughn, authorizing the proper City officials to execute and attest any necessary documents for this acquisition; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 65, page 480.) Mr. Carder moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35780-031802. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris and Mayor Smith 6. NAYS: NONE 0. (Council Member White was absent.) HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Mayor advised that Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard; it is also a time for informal dialogue between Council Members and citizens; and matters requiring referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for any necessary and appropriate response, recommendation or report to Council. There were no requests by citizens to speak. At 5:40 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess to be reconvened in Closed Session in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. At 6:55 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess to be reconvened at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber. At 7:00 p.m., on Monday, March 18, 2002, the regular meeting of City Council reconvened in the Roanoke City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with the following Council Members in attendance, Mayor Smith presiding. PRESENT: Council Members William D. Bestpitch, Linda F. Wyatt, William H. Carder, W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., C. Nelson Harris and Mayor Ralph K. Smith .............. -6. ABSENT: Council MemberWilliam White, Sr. OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. The reconvened meeting was opened with a prayer by Mayor Smith. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Smith. PUBLIC HEARINGS: PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY PROPERTY: Pursuant to instructions of Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, March 18, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the City Council Chamber, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, to consider the sale and conveyance of City-owned property located on Nelms Lane, N. E., identified as Official Tax No. 7400500, to James E. and Betty W. Whittaker for $500.00, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Sunday, March 10, 2002 and The Roanoke Tribune on Thursday, March 14, 2002. The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City currently owns property located on Nelms Lane N. E., identified as Official Tax No. 7400500; an adjacent property owner has contacted the City regarding the purchase of said property by correspondence dated February 11,2002, for $500.00, which is the current assessed value of the property; it has been determined that there is no real benefit in City ownership of the property; the property contained a well that has since been capped and is no longer in use; and there is no access to the property since it is contained on all sides by property owned by others. Following a public hearing on disposition of surplus property, the City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute the appropriate documents to convey the property to James E. and Betty W. Whittaker for the consideration of $500.00, such documents to be in a form approved by the City Attorney. Mr. Bestpitch offered the following ordinance: 37 (#35781-031802) 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 Nelms Lane, N. E., and being identified as Official Tax No. 7400500, to James E. and BettyW. Whittaker, upon certain terms and conditions, and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 65, page 481.) Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 35781-031801. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carder. The Mayor inquired if there are persons present who would like to address Council in connection with the matter. There being none, Ordinance No. 35781-031802 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris and Mayor Smith 6. NAYS: None 0. (Council Member White was absent.) HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Mayor advised that Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard; it is also a time for informal dialogue between Council Members and citizens; and matters requiring referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for any necessary and appropriate response, recommendation or report to Council. There were no requests by citizens to speak. At 7:15 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for continuation of the Closed Sessions which were previously approved by Council. At 7:45 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with all members of the Council in attendance, except Council Member White, 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. Carder and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Wyatt, Carder, Hudson, Harris and Mayor Smith 5. NAYS: None 0. (Council Member White was absent.) There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. APPROVED ATTEST: Mary F. Parker City Clerk Ralph K. Smith Mayor 39 RALPH K. SMITH Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 CHURCH AVENUE, S.W., ROOM 452 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1594 TELEPHONE: (540) 853-2444 FAX: (540) 853-1145 April 15, 2002 The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: I would like to request a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.2'3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Mayor RKS:sm N:\CKSMI~AGENDA.02\CLOSED SESSION ON VACANCIES.DOC Office of the City Manager April 15, 2002 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council: Subject: Request for a Closed Meeting This is to request that City Council convene a closed meeting to discuss the disposition of publicly-owned property, where discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 .A.3, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Sincerely, Darlene L. Burcham City Manager DLB:ca C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Room 364 Municipal South 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 11540) 853-2333 FAX (540) 853-1138 CityWeb:www. ci.roanoke.va.us 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 April 22, 2002 File #5-15-110-530 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant Deputy City Clerk Thomas A. Wood, Secretary Towing Advisory Board Woods Towing and RecoverY/Tanglewood Towing 418 Washington Avenue Vinton, Virginia 24179' Dear Mr. Wood: This is to advise you that William F. Clark has qualified as a member of the Towing Advisory Board for a term ending June 30, 2004. Sincerely, Mary F. Par~er, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh pc: Stephanie M. Moon, Deputy City Clerk Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, William F. Clark, 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 Towing Advisory Board for a term ending June 30, 2004, according to the best of my ability. Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~:~ day of ~. ~002. ARTHUR B~iRUSH, III, CLERK ,DEPUTYCLERK MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 2401 ! - 1536 lelephone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: (540) 853-1145 E-mail: clerk@ci.manoke.va.us April 22, 2002 File #60-253 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant Deputy City Clerk John R. Hubbard, Chief Executive Officer Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 1020 Hollins Road, N. E. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Dear Mr. Hubbard: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 35801-041502 approving the annual budget of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority for Fiscal Year 2002-03, in the amount of $8,269,925.00. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure pc: Mary H. Allen, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County, P. O. Box 29800, Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Carolyn S. Ross, Clerk, Town of vinton, 311 South Pollard Street, Vinton, Virginia 24179 Bittle W. Porterfield, III, Chairman, Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, 1020 Hollins Road, N. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Robert K. Bengtson, Director, Public Works H:LAgenda.02~April 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35801-041502. A RESOLUTION approving the annual budget of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority for Fiscal Year 2002-2003, upon certain terms and conditions. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the annual budget for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority for Fiscal Year 2002-2003, in the amount of $8,269,925 is hereby approved, all as more particularly set forth in a letter to the City Manager, dated March 27, 2002, from Bittle W. Porterfield, III, Chairman, of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. ATTEST: City Clerk. Office of the City Manager April 15, 2002 The Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor and Members of Council: I would like to sponsor a request from the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority to submit its 2002/2003 Annual Budget for City Council's approval at the regular meeting of City Council on Monday, April 15, 2002. Sincerely, DLB:ca City Manager 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 ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY March 27, 2002 Ms. Mary Parker, CMC City Clerk, City of Roanoke Municipal Building Room 456 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24011-1536 Dear Ms. Parker: In accordance with the Member Use Agreement, the Resource Authority is submitting its 2002-2003 Annual Budget to the City Council for approval. Enclosed are copies of the 2002-2003 Budget for each member of the City Council. A copy of the budget, along with the attached letter, have been sent to Ms. Burch o~a, requesting that she initiate action for approval of the budget by the City Council. vo know. Your help with this matter is appreciated. If you have any questions or if you need additional copies of the budget, please l~-ne Sincerely, John R. Hubbard, P.E. Chief Executive Officer cc: Bob Bengtson -r1 1020 Hollins Road Roanoke, Virginia 24012 (540) 857-5050 Fax (540) 857-5056 Web Site: www.rvra.net Office of the City Manager April 15, 2002 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor, and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council: Subject: Briefing on Fiscal Year 2003 Recommended Budget This is to request space on Council's agenda for a briefing on the above referenced subject. Respectfully submitted, / Darlene L. Burcl'~qd City Manager DLB:afs C: William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Room 364 MunicipalSouth 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 (540) 853-2333 FAX (540) 853-1138 CityWeb:www. ci.roanoke.va.us 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 April 22, 2002 File #301-396 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant Deputy City Clerk Craig A. Zivolich, Vice President American Technical Services, Inc. 180 Alternate 19 North, Suite A Palm Harbor, Florida 35683. Michael J. Borsuck, Sales Representative Computer Sciences Corporation 38705 Seven Mile Road Livonia, Michigan 48152 Stu Frank, Senior Vice-President Marsh USA, Inc. 3475 Piedmont Road Atlanta, Georgia 30305 Gentlemen: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 35802-041502 rejecting all proposals for the purchase of a new Risk Management Information System for the City of Roanoke and designating the procurement method known as competitive negotiation, rather than the procurement method known as competitive sealed bidding, to be used in procuring the Risk Management Information System. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. On behalf of the City of Roanoke, thank you for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed project. Sincerely, City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure N:\CKMH I XAgenda.02XApril 15, 2002 corespondence.wpd Craig A. Zivolich Michael J. Borsuck Stu Frank April 22, 2002 Page 2 pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance George C. Snead, Jr., Acting Director, General Services Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing Barry L. Key, Director, Management and Budget Joe D. Slone, Director, Department of Technology Glenn A. Asher, Office of Risk Management H:~Agenda.02XApril 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35802-041502. A RESOLUTION rejecting all proposals for the purchase of a new Risk Management Information System for the City of Roanoke and designating the procurement method known as competitive negotiation, rather than the procurement method known as competitive sealed bidding, to be used in procuring the Risk Management Information System. WHEREAS, the City desires to reject all proposals previously submitted and to procure a new Risk Management Information System by a method known as competitive negotiation rather than competitive sealed biddi.ng. WHEREAS, this Council finds that the use of the procurement method of competitive negotiation for the above mentioned system will allow for consideration of · the factors of experience, qualifications and references, which are of equal, if not greater, importance as the cost. WHEREAS, City Council is of the opinion that such system should be procured by competitive negotiation rather than competitive sealed bidding. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Because all proposals received exceeded, in cost, the available funds and had more components than were necessary, any and all proposals made to the City for the aforesaid procurement are hereby RF_JECTED, and the City Clerk is directed to notify each such offeror and to express to each the City's appreciation for such proposal. 2. Pursuant to Section 23.1-4(e), Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, this Council finds that the procurement method known as competitive sealed bidding in not practicable and/or is not fiscally advantageous to the public for the reasons set forth above for the procurement of a new Risk Management Information System. 3. City Council directs that the procurement method known as competitive negotiation shall be used to procure the City's new Risk Management Information System, as more fully set forth in'the City Manager's letter to this Council dated April 15, 2002. 4. This Resolution documents the basis for City Council's determination. ATTEST: City Clerk. Office of the City Manager April 15, 2002 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council: Subject: Reject Bids on Risk Management Information System; RFP No.01-10-51 Background: The need for the procurement of a new Risk Management Information System was identified by the City's Department of Technology. Bids were requested after due and proper advertisement. Three (3) bids were received and evaluated. Considerations: All bids which were received were for systems which cost much more than available funding. In addition, all systems included components and modules which were in addition to those required to fulfill the City's needs. Thus, bids that were received should be rejected. Although the sealed bid method of procurement would normally be used, it is not practicable or fiscally advantageous to the public in this case. The Code of the City of Roanoke provides, as an alternate method of procurement to using the bid process, a process identified as A competitive negotiation. Prior approval by Council is necessary before the alternate method may be used. See City Code Section 23.1-4 (e). This method will allow for competitive negotiations with two (2) or more providers to determine the best qualified at the most competitive price. The experience, qualifications and references of firms that can provide this system are of equal, if not greater, importance as the cost. 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 April 15, 2002 Page 2 Recommended Action: Reject all bids and authorize the use of competitive negotiation to secure vendors to provide the City's new Risk Management Information System. Respectfully submitted, City Manager DLB:vls C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse Hall, Director of Finance Barry L. Key, Director of OMB Joe D. Slone, Director of DoT Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing #CM02-00065 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk April 22, 2002 File #27-57-60 Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35804-041502 authorizing the City Manager's issuance of Change Order No. 3, in the amount of $37,500.00, to the City's contract with H. & S. Construction Company for construction of storm drain improvements at Guildhall Avenue and Cove Road in relation to the New Concrete Sidewalks, Entrances and Curb - Phase V-A Project. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: William D. Gee, President, H. & S. Construction Co., P. O. Box 6226, Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer George C. Snead, Jr., Acting Director, General Services Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing Barry L. Key, Director, Management and Budget HSAgenda.02~April 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF TI-[E CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGI~A, The 15th day of Apr±l, 2002. No. 35804-041502. AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager's issuance of Change Order No. 3 to the City's contract with H. & S. Construction Company for the construction of storm drain improvements at Guildhall Avenue and Cove Road in relation to the New Concrete Sidewalks, Entrances and Curb - Phase V-A Project; and providing for an emergency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager is authorized to execute for and on behalf of the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney, Change Order No. 3 to the City's contract with H. & S. Construction Company for the construction of storm drain improvements at Guildhall Avenue and Cove Road in relation to the New Concrete Sidewalks, Entrances and Curb - Phase V-A Project, all as more fully set forth in the letter to this Council dated April 15, 2002. 2. This Change Order will provide authorization for additions in the work with an increase in the amount of $37,500.00 to the contract, all as set forth in the above letter. 3. In order to provide for the usual daily 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. H:~Vl~asur~H&8 co 3 curb~ ~id~w~lks. do~ CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk April 22, 2002 File #27-57-60 Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk Jesse A. Hall Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Hall: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35803-041502 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2001-02 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, providing for transfer of $37,500.00, in connection with execution of Change Order No. 3 to the contract with H. & S. Construction Co., for construction of storm drain improvements at Guildhall Avenue and Cove Road, N. W. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which Was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. Sincerely, M~a~. rker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer George C. Snead, Jr., Acting Director, General Services Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing Barry L. Key, Director, Management and Budget N:\CKMHl~Agenda.02XApril 15, 2002 corespondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35803-041502. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 2001-2002 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Appropriations Streets and Bridges New Concrete Sidewalks, Entrances, and Curb Phase V-A (1) ...... Storm Drains Miscellaneous Storm Drains Part 2 (2) ......................... 1) Appropriated from General Revenue 2) Appropriated from General Revenue (008-052-9608-9003) (008-530-9734-9003) 37,500 (37,500) $ 25,400,804 875,868 $ 2,652,131 184,812 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 April 15, 2002 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council: Subject: Change Order No. 3 New Concrete Sidewalks, and Curb - Phase V-A Entrances H. & S. Construction Company, 2011 Salem Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016, was awarded a contract in the amount of $644,350 on a unit price basis at the June 19, 2000 meeting of City Council to provide new sidewalk and curbs on various streets to be designated within the City. At the May 21, 2001 meeting of City Council, Change Order No. I was added to this contract to complete the curb and sidewalk on Cove Road from Abbott Street to Hershberger Road. Within this area, there has been a long-standing drainage problem at the intersection of Cove Road and Guildhall Avenue. This intersection and the adjacent home of Ms. Board at 1541 Guildhall Avenue have frequently flooded for many_ years. Concurrent with the curb and sidewalk construction, there is a window of opportunity to install the necessary storm drain to solve this flooding problem. Funding is available in Capital Projects Fund account number 008-530-9734-9003, Miscellaneous Storm Drains Part 2. Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 3 in the amount of $37,500 and 30 additional days of contract time with H. & S. Construction Company for the construction of storm drain improvements at Guildhall Avenue and Cove Road. Transfer $37,500 to account number 008-052-9608, New Concrete Sidewalks, Entrances and Curb - Phase V-A. DLB/JGPJbls Respectfully submitted, Darlene L. BurL<ham City Manager C: Ma.ry F. Parker, City Clerk Wilham M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse ^. Hall, Director of Finance Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer #CM02-00059' 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 April 22, 2002 File #237 Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35805-041502 authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 8, in the amount of $33,990.00, to the City's contract with T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers & Surveyors, LTD., for surveying and mapping services in connection with the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project; and authorizing an extension of the contract through December 31,2002. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. Sincerely, ~ala~F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: John T. Parker, Sr., President, T. P. Parker and Son, Engineers and Surveyors, LTD., 816 Boulevard, Salem, Virginia 24153 Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer George C. Snead, Jr., Acting Director, General Services Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing N:\CKMHl~Agenda.02V~.pril 15, 2002 corespondence.wpd 1N THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35805-041502. AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 8 to the City's contract with T.P. Parker & Son, Engineers & Surveyors, LTD., for surveying and mapping services in connection with the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project; authorizing an extension of tlie contract through December 31, 2002; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager is authorized to execute for and on behalf of the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney, Change Order No. 8 to the City's contract with T.P. parker & Son, Engineers & Surveyors, LTD., in the amount of $33,990.00 for setting additional monuments along the project fight-of-way, preparation of subordination plats, boundary survey plats, revisions to plats previously prepared, title report reconciliation, revisions to base map and key map, preparation of legal descriptions and coordination and review of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers construction plans to confirm acquisition line and monumentafion conforms to land acquisition plats in connection with the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project, and authorizing an extension of the contract through December 31, 2002, all as more fully set forth in the City Manager's letter to this Council dated April 15, 2002. 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. Office of the City Manager April 15, 2002 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council: Subject: Change Order No. 8 Roanoke River Flood Reduction Surveying Contract T.P. Parker & Son, Engineers & Surveyors, LTD., 816 Boulevard, Salem, Virginia 24153, was awarded a contract in 1988 to provide surveying services for the acquisition of right-of-way for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project. Over the course of this contract, design changes by the USACE, modifications requested by property owners, additional subdivision and subordination plats, field stakeouts for utility relocations, and other items, have required significant additional surveying services. Previous change orders, 1 through 7, have been approved increasing the current contract amount to $454,452.41. Change Order No. 8 will provide all surveying and mapping services needed to complete the first phase of this project. This change order ~ncludes setting additional monuments along the project right-of-way, preparation of subordination plats, boundary survey plats, revisions to plats previously prepared, title report reconciliation, revisions to base map and key map, preparation of regal descriptions and coordination and review of USACE construction plans to confirm acquisition line and monumentation conforms to land acquisition plats. Funding is available in Capital Projects Fund account number 008-056-9620, Roanoke River Flood Reduction. Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 8 in the amount of $33,990 and an extension of contract time through December 31, 2002 with T.P. Parker & Son, Engineers & Surveyors, LTD. for surveying and mapping services on the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project. DLBIJGRIbls c: Ma.ry F. Parker, City Clerk Wilham M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer Res~,ectfully sub .~ed, Darlene L. Bur~J:~am City Manager #CM02-00060 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 April 17, 2002 File #60-102 Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35800-041502 determining that Appalachian Power Company, d/b/a American Electric Power (AEP), is the only source practicably available to provide for the relocation of AEP's existing 69KV overhead electrical transmission line located in the area between Jefferson Street and Walnut Street across the Roanoke River from Phase lA of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: Carl A. Persing, P. E., Manager, Transmission Line Projects, American Electric Power, P. O. 2021, Roanoke, Virginia 24022 Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer George C. Snead, Jr., Acting Director, General Services Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing H:XAgenda.02~April 15, 2002 corespondence (rough).wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35800-041502. AN ORDINANCE determining that Appalachian Power Company, d/b/a American Electric Power (AEP), is the only source practicably available to provide for the relocation of AEP's existing 69KV overhead electrical transmission line located in the area between Jefferson Street and Walnut Street across the Roanoke River from Phase lA of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area; authorizing and awarding a Contract for such work, upon certain terms and conditions; authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite Contract for such work; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. WHEREAS, AEP has an existing easement and a 69KV overhead electrical transmission line located on City property in the above area which needs to be relocated in connection with the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project and also for purposes of establishing a greenway trail in the area; and WHEREAS, AEP requires that it do its own design, bidding, and construction administration for all lines within the AEP system, including the relocation of this particular transmission line, because of AEP's expertise in this area, thereby making AEP the only source practicably available to provide for such relocation of the transmission line, which will include the relocating of one transmission tower in Wasena Park. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. For the reasons set forth above and in the City Manager's letter to this Council dated April 15, 2002, it is hereby determined by this Council that AEP is the only source practicably available to provide for the relocation of the transmission line and transmission tower mentioned above. 2. Council hereby authorizes and awards a Contract to Appalachian Power Company, d/b/a American Electric Power (AEP) in an amount not to exceed $2,060,384.00 for the relocation of AEP's 69KV overhead transmission line lOcated in an area between Jefferson Street and Walnut Street across the Roanoke River from Phase 1A of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area. 3. The City Manager' and the City Clerk are hereby authorized, on behalf of the City, to execute and attest, respectively, the requisite Contract with AEP, the Contract in a form approved by the City Attorney, and the cost of the work to be paid for out of funds heretofore or simultaneously appropriated by Council. 4. In compliance with the Procurement Regulations governing sole source procurement, the City's Purchasing Manager is hereby directed this day to post a certified copy of this ordinance in the City's public area for posting such notices. 5. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: City Clerk. Office of the City Manager April 15, 2002 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council: Subject: Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project Contract for the Relocation of an AEP Transmission Line The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project contains channel widening and a greenway trail between Jefferson Street and Walnut Street. This area is located directly across the Roanoke River from Phase lA of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area. In this area, located on City property, Appalachian Power Company, d/b/a American Electric Power (AEP), has an easement and an existing 69KV overhead electrical transmission line located in the path of the project. This line also has Iow-hanging wires that do not allow adequate clearance for the designed greenway trail. The preferred option for relocating this line is to place it underground between South Roanoke Park and the Walnut Street Substation. Since AEP requires that it do its own design, bidding and construction administration for all lines within their system, it is a sole source for this work. AEP has agreed to a contract for this relocation in an amount not to exceed $2,060,384. This work is to be completed by February 1, 2003. This amount also includes relocating one transmission tower in Wasena Park. Completion of this work is critical to the construction schedule for the flood reduction project. No easements are needed from third parties as the alignment crosses only City owned properties and right-of-way. Funding is available in Capital Projects Fund account number 008-056-9620, Roanoke River Flood Reduction. Recommended Action: Council determine that AEP is the only source practicably available to provide for the relocation of the transmission line as set forth above. 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 April 15, 2002 Page 2 Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Appalachian Power Company, d/b/a American Electric Power (AEP), in an amount not to exceed $2,060,384 for the relocation of a transmission line as set forth above and as required for the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project, with such work to be completed by February 1, 2003. Respectfully submitted, Darlene L. Bdr-cham City Manager DLB/JGR/bls C; Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer #CM02-00061 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 April 22, 2002 File #60-301-472 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant Deputy City Clerk Sheldon C. Nichols, President Sheldon C. Nichols Construction Corporation P. O. Box 818 Collinsville, Virginia 24078 Dear Mr. Nichols: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 35807-041502 accepting the bid of Sheldon C. Nichols Construction Corporation for a new emergency generator for the Department of Technology, including a new uninterruptible power system, automatic transfer switch, and re-working the present battery back-up, in the amount of $97,000.00; and rejecting all other bids received by the City. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. Sincerely, City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer George C. Snead, Jr., Acting Director, General Services Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing N:\CKMH 1L&genda. O2LApril 15, 2002 corespondence.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 April 22, 2002 File #60-301-472 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant Deputy City Clerk Elcomm Southern Air, Inc. Roanoke Electric Works, Inc. Pioneer Electrical Contractors, Inc. Elliot Electric Co., Inc. Bryant Electric Co., Inc. Ladies and Gentlemen: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 35807-041502 accepting the bid of Sheldon C. Nichols Construction Corporation for a new emergency generator for the Department of Technology, including a new uninterruptible power system, automatic transfer switch, and re-working the present battery back-up, in the amount of $97,000.00; and rejecting all other bids received by the City. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. On behalf of the City of Roanoke, thank you for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed project. Sincerely, City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure N:\CKMHl~Agenda.02XApril 15, 2002 corespondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35807-041502. AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of Sheldon C. Nichols Construction Corporation for the new emergency generator for the Department of Technology, including a new uninterruptible power system, automatic transfer switch, and re-working the present battery back-up, awarding a contract therefor, upon certain terms and conditions; authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite contract for such work; rejecting all other bids made to the City for the work; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The bid of Sheldon C. Nichols Construction Corporation in the amount of $97,000.00 for the new emergency generator for the Department of Technology, including a new uninterruptible power system, automatic transfer switch, and re-working the present battery back-up, as is more particularly set forth in the City Manager's letter dated April 15, 2002, to this Council, such bid being in full compliance with the City's plans and specifications made therefor and as provided in the contract documents offered the bidder, which bid is on file in the Purchasing Division, 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. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: City Clerk. CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk April 22, 2002 File #60-301-472 Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk Jesse A. Hall Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Hall: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35806-041502 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2001-02 Department of Technology Fund Appropriations, transferring $105,000.00 in connection with acceptance of the bid of Sheldon C. Nichols Construction Corp., for a new emergency generator for the Department of Technology, including a new uninterruptible power system, automatic transfer switch, and re-working the present battery back-up. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager George C. Snead, Jr., Acting Director, General Services Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer Barry L. Key, Director, Management and Budget N:\CKMH I XAgenda.02~April 15, 2002 corespondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35806-041502. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 Department of Technology 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 'Department of Technology Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Appropriations Capital Outlay $ 11,490,814 Wide Area Network Expansion (1) ............................ (105,000) Emergency Generator for Department of Technology (2) .......... 105,000 1 ) Other Equipment (013-052-9811-9015) $ (105,000) 2)'Other Equipment (013-430-9851-9015) 105,000 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 April 15, 2002 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council: Subject: Contract Award Emergency Generator for Department of Technology Municipal North Building Bid No. 01-12-04 This project is to provide an emergency generator, new uninterruptible power system, automatic transfer switch and re-work the present battery back-up for the Department of Technology. The battery back-up provides from 20 to 30 minutes in which to shut down the City's computer system without losing any data. The storage of data has grown such that it requires more than 30 minutes to shut down the computer, which could result in the loss of valuable data. The generator will eliminate the need to shut down the computer. After proper advertisement, seven bids were received on Thursday, March 7, 2002, with Sheldon C. Nichols Construction Corporation, 150 Trade Street, Collinsville, Virginia 24078, submitting the Iow bid in the amount of $97,000. (See attached bid tabulation.) The construction time was specified as 90 consecutive calendar days. Funding in the amount of $105,000 is needed for the project. The additional funds that exceed the contract amount will be used for miscellaneous project expenses including advertising, printing, test services, minor variations in bid quantities, unforeseen project expenses. Funding is available in account number 013-052-9811-9015, Wide Area Network Expansion. Recommended Action: Accept the above bid and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for the above work with Sheldon C. Nichols Construction Corporation in the amount of $97,000 with 90 consecutive calendar days of contract time, and reject all other bids. Room 364 Municipal South 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 (540) 853-2333 FAX (540) 853-1138 CityWeb:www. ci.roanoke.va,us Honorable Mayor and Members of Council April 15, 2002 Page 2 Transfer $105,000 from account number 013-052-9811-9015 to a new capital account entitled "Emergency Generator for Department of Technology". Respectfully submitted, City Manager DLB/LBC/bls Attachment C; Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City ^ttorney Jesse ^. Hall, Director of Finance Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer Robert L. White, Purchasing Manager #CM02-00064 TABULATION OF BIDS EMERGENCY GENERATOR FOR DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY MUNICIPAL NORTH BUILDING BID NO. 0'1-12-04 Bids were opened by Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing Division, on Thursday, March 7, 2002, at 2:00 p.m. BIDDER AMOUNT Sheldon C. Nichols Construction Corporation $ 97,000 Elcomm $105,000 Southern Air, Incorporated $106,689 Roanoke Electric Works $109,075 Pioneer Electrical Contractors, Inc. $110,750 Elliott Electric $118,715 Bryant Electric $127,000 Office of the City Engineer Roanoke, Virginia April 15, 2002 MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: (540) 853-1145 E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us April 22, 2002 File #144-472 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant Deputy City Clerk Wayne E. Williams, Customer Account Manager Magic City Ford Corp. 809 Williamson Road, N. E. Roanoke, Virginia 240.16 Robert A. Bankert, Vice President Mid-State Equipment Co. P. O. Box 249 Buchanan, Virginia 24066 Gentlemen: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 35808-041502 accepting the bid of Magic City Motor Corp., for the purchase of two new refuse cab/chassis, in the amount of $82,140.00; and the bid of Mid-State Equipment Co., Inc., for the purchase of two new refuse rear loading bodies, in the amount of $54,550.00; and rejecting all other bids received by the City. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. Sincerely, Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance George C. Snead, Jr., Acting Director, General Services Robert K. Bengtson, Director, Public Works Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing N:\CKMHl',Agenda.02~,pnl 15, 2002 corespondence.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 April 22, 2002 File #144-472 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant Deputy City Clerk Highway Motors, Inc. Virginia Truck Center, Inc. Good Pasture Motor Co. Mid-Atlantic Waste Systems Truck Parts of Tampa Lodal-South, Inc. Ladies and Gentlemen: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 35808-041502 accepting the bid of Magic City Motor Corp., for the purchase of two new refuse cab/chassis, in the amount of $82,140.00; and the bid of Mid-State Equipment Co., Inc., for the purchase of two new refuse rear loading bodies, in the amount of $54,550.00; and rejecting all other bids received by the City. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. On behalf of the City of Roanoke, thank you for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed equipment. Sincerely, City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure N:\CKMHl~Agenda.02~Apnl 15, 2002 corespondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35808-041502. A RESOLUTION accepting the bid of Magic City Motor Corporation, for the purchase of two new refuse cab/chassis and the bid of Mid-State Equipment Company, Inc. for the purchase of two new refuse rear loading bodies, upon certain terms and conditions; and rejecting all other bids made for such items. .. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The bid submitted by Magic City Motor Corporation, to furnish two new refuse cab/chassis at a total cost of $82,140.00, and the bid of Mid-State Equipment Company, Inc., to furnish two new refuse rear loading bodies at a total cost of $54,550.00, as set forth in the City Manager's letter to Council dated April 15, 2002, are hereby ACCEPTED. 2. The City's Manager of Supply Management is hereby authorized to issue the requisite purchase orders for the purchase of such equipment, and the City Manager is authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City, any required purchase agreements with respect to the aforesaid equipment, such documents to be in form approved by the City Attorney. 3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid items 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: O-PURCHASE OF REFUSE TRKS City Clerk. Office of the City Manager April 15, 2002 Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor William H. Carder, Vice Mayor William D. Bestpitch, Council Member C. Nelson Harris, Council Member W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member William White, Sr., Council Member Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council: Subject: Purchase of Refuse Trucks Bid # 02-03-03 Background: Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP) has identified the need to replace two (2) 11 cubic yard rear loading refuse trucks for Solid Waste Management. Specifications were developed and, along with an Invitation for Bid, were sent to twenty-six (26) providers. The bid was publicly advertised in accordance with Chapter 23.1 of the Code of the City of Roanoke. Considerations: The lowest bid for two (2) cab/chassis for the refuse trucks, submitted by Magic City Motor Corporation, Roanoke, VA, which took exceptions to front mounted tow hooks, was at a price of $41,070.00 each. This exception is not substantial and can be waived as an informality. The lowest bid for two (2) 11 cubic yard rear loading refuse bodies was submitted by Mid-State Equipment Company, Inc., Buchanan, VA. This bid met all specifications at a price of $27,275.00 each. Funding is available from the Lease of Vehicle Account #017-440-9852-9015. 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 April 15, 2002 Page 2 Recommended Action: Award the bid for the two (2) cab/chassis to Magic City Motor Corporation at a total cost of $82,140.00 and the bid for two (2) 11 cubic yard bodies to Mid-State Equipment Company, Inc., at a total cost of $54,550.00 and reject all other bids. Respectfully submitted, Darlene L. Burcham City Manager DLB: bdf Attachment C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Robert K. Bengtson, Director of Public Works Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing CM02-00067 Bid Tabulation Bids were received, publicly opened and read at 2:00 p.m., March 21, 2002 For Refuse Trucks Bid Number 02-03-03 QTY DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR Mid-State Magic City Highway VA Truck Equipment Motor Corp. Motors, Inc. Center Co. Inc. 2 ea Cab/Chassis No Bid $41,070.00' $48,215.00 $44,542.01 2 ea Refuse Bodies $27,275.00* No Bid No Bid No Bid QTY DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR Good Mid Atlantic Truck Parts LodaI-South, Pasture Waste of Tampa Inc. Motor Co. Systems 2 ea Cab/Chassis $50,054.00 No Bid $52,175.00 $46,654.50 Base Bid $5O,307.75 Alternate Bid 2 ea Refuse Bodies No Bid $29,936.00 $27,625.00 $30,518.75 * Indicates Recommendation CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk April 22, 2002 File #32-209-373 Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35809-041502 authorizing use of certain City-owned property by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired, for the dining area located in the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, for a one year term beginning April 1, 2002, and ending March 31,2003, at an annual fee of $1.00. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. Sincerely, City Clerk MFPimh Attachment pc: David H. Kennedy, Manager, Business Enterprises, Virginia Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired, 397 Azalea Avenue, Richmond, Virginia 23227 Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Elizabeth A. Neu, Director of Economic Development H:XAgenda.02~April 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35809-041502. AN ORDINANCE authorizing the use of certain City-owned property by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired, upon certain terms and conditions; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, in form approved by the City Attorney, an appropriate agreement with the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired, for the dining facility located in the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., for a one-year term beginning April 1, 2002, and ending March 31, 2003, at an annual fee of $1.00, upon such terms and conditions as more particularly described in the City Manager's letter to this Council dated April 15, 2002. 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: \OIt. D [IqANC ES\O- LEAS E -SNACK.BAR- 1210C Office of the City Manager April 15, 2002 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Council Member Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member Dear Mayor and Members of City Council: Subject: Lease Agreement for Municipal South Snack Bar Background: The Municipal Building snack bar has been operated under the Virginia Department of Visually Handicapped since 1941. At that time, a request was made of City Council that a stand be placed in the Municipal Building free of charge. The request was granted, and a stand was placed in the corridor on the first floor of the Municipal Building (now known as Municipal North). When Municipal South was completed, the snack bar was moved into its present location without a written agreement. Considerations: The current operator of the snack bar is the Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired, a division of the Virginia Department of Visually Handicapped. The Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired has requested a written agreement. The terms of the agreement are as follows: · Number of Square Feet: 998.25 s.f. plus an 18.5 s.f. alcove outside the dining facility · Term of the Agreement: One (1) year, with four (4) additional one (1) year renewal options · Lease Rate: No Charge · Utilities: Provided by City · Janitorial and Maintenance: Provided by Lessee 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 April 15, 2002 Page 2 Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute a Lease Agreement with the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired, as outlined above. Respectfully submitted, Darlene L. Burcham City Manager DLB:slm C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Elizabeth A. Neu, Director of Economic Development CM02-00066 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk April 22, 2002 File #20-60-450-514 Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35812-041502 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 Advance Stores Company, Incorporated (Advance), that provides for certain undertakings by the parties in connection with a certain investment by Advance to take place at the former Crossroads Mall site, as well as other investments and the creation of job positions at that site, as well as other locations in the Roanoke Valley in return for Advance receiving grant funds from the Governor's Opportunity Fund (GOF) through the City and the IDA, all for the purpose of promoting and enhancing economic development within the City and the Roanoke Valley. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. Sincerely, F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment H:XAgenda.02La. pril 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd Darlene L. Burcham April 22, 2002 Page 2 pc: Garnett E. Smith, President, Advance Stores Company, Inc., 5673 Airport Road, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Lynn D. Avis, Chair, Industrial Development Authority, c/o City of Roanoke Economic Development Office, 111 Franklin Plaza, S. W., Suite 200, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Harwell M. Darby, Jr., Attorney, Glenn, Feldmann, Darby and Goodlatte, P. O. Box 2887, Roanoke, Virginia 24001 Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Elizabeth A. Neu, Director of Economic Development Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer H%&genda.02~April 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 15th day of Apr±l, 2002. No. 35812-041502. 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 Advance Stores Company, Incorporated (Advance) that provides for certain undertakings by the parties in connection with a certain investment by Advance to take place at the 'former Crossroads Mall site as well as other investments and the creation of job positions at that site as well as other locations in the Roanoke Valley in return for Advance receiving grant funds from the Governor's Opportunity Fund (G-OF) through the City and the IDA, all for the purpose of promoting and enhancing economic development within the City and the Roanoke Valley; and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, Advance has leased certain real property located in Crossroads Mall, which is located in the City of Roanoke, in order to expand Advance's offices located in the Roanoke area and Advance expects to expend substantial funds in tenant renovations and/or improvements at that location; and WHEREAS, the City has received notice fi.om the G-OF that the City will receive a grant of $670,000 fi.om the G-OF to be used for the Advance project subject to certain terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, the City and the IDA wish to encourage Advance to undertake and complete the project in order to enhance and promote economic development within the City and the Roanoke Valley. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. City Council hereby approves the substance of the Performance Agreement among the City, the IDA, and Advance as set forth in the attachment to the City Manager's letter to Council dated April 15, 2002, which provides for certain investments to be made by Advance and the creation and/or relocation by Advance of certain job positions to locations within the City and the Roanoke Valley, as well as certain obligations by the City concerning traffic signals on Airport Road. 2. The City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized on a behalf the City to execute and attest, respectively, a Performance Agreement among the City, the IDA, and Advance, upon certain terms and conditions as set forth in the above letter to this Council dated April 15, 2002. The Performance Agreement is to be substantially similar to the one attached to such letter and in a form approved by the City Attorney. 3. The City Manager is further authorized to take such actions and execute such documents as may be reasonably necessary to provide for the implementation and administration of such Performance Agreement. 4. By adoption of this ordinance, City Council hereby acknowledges that it has provided funds through its prior actions to improve certain public fights-of-way by providing two traffic signals on Airport Road, N.W., at its intersections with Municipal Road and Town Square Boulevard, N.W., and other work in that area that will be counted by the GOF toward the matching funds required by the GOF grant mentioned above, and as further set forth in the Performance Agreement attached to the above mentioned City Manager's letter. 4. In order to provide for the usual daily 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 H:~Measur~\Advance P~rf~.mancz Agrmmznt. do~ CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk April 22, 2002 File #20-60-450-514 Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 35811-041502 authorizing the proper City Officials to execute a Termination Agreement between the City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke terminating a Re-Executed Agreement between the City and the County dated April 13, 2000, pertaining to respective commitments in connection with the installation of traffic signals and related traffic improvements on Airport Road, 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, April 15, 2002. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: Mary H. Allen, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County, P. O. Box 29800, Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Elizabeth A. Neu, Director of Economic Development Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer H:~.genda.02~April 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 15th day of Apr±l, 2002. No. 35811-041502. A RESOLUTION authorizing the proper City Officials to execute a Termination Agreement between the City of Roanoke, Virginia (City), and the County of Roanoke, Virginia (County), terminating a Re-Executed Agreement between the City and the County dated April 13, 2000, pertaining to their respective commitments in connection with the installation of traffic signals and related traffic improvements on Airport Road, upon certain terms and conditions. WHEREAS, the City and the County entered into a Re-Executed Agreement dated April 13, 2000, (the Traffic Signals Agreement), authorized by Resolution No. 34745-040300, pertaining to their respective commitments in connection with the installation of traffic signals and related traffic improvements on Airport Road; and WHEREAS, such Traffic Signals Agreement was based upon the anticipated location of an expansion of facilities by Advance Stores Company, Incorporated (Advance) at its location in Roanoke County that would benefit both the City and the County; and WHEREAS, circumstances have changed such that Advance is no longer proceeding with its headquarters expansion in the County, but has relocated its development to the City of Roanoke; and WHEREAS, the parties have agrt~xt that it would be appropriate to terminate the above- referenced Traffic Signals Agreement and that the City will undertake such improvements in connection with a Performance Agreement that the City will be entering into between the City and Advance in order to obtain Governor's Opportunity Fund grant money to assist Advance with Advance's expansion in the City. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. City Council hereby approves the substance of the Termination Agreement dated March 15, 2002, between the City and the County as set forth in the attachment to the City Manager's letter to Council dated April 15, 2002. 2. The City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized on behalf'the City to execute and attest, respectively, a Termination Agreement dated March 15, 2002, between the City and the County, upon certain terms and conditions as s~t forth in the letter to this Council dated April 15, 2002. The Termination Agreement is to be substantially similar to the one attached to such letter and in a form approved by the City, Attorney. 3. The City Manager is further authorized to take such actions and execute such documents as may be reasonably necessary to provide for the implementation of such Termination Agreement. ATTEST: City Clerk. H:LMeasu~skAdwn~ T~mmmlio~ Agr~m~t w Coumy.~ 2 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk April 22, 2002 -File #20-60-450-514 Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk Jesse A. Hall Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Hall: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35810-041502 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2001-02 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, in connection with a Performance Agreement with Advance Stores Co., Inc., and a Traffic Signals Termination Agreement with Roanoke County. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. Sincerely, City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Elizabeth A. Neu, Director of Economic Development Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer Barry L. Key, Director, Office of Management and Budget N:\CKMHl~Agenda.02~April 15, 2002 corespondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35810-041502. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 2001-2002 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Appropriations Economic Development $ 24,929,525 Advance Stores Company GOF Performance Agreement (1) ........ 670,000 Traffic Engineering $ 5,270,380 Airport Road Traffic Signals (2) ............................... 1,181,120 Revenues Intergovernmental (3) ........................................ $ 3,320,556 Miscellaneous (4) ........................................... 78,600 1 ) Appropriated from State Grant Funds 2) Appropriated from Third Party 3) Advance Stores Company GOF Agreement 4) Roanoke County - Airport Traffic Signals (008-310-9739-9007) (008-052-9577-9004) (008-310-9739-9889) (008-008-1234-1255) 670,000 (175,000) 670,000 (175,000) 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 April 15, 2002 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 Subject: Performance Agreement with Advance Stores Company, Incorporated and Traffic Signals Termination Agreement with Roanoke County Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council: Advance Stores Company, Incorporated headquartered in Roanoke County on Airport Road previously announced an expansion to take place at its headquarters site. As a condition of this expansion Advance requested a Governor's Opportunity Fund (GOF) grant of $500,000 and certain infrastructure improvements, including two new traffic signals, to be installed on Airport Road. At that time the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County entered into a "Traffic Signals Agreement", dated April 13, 2000. However that specific expansion project did not take place and as Advance expanded its business Advance contemplated relocating facilities to another state. On November 28, 2001, Advance announced an expansion would take place with the significant portion of the new investment to take place in the City of Roanoke at the former Crossroads Mall site. Advance insists the traffic improvements are still needed on Airport Road, but Roanoke County no longer wants to participate in the Traffic Signals Agreement since the County will not benefit from the increased investment, as originally anticipated. A Termination Agreement (copy attached) is needed in order for Roanoke County to release the first $500,000 of funds from the prior GOF grant. As a condition of this expansion decision, the State of Virginia has awarded a new GOF grant of $670,000 based on the City contributing at least that amount as a match. The expansion at Crossroads Mall will allow Advance to create 168 new jobs in the city and invest $6.7 million in new equipment and renovations. These conditions have been agreed to and are delineated in the attached Performance Agreement. The City's local match in this project consists of the installation of two traffic signals on Airport Road. 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 April 15, 2002 Page 2 While the local match requirement is $690,000, the City will spend more than $1.1 million in constructing these two signals. Funding for the traffic signals is available in account 008-052-9577. Council action on January 22, 2002, awarded a contract for this work and provided the necessary funding for it. Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a Performance Agreement with Advance Stores Company, Incorporated and the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in a form substantially similar to the one attached. Furthermore, authorize the City Manager to take such actions and execute such documents as necessary to implement and administer the Performance Agreement. In addition, authorize the City Manager to enter into a Termination Agreement, in a form substantially similar to the one attached, with Roanoke County canceling the City and County's previous obligations under the "Traffic Signals Agreement". Appropriate the $670,000 received from the GOF grant and Roanoke County to an account to be established by the Director of Finance. Establish an account receivable of the same. De-appropriate the $175,000 originally expected to be paid by Roanoke County relating to the traffic signal project and reduce account receivable by that same amount. Respectfully submitted, City Manager DLB:ean C; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Beth Neu, Director of Economic Development Phil Schirmer, City Engineer #CM02-00068 PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT This Performance Agreement (Agreement) is dated this ~ day of ,200~, by and between the City of Roanoke, Virginia, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia (City), the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, an industrial development authority organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia (IDA or Authority), and Advance Stores Company, Incorporated, a Virginia Corporation (Advance). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City has determined that it will make an appropriation or donation of money to the IDA for the purposes of promoting economic development within the City and the Roanoke Valley; and WHEREAS, the IDA, based upon the application and undertakings of Advance, has determined to make a grant to Advance to promote economic development in the City and the Roanoke Valley; and WHEREAS, the City has received notice from the Governor's Oppommity Fund (GOF) through the Virginia Economic Development Parmership that the City will receive a grant of $670,000.00 from the GOF to be used for the Advance Project hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, Advance has made certain representations as to its commitment to economic development which will be made in consideration of the commitment of the IDA to make the grant to Advance; and WHEREAS, Advance has the right to lease certain real property located in Crossroads Mall which is located within the City of Roanoke in order to expand Advance's offices located in the Roanoke area (Facility); and WHEREAS, Advance expects to spend at least $709,000.00 in tenant renovations and/or improvements to the Facility in order to accommodate the needed uses of the Facility for Advance (Project); and WHEREAS, the City and the IDA wish to encourage Advance to undertake and complete the Project; and WHEREAS, the City has agreed that it will provide up to $690,000.00 that will be counted toward matching funds for the GOF grant mentioned above with such City funds being used to improve certain public rights-of-way by providing two traffic signals on Airport Road, N.W., at its intersections with Municipal Road and Town Square Boulevard, N.W., and the widening of part of that road to help accommodate traffic flow to an existing Advance facility on Airport Road (Public Facilities); and WHEREAS, Advance previously entered into a Performance Agreement with the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (County) dated November 24, 1999, concerning a potential expansion of Advance's offices in Roanoke County and which involved the provision of $500,000.00 from the GOF to the County to grant to Advance for such anticipated expansion; and WHEREAS, due to unanticipated circumstances, Advance determined that it would be more advantageous for Advance to pursue expansion of its offices through the Facility in Roanoke City and the County and Advance have agreed to terminate the Performance Agreement between those parties with the County agreeing to provide the $500,000.00 in GOF funds to the City in accordance with directions from the GOF, which amount will be used by the City as part of the total GOF grant of $670,000.00; and WHEREAS, the amount of the City's grant to the IDA will be in an amount up to $670,000 which the City expects to receive from the Commonwealth of Virginia in the GOF grant, with $500,000.00 being provided through Roanoke County and the remaining $170,000.00 from the Commonwealth, to be used for the Project as set forth in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, Advance has made commitments to make significant new capital investments and job additions in Roanoke City and the surrounding area as set forth in this Agreement in return for receiving the Economic Development Grant from the IDA; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to provide the GOF monies to the IDA to provide to Advance provided that Advance meets certain criteria relating to the capital investment and employment projections set forth in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City is required to remm all or a portion of the GOF monies so received to the Commonwealth of Virginia if the performance criteria for Advance set forth herein are not met. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: SECTION 1. APPROPRIATION AMOUNT. The City will appropriate an amount up to $670,000 that the City receives from the GOF to the IDA for the purposes of promoting economic development in the City and the Roanoke Valley in order to fund the economic development grant that the IDA intends to make to Advance. However, the City's obligations to pay or provide such funds under this Agreement are limited to those funds which are provided hereunder from the GOF and received by the City. SECTION 2. IDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT. The IDA will make an economic development grant to Advance of up to $670,000.00 in order to reimburse Advance for the eligible tenant renovations or improvements for the Facility starting on January 1, 2001, and made on or before June 30, 2003, provided that Advance complies with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. Eligible tenant improvements shall be deemed to be those C:\DOCUME~ I\CMCAIkLOCAL SETTIiNGS\TEMI~C LOTUS.NO'['ES.DATAL4.DVANCE 2001CHANGES VERSION CLEAN COPY. DOClq->L,\GMtFg~:ADYAN(~fi..ROOI.~'~IA. NGE.8 2 improvements reasonably necessary for Advance to expand its offices within the Facility and which are permitted or allowed by the GOF guidelines The IDA's obligations to pay or provide funds as provided in this Agreement shall extend to September 30, 2003, unless extended pursuant to agreement of the parties. The IDA's obligations hereunder are not general obligations of the IDA, but are special obligations of the IDA limited to those funds which are provided hereunder by the City and received by the IDA. SECTION 3. IMPROVEMENTS TO PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. The City has agreed that as part of the incentive package for Advance, the City will provide matching funds required by the GOF of up to $690,000.00 for improvements to the public rights-of- way in the area of the Facility which will consist of two new traffic signals on Airport Road, N.W., at its intersections with Municipal Road and Town Square Boulevard, N.W., and which may provide for a widening of certain parts of such road or roads. Provided, however, any final decision and determination as to how, where, and when such improvements will be made will be in the sole discretion of the City, provided further that such improvements are anticipated to be completed within approximately 30 months from the date of this Agreement. SECTION 4. ADVANCE'S OBLIGATIONS. Advance agrees and promises that in order to qualify to receive and retain the economic development grant from the IDA, Advance will do the following: Advance will spend at least $709,000, starting on January 1,2001, for eligible tenant renovations or improvements to locate new offices in the Facility for the Project and that such expenditures will occur on or before June 30, 2003. Advance will expend and/or invest a minimum of an additional $6 million on eligible equipment to be installed in and/or used at the Facility within the City of Roanoke within a period of 30 months from January 1, 2001. Advance will provide annual documentation, on or before December 31, of each year, to the IDA and the City to document its annual expenditures for such eligible equipment. Eligible equipment or costs shall mean and include computers and other reasonable and necessary equipment needed for the Facility and for the activities and operations of Advance at the Facility within the usual course of its business that are subject to the City's Machinery and Tool Tax and/or Personal Property Tax. Advance will expend and/or invest a minimum of an additional $7.5 million in computer technology and investments to be made and located within the Roanoke area (Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Vinton, and/or Salem) within 30 months from January 1,2001. Do Advance will create and/or provide a minimum of 234 new (meaning new to the State of Virginia) permanently staffed and filled full-time job positions (job C:\DOCLrME-- I\CMCAlkLOCAL SE~UI'INGS\TEMt~C.LOTUS.NOTES DATAkADVANCE 2001CHANGES VERSION CLEAN COPY.DOCgf~-XAC~M:g,g~M~-V4kNC-E-'a0OIC14&NGE4~ 3 positions) within a period of 30 months from January 1, 2001. Of these 234 job positions, 168 will be located at the Facility within the City of Roanoke. Eo Advance agrees to obtain all appropriate business licenses and/or other licenses or permits required to operate within the City of Roanoke and to pay all appropriate taxes, levies, or charges as may be required by any applicable federal, state, or local laws, ordinances, or regulations. SECTION 5. PERFORMANCE. Advance agrees that it must perform the obligations set forth in this Agreement within the periods of time set forth in this Agreement in order to qualify for the economic development grant and to maintain that grant and not have to repay any of the grant funds. If Advance fails to comply with the obligations set forth in this Agreement, Advance agrees to repay the grant funds in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. SECTION 6. PAYMENT OF IDA'S FEES. Advance promises and agrees that it will pay all reasonable fees, costs, and expenses of the IDA in connection with this matter, including any action necessary to collect reimbursement hereunder, which includes the reasonable fees of the IDA's counsel, not to initially exceed $2,000 in connection with the negotiation, execution, delivery and operation hereunder, but without limitation in the event of any action necessary to collect any reimbursement amounts. SECTION 7. DISTRIBUTION OF GRANT FUNDS. The IDA will make an economic development grant of up to $670,000 available to Advance on a periodic basis based upon written grant requests submitted by Advance to the IDA no more frequently than once every thirty (30) days. Provided, however, all such requests by Advance must be made to the IDA within thirty (30) months from January 1,2001, and no requests made after that date will be granted, unless such time is extended by agreement of the parties. The IDA will make the grant funds available to Advance on a reimbursement basis of eligible tenant improvements that Advance has actually spent for renovation of or improvements to the Facility. Provided, however, that the final $50,000 of the $670,000 grant will not be made available to Advance until Advance has provided sufficient documentation to the IDA and the City that Advance has expended the entire $709,000 on tenant renovations and improvements referred to in this Agreement within the time period referred to herein. Advance shall provide appropriate documentation to the reasonable satisfaction of the IDA and the City of such expenditures or costs. The written grant request(s) from Advance to the IDA for the grant funds will be in a form approved by the IDA's counsel and shall contain sufficient information to allow the IDA to establish the amount that Advance has expended for the eligible tenant improvements in connection with the renovation or improvement of the Facility. The IDA may disapprove any request that does not comply with the requirements of this Agreement or require that a revised request be submitted. After the IDA approves a request, the IDA will make a written request to the City for the distribution to the IDA of that portion of the City's appropriation of GOF funds. The IDA will make any approved payments to Advance within the C:',DOCUME,- I\CMCAI\LOCAL SETT1NGS\TEMIDXCLOTUS NOTES. DATAXdkDVANCE 2001CHANGES VERSION CLEAN C~OI)Y,DOCbI-?L,~C)MT~$W~,DALANGg..gOOtC-Ivb'~-NGE$ 4 later of (i) 14 working days from approval of the request or (ii) 5 working days from the date of receipt of the funds from the City; provided, however, that the IDA has no liability in the event the City delays processing the IDA's requisition· Advance will further provide both the IDA and the City on an annual basis, on or before December 31, of each year, sufficient information and documentation documenting Advance's investments and job creation efforts in accordance with investment and job obligations Advance has promised to provide pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, with a final report to the IDA and the City of Advance's compliance with all of its obligations under this Agreement to be made no later than 31 months from January 1, 2001. SECTION 8. REPAYMENT OF GRANT FUNDS. Advance agrees that to qualify for the economic development grant and to retain the grant funds it must meet and comply with the obligations it has undertaken in this Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement, the economic development funds from the IDA shall be considered to be allocated into the following amounts and to be associated or connected to the purposes indicated herein:(i) The sum of $335,000 shall be allocated to Advance's capital investments and expenditures set forth in Sections 4 (B and C) (Capital Grant) and (ii) the sum of $335,000 shall be allocated to Advance's employment levels and requirements set forth in Section 4(D) (Employment Grant). If Advance fails to comply with Advance's obligations set forth in this Agreement, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, Advance agrees to do the following: A. If Advance does not make 100% of the capital investments required by both Sections 4 B and C within the time period set forth, then Advance shall reimburse that portion of the Capital Grant that is proportional to the shortfall in either of the capital investments as of the expiration oft he investment period, (i.e., 30 months from January 1, 2001). Such sum, if any, shall be determined by dividing the difference between the $13.5 million combined investments required by this Agreement and Advance's actual investments under both Section 4(B) and Section 4(C) up to the amount required by each section at the end of the investment period by $13.5 million and multiplying such number by $335,000. By way of example only, if the investment by Advance at the end of 30 months from January 1,2001, totals only $12 million ($5 million under Section 4(B) and $7 million under Section 4(C)), this would amount to a difference of $1.5 million divided by $13.5 million, which equals · 1111 multiplied by $335,000 which would equal a repayment figure of$37,218.50 plus interest which Advance would owe the IDA. However, if Advance had a combined investment of $14 million, but only $5 million was under Section 4(B) and $9 million was under Section 4(C), Advance would still have a shortfall or difference of $1 million for its required investments under Section 4(B). The $1 million would be divided by $13.5 million which equals .0741 multiplied by $335,000 which would equal a repayment figure of $24,823.50 plus interest which Advance would owe the IDA. Bo If Advance does not create and/or provide 234 new job positions as mentioned in Section 4(D) within 30 months from January 1,2001, and have full-time employees in at least 90% of such job positions as required by Section 4(D), then Advance will C:\DOCUME- I\CMCAI~LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\C LOTUS NOq~d.S,DATA~dkDVANCE 2001CHANGES VEP. SION CLEAN COPY. DCK'~3~\GI~F.g~OV-ANGg-200! CHANC~:8 5 reimburse the IDA that portion of the Employment Grant that is proportional to the shortfall in the employment levels achieved by Advance as of the end of the 30 months from January 1, 2001. Such stun, if any, shall be determined by dividing the difference between 234 and the total number of new job positions created and filled by that date by 234 and multiplying such number by $335,000. Provided however, that 168 of the 234job positions are to be located within the City of Roanoke and to the extent any of those 168 job positions are not located within the City of Roanoke within 30 months from January 1, 2001, such number will be deemed an employment shortfall for purposes of calculating the amount of repayment Advance will owe the IDA as set forth herein. By way of example only, if Advance has created 211 full-time job positions, including 152 full-time job positions within the City of Roanoke, within 30 months from January 1, 2001, then Advance will have meet the 90% requirement and will not owe any repayment to the IDA for the Employment Grant. However, if Advance creates only 140 job positions within the City of Roanoke and 66 or more job positions outside the City of Roanoke, then the total number of job positions created within the meaning of this Agreement would be 206 which would be a deficiency of 28. This number, 28, would be divided by 234 and would equal. 1197 multiplied by $335,000 or the sum of $40,099.50 plus interest due as a repayment to the IDA for failing to meet the employment requirement. Any repayment of funds mentioned in this Agreement will be made by Advance to the IDA within thirty (30) days after Advance receives a written request for such funds from the IDA and/or the City and will bear interest at the prime rate per year from the date such funds were received by Advance. SECTION 9. RETURN OF GRANT FUNDS TO THE CITY. Should Advance be required to pay back any of the funds to the IDA for failure to comply with the requirements of this Agreement, the IDA agrees to return such funds to the City within 5 business days of the IDA's receipt of such funds. Should Advance not require or be entitled to the entire amount of the grant funds referred to in this Agreement, Advance will not request the balance of such funds from the IDA and the IDA will not request such funds from the City. SECTION 10. REPORTS TO THE CITY. During the term of this Agreement, Advance agrees to report to and provide the IDA and the City on an annual basis, on or before December 31, of each year, sufficient information related to Advance's compliance with the conditions of this Performance Agreement and to provide appropriate documentation to support such compliance and to allow the City and/or their representative to inspect, audit, copy, or examine any books, documents, or other relevant material in connection therewith upon written request by the IDA or the City. All such documents, information, or access shall be provided or made available within thirty (30) days of a written request from either the IDA or the City. Provided, however, that any such audit or examination will not be more frequently than once a year. C:\DOCIJME-I\CMCAI\LOCAL SETI'INGS\TEMP\C.LOTUS.NOTES.DATAXADVANCE 2001CHANGES VERSION CLEAN (~01 Y.DOCI4~-~ACsMtgg'CrI)-V-ANC4~20OIC-IQM,4C~$ 6 SECTION 11. INDEMNITY. Advance agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the IDA the City and their officers, directors, and employees free and harmless for and from any and all claims, causes of action, damages or any liability of any type, including reasonable attomey's fees on account of any claims by or any injury or damage to any persons or property growing out of or directly or indirectly resulting or arising in any way out of any actions, omissions, or activities of Advance or its agents, employees or representatives arising out of or connected in any way to any of the matters involved in this Agreement or its performance. SECTION 12. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. Advance agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. SECTION 13. BROKER. If any party is represented by a real estate or other broker in this transaction, that party shall be fully responsible for any fee due such broker and shall hold the other parties harmless from any claims for any commission by such broker. SECTION 14. COOPERATION. Each party agrees to cooperate with the other in executing any documents necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Agreement. SECTION 15. SEVERABILITY. If any term of this Agreement is found to be void or invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the remaining terms of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect. The parties intend that the provisions of this Agreement be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. SECTION 16. AUTHORITY TO SIGN. The persons who have executed this Agreement represent and warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement in their representative capacities as indicated. SECTION 17. COUNTERPART COPIES. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterpart copies, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute a single instrument. SECTION 18. SUCCESSORS. The terms, conditions, provisions and undertakings of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of each of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. C:\DOCUME--I\CMCAI\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEM~,C LOTUS.NOTES.DATA'CtDVANCE 2001CHANGES VERSION CLEAN 7 SECTION 19. NONDISCRIMINATION. A. During the performance of this Agreement, Advance agrees as follows: Advance will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, or any other basis prohibited by state law relating to discrimination in employment, except where there is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of Advance. Advance agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. ii. Advance in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of Advance will state that Advance is an equal opportunity employer. .oo 111. Notices, advertisements and solicitations placed in accordance with federal law, rule or regulation shall be deemed sufficient for the purpose of meeting the requirements of this section. Bo Advance will include the provisions of the foregoing Section A (i, ii, and iii) in every subcontract or purchase order after the date of this Agreement of over $10,000 in those subcontracts or purchase orders which count towards fulfillment of Advance's obligations under Section 4(A) of this Agreement, so that the provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. SECTION 20. DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE. mo During the performance of this Agreement, Advance agrees to (i) provide a drug-free workplace for Advance employees; (ii) post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, sale, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use ora controlled substance or marijuana is prohibited in the workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violations of such prohibition; (iii) state in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of Advance that Advance maintains a drug-free workplace; and (iv) include the provisions of the foregoing clauses in every subcontract or purchase order after the date of this Agreement of over $10,000 in those subcontracts or purchase orders which count towards fulfillment of Advance's obligations under Section 4(A) of this Agreement, so that the provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. Bo For the purposes of this section, "drug-free workplace" means a site for the performance of work done in connection with a specific contract awarded to a contractor, the employees of whom are prohibited from engaging in the unlawful manufacture, sale, distribution, C:\DOCUME,- I\CMCAI\LOCAL SETT1NGSVFEMP\CLOTUS,NOTES.DATA\,h. DVANCE 2001CHANGES VERSION CLEAN (~OPY.DOCH.~\AGM:gSg~t.~-V-AN(~':[g0OI.~'.I4&NGE.$ ~.~P~ION.DOC 8 dispensation, possession or use of any controlled substance or marijuana during the performance of the contract or Agreement. SECTION 21. ASSIGNMENT. Advance agrees not to assign or transfer any part of this Agreement without the prior written consent of the IDA and the City, and any such assignment will not relieve Advance from any of its obligations under this Agreement. SECTION 22. FORUM SELECTION AND CHOICE OF LAW. By virtue of entering into this Agreement, Advance agrees and submits itself to a court of competent jurisdiction in the City of Roanoke, Virginia and further agrees that this Agreement is controlled by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and that all claims, disputes, and other matters shall be decided only by such court according to the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. SECTION 23. NONWAIVER. Each party agrees that any party's waiver or failure to enforce or require performance of any term or condition of this Agreement or any party's waiver of any particular breach of this Agreement by any other party extends to that instance only. Such waiver or failure is not and shall not be a waiver of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement or a waiver of any other breaches of the Agreement by any party and does not bar the nondefaulting party from requiring the defaulting party to comply with all the terms and conditions of this Agreement and does not bar the nondefaulting party from asserting any and all rights and/or remedies it has or might have against the defaulting party under this Agreement or by law. SECTION 24. CAPTIONS AND HEADINGS. The section captions and headings are for convenience and reference purposes and shall not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. SECTION 25. FORCE MAJEURE. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if, by reason of Force Majeure, a party is unable to perform or observe any agreement, term or condition of this Agreement which would give rise to a default by that party of any obligation under this Agreement, that party shall not be deemed in default during the continuance of such inability or due to such inability. Provided that any party claiming Force Majeure must notify, in writing, the other parties within 30 days of the event giving rise to such a claim. B. The term "Force Majeure" shall mean: acts of God; strikes; lockouts or other industrial disturbances; acts of public enemies; orders or restraints of any kind of the government of the United States of America or the Commonwealth or any of their departments, agencies, political subdivisions or officials, or any civil or military authority; insurrections; civil C:\DOCUME-I\cmcaI\Local Settings\Temp\c.lotus.notes.data~advance 3~0 ICHANGES VERSION clean copy.docH:\Agm~\ad¥&nce disturbances; riots; epidemics; landslides; lightning; earthquakes; environmental problems; fires; hurricanes; tornados; storms; droughts; floods; arrests; restraint of government and people; explosions; breakage, malfunction or accident to facilities, machinery, transmission pipes or canals; shortages of labor, materials, supplies or transportation; any property on which work is to be done being too wet to allow work to be done on it; or any cause or event not reasonably within the control of the party claiming such Force Majeure. SECTION 26. EASEMENTS. Advance promises and agrees to grant and dedicate to the City necessary easements or other legal interest on any of its property for the construction of improvements to the public rights-of-way referred to in this Agreement, including, but not limited to, traffic signals, storm drainage, sanitary sewers, and/or water, all at no cost to the City. Provided, however, that Advance will not be responsible for any cost to perfect any easements the City may request. SECTION 27. NOTICE. All notices hereunder must be in writing and shall be deemed validly given if sent by certified mail, remm receipt requested or by a nationally recognized overnight courier, addressed as follows (or any other address or facsimile number that the party to be notified may have designated to the sender by like notice) or if sent by facsimile to the facsimile number set forth below: If to City, to: City of Roanoke City Manager 364 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Fax No. 540-853-1138 With a copy to: Director of Economic Development City of Roanoke 111 Franklin Plaza, Suite 200 Roanoke, VA 24011 Fax No. 540-853-1213 If to IDA to: Chair, Industrial Development Authority Of the City of Roanoke, Virginia c/o City of Roanoke Economic Development Office 111 Franklin Plaza, Suite 200 Roanoke, VA 24011 Fax No. 540-853-1213 With a copy to: Harwell M. Darby, Jr., Esquire Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte P.O. Box 2887 .C:\DOCUME-I__~~cmca l____~.al Settings\Temp\c.lotus.notes.dataXadvance.~ ICHANGES VERSION clean cop~.doc ...... t, ............. 2091CHANGES \~R$1ON.'d'.x: -- Roanoke, VA 24001 Fax No. 540-224-8050 If to Advance, to: Advance Stores Company, Incorporated Attn: General Counsel 5673 Airport Road Roanoke, VA 24012 Fax No. 540-561-1448 Notice shall be deemed delivered upon the date of personal service, two days after deposit in the United States mail, the day after delivery to a nationally recognized ovemight courier, or upon the date of confirmation of a facsimile transmission. SECTION 28. FAITH BASED ORGANIZATIONS. Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 2.2-4343.1, be advised that the City does not discriminate against faith-based organizations. SECTION 29. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior agreements between the parties. No amendment to this Agreement will be valid unless made in writing and signed by the appropriate parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement by their authorized representatives. ATTEST: CITY OF ROANOKE By Mary F. Parker, City Clerk City Manager WITNESS: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA By Printed Name and Title Printed Name and Title WITNESS: ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INCORPORATED By. C:\DOC UME - 1 \cmca 1 ~Local Settings\T__qemp\e.lotus.notes.datahadvance ToD 1 CHANGES VERS ION clean copy.dotH :LSgmts\afive~ ce I 299 !C!.{,*~NGES VE, RS!ON.'dc'c I Primed Name Primed Name and Title Approved as to Form: Approved as to Execmion: City Attorney City Attomey Appropriation and Funds Required for this Contract Certified: Director of Finance Date Acct. C:\DOCUME-I\cmcaI\Local Settings\Temp\c.lotus.notes.dataXadvance ~ ~02) ICHANGES VERSION clean copy.doc,.: ~ ,gm,s,a~.'ance I 200!CHANGES VE.P,S !©N .'2e, c TERMINATION AGREEMENT THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT is dated this 15th day of March, 2002, by and between the CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA (the "City"), and the COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA (the "County"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City and the County have entered into a Re-Executed Agreement dated April 13, 2000, (the "Traffic Signals Agreement") pertaining to their respective commitments in connection with the installation of traffic signals and related traffic improvements on Airport Road; and WHEREAS, circumstances have changed such that Advance Stores is no longer proceeding with its headquarters expansion in the County, but has relocated its development to the City of Roanoke; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that it would be appropriate to terminate the above- referenced Traffic Signals Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt which is hereby acknowledged, the City and the County hereby agree as follows: 1. That the Traffic Signals Agreement dated April 13, 2000, between the City and the County is hereby terminated, effective retroactively to November 28, 2001. 2. That all obligations, responsibilities, and commitments of the parties under the Traffic Signals Agreement from the date thereof are hereby terminated, released and forever discharged, and the Traffic Signals Agreement shall no longer be in force. The parties further agree that neither party shall have any obligation to the other party to perform under such Agreement or for payment to the other party for work performed or expenses incurred pursuant to the provisions contained in the terminated Traffic Signals Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the County have executed this Termination Agreement by their authorized representatives. ATTEST: CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA By. Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Approved as to Execution: Assistant City Attorney For City of Roanoke Assistant City Attorney For City of Roanoke Approved as to Form: Vickie L. Huffman Assistant County Attorney COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA By Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator 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 April 22, 2002 File #192 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant Deputy City Clerk Todd M. Morgan, Vice President Martin Bros. Contractors, Inc. 2213 Patterson Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 240_16 Dear Mr. Morgan: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 35813-041502 accepting the bid of Martin Bros. Contractors, Inc., for renovation of existing spaces within the Civic Center Coliseum building to provide new locker rooms, office space and other associated improvements to the infrastructure in relation to the Roanoke Civic Center Expansion and Renovation Phase t Project, in the amount of $2,349,600.00 (which includes $2,252,600.00 for the Base Bid, $67,000.00 for Additive Bid Item No. 5 and $30,000.00 for Additive Bid Item No. 6); and rejecting all other bids received by the City. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure pc; Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer George C. Snead, Jr., Acting Director, General Services Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing James M. Evans, Director, Civic Facilities H:XAgenda.02kApril 15, 2002 correspondence.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 April 22, 2002 File #192 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant Deputy City Clerk Acorn Construction, Ltd. Breakelt, Inc. J. M. Turner & Co., Inc. Thor, Inc. Ladies and Gentlemen: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 35813-041502 accepting the bid of Martin Bros. Contractors, Inc., for renovation of existing spaces within the Civic Center Coliseum building to provide new locker rooms, office space and other associated improvements to the infrastructure in relation to the Roanoke Civic Center Expansion and Renovation Phase I Project, in the amount of $2,349,600.00 (which includes $2,252,600.00 for the Base Bid, $67,000.00 for Additive Bid Item No. 5 and $30,000.00 for Additive Bid Item No. 6); and rejecting all other bids received by the City. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. On behalf of the City of Roanoke, thank you for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed project. Sincerely, ry . arker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure H:XAgenda.02XApril 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35813-041502. AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of Martin Bros. Contractors, Incorporated for the renovation of existing spaces within the Civic Center Coliseum building to provide new locker rooms, office space and other associated improvements to the infrastructure in relation to the Roanoke Civic Center Expansion and Renovation Phase I Project, 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 Martin Bros. Contractors, Incorporated in the amount of $2,349,600 (which includes $2,252,600 for the Base Bid, $67,000 for Additive Bid Item No. 5 and $30,000 for Additive Bid Item No. 6) for the renovation of existing spaces within the Civic Center Coliseum building to provide new locker rooms, office space and other associated improvements to the infi'astructure in relation to the Roanoke Civic Center Expansion and Renovation Phase I Project, as is more particularly set forth in the City Manager's letter dated April 15, 2002, to this Council, such bid being in full compliance with the City's plans and specifications made therefor and as provided in the contract documents offered the bidder, which bid is on file in the Purchasing Division, 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. emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. ATTEST: In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the municipal govemmem, an City Clerk. H:~,M~asutm~'ivic cm~a' cxpamiota martin Ix~ 41:502.dm: Office of the City Manager April 15, 2002 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Jr., Council Member Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council: Subject: Contract Award Roanoke Civic Center Expansion and Renovation Phase I Bid No. 02-02-27 At its meeting on May 7, 2001, City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a License Agreement between the City and Arena Ventures, LLC to provide a certain number of National Basketball Development League (NBDL) games and a certain number of events produced by SFX Concerts, Inc. in the Civic Center Coliseum over a five-year period. This agreement mandated that the City provide locker rooms, office space and make other associated improvements to the infrastructure for the use of Arena Ventures during the term of the License Agreement. At its meeting on September 4, 2001, City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Contract for Consultant Services with Rosser International, Inc. to provide design services and prepare the required bid and construction documents for the proposed project. Following proper advertisement, five bids were received on Tuesday, April 2, 2002, with Martin Bros. Contractors, Incorporated, 2213 Patterson Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016, submitting the Iow base bid in the amount of $2,252,600. Costs for two desired Additive Bid Items were also submitted. The first, Additive Bid Item No. 5, in the amount of $67,000, to provide a weight training facility; and the second, Additive Bid Item No. 6, in the amount of $30,000, to provide a sunscreen to shade the building's west fa(;ade. This will bring the total contract price to $2,349,600. All construction work required for the new locker and training room facilities is to be substantially completed by August 15, 2002, and all work required to substantially complete the new office facilities is to be completed by December 20, 2002. 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 April 15, 2002 Page 2 The five bids received were carefully evaluated by the City's consultant, Rosser International, and it has recommended that a contract be awarded to Martin Bros. Contractors, Incorporated, to include Additive Bid Item No. 5 and Additive Bid Item No. 6, as set forth above. Funding in the total amount of $2,738,297 is needed for the project. The additional funds that exceed the contract amount will be used for miscellaneous project expenses including advertising, printing, test services, minor variations in bid quantities and unforeseen project expenses. Funding is available in account number 005-550-8615, Roanoke Civic Center Expansion and Renovation, Phase I. Recommended Action: Accept the above bid and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for the above work with Martin Bros. Contractors, Incorporated in the amount of $2,349,600 (which includes $2,252,600 for the Base Bid, $67,000 for Additive Bid Item No. 5 and $30,000 for Additive Bid Item No. 6) with dates for completion of the respective portions of the project as stipulated above. Reject all other bids received. Respectfully submitted, City Manager DLB/CMA/bls Attachment C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer Robert L. White, Purchasing Manager #CM02-00069 ATTACHMENT TABULATION OF BIDS ROANOKE CiViC CENTER EXPANSION AND RENOVATION PHASE I BID NO. 02-02-27 Bids were opened by Robert L. White, Manager, Purchasing Department, on Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 2:00 p.m. BIDDER BID BASE ADDITIVE BID ADDITIVE BID TOTAL BID ITEM NO. 5 ITEM NO. 6 Martin Bros. Contractors, Incorporated $2,252,600 $67,000 $30,000 $2,349,600 Breakell, Inc. $2,296,170 $65,437 $54,810 $2,416,417 Acorn Construction, Ltd. $2,333,345 $82,000 $27,000 $2,442,345 Thor, Incorporated $2,415,752 $76,000 $33,000 $2,524,752 J.M. Turner & Company $2,529,021 $76,300 $85,000 $2,690,321 Office of the City Engineer Roanoke, Virginia April 15, 2002 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk April 22, 2002 File #60-468 Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35815-041502 declaring the existence of an emergency in connection with obtaining design services and construction work for certain projects to obtain additional sources of water to increase the City's water supply to assist in dealing with the City's water supply emergency that was declared on February 4, 2002, pursuant to Ordinance No. 35741-020402; providing that due to the need to expedite such projects, the normal procurement method of advertising, conducting competitive negotiations, and/or competitive sealed bidding be dispensed with to the extent reasonably necessary; and authorizing the City Manager to take such further action or to execute such documents as may be necessary to implement and administer such projects. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment HSAgenda.02'xApril 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd Darlene L. Burcham April 22, 2002 Page 2 pc: Dr. Molly L. O'Dell, Director, Alleghany and Roanoke Health Districts, 515 Eighth Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Barry L. Key, Director, Office of Management and Budget Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer Michael T. McEvoy, Director of Utilities Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Water Department HSAgenda.02~April 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35815-041502. AN ORDINANCE declaring the existence of an emergency in connection with obtaining certain design services and construction work for certain projects to try to obtain additional sources of water to try to increase the City's water supply to help with the City's water supply emergency that was declared on February 4, 2002, Ordinance No. 35741-020402; providing that due to the need to expedite such projects, the normal procurement method of advertising, conducting competitive negotiations, and/or competitive sealed bidding be dispensed with to the extent reasonably necessary; authorizing the City Manager to take such further action or to execute such documents as may be necessary to implement and administer such projects; and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, §41 of the City Charter authorizes the City Manager to make emei'gency improvements without the necessity of advertising and receiving bids, and such section further requires the City Manager to report the facts and circumstances relating to such improvements to Council at its next regular meeting; and WHEREAS, on February 4, 2002, this Council declared that a water supply emergency existed and there was a need for water conservation measures to be taken within the City of Roanoke, Ordinance No. 35741-020402; and WHEREAS, the water supply emergency continues to exist and the City Manager has had City staff conduct studies to determine if any projects may be available to try to provide additional sources of water to try to increase the City's water supply to assist in dealing with the City's water supply emergency; and WHEREAS, City staffhas determined that there are three projects that may be technically feasible that would have a reasonable chance of being allowed by the appropriate regulatory agencies and that can be completed in a reasonable period time that might provide additional sources for water to the City [such projects consisting o~ 1) completion of the Muse Spring well', 2) ultraviolet treatment at Crystal Spring; and 3) well(s) to supplement Crystal Spring], which projects are set forth in the City Manager's Letter to Council dated April 15, 2002. However, in order to accomplish one or more of these projects, it is imperative that the projects be expedited which may not allow for the normal procurement methods to be utilized; and WHEREAS, Council believes that it is important to allow the City Manager to undertake the projects mentioned in her letter of April 15, 2002, on an expedited time schedule in order to try provide additional sources of water to the City. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Council hereby declares that an emergency exists within the meaning of §41 of the City Charter which allows the City Manager to make emergency improvements without the necessity of advertising or receiving bids or following the other normal procurement methods to the extent reasonably necessary. 2. Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to obtain certain design services and construction work for certain projects as set forth in the City Manager's Letter dated April 15, 2002, to try to obtain additional sources of water to try to increase the City's water supply to assist in dealing with the City's water supply emergency that was declared on February 4, 2002, Ordinance No. 35741-020402. 3. Council further declares that the City Manager may expedite the procurement of such design services and construction work for the above mentioned projects by dispensing with 2 the normal procurement methods of advertising, conducting competitive negotiations, and/or competitive sealed bidding to the extent reasonably necessary; provided, however, that such procurement shall be made with such competition as is practicable under the circumstances. 4. The City Manager is further authorized to take such further action and to execute such documents as may be necessary to implement and administer the above mentioned projects. 5. In order to provide for the usual daily 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 April 22, 2002 File #60-468 Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk Jesse A. Hall Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Hall: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35814-041502 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2001-02 Water Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of $500,000.00, in connection with emergency water supply projects. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Barry L. Key, Director, Management and Budget Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer Michael T. McEvoy, Director of Utilities Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Water Department H:~genda.02~April 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35814-041502. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain Sections of the 2001-2002 Water 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 Water Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: AD!3rol3riations Capital Outlay $ Muse Spring Well (1) ....................................... Ultraviolet Treatment at Crystal Spdng (2) ....................... Crystal Spring Wells Supplements (3) .......................... Retained Earnings Retained Earnings - Available for Appropriation (4) ................. $ 8,234,193 125~000 250,000 125,000 3,171,000 1 ) Appropriated from General Revenue 2) Appropriated from General Revenue 3) Appropriated from General Revenue 4) Retained Earnings (002-530-8406-9003) (002-530-8407-9003) (002-530-8408-9003) (002-3348) 125,000 250,000 125,000 (500,000) 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 April 15, 2002 The Honorable The Honorable The Honorable The Honorable The Honorable The Honorable The Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor William Carder, Vice-Mayor William Bestpitch, Council Member 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: Emergency Water Supply Projects On February 4, 2002, City Council declared that a water supply emergency existed and instituted water conservation measures, which continue as of this date. The City Manager has had City Staff conduct studies to determine if there were any projects available to try to provide additional sources of water to try to increase the City's water supply during the water supply emergency. The Staff has determined that the three projects listed below might accomplish this purpose, but to do so, it is imperative that the projects be expedited which may not allow for the normal procurement methods to be utilized. Thus, there is an emergency need to proceed with these projects as soon as possible. The Utility Department, in conjunction with the City Engineering Office has been studying various water supply projects to increase the resources available to the City. Three projects have emerged as being technically feasible, have a reasonable chance of being permitted, and can be completed through use of Water Fund retained earnings. These projects are: · Completion of the Muse Spring well · Installation of ultraviolet (UV) treatment equipment at Crystal Spring · Construction of a well(s) near Crystal Spring Completion of the Muse Spring Well The Virginia Department of Health (Health Department) has given its approval to place the Muse Spring well into service through use of temporary equipment pending certification of final construction plans. The original design for the Muse Spring facility envisioned a more extensive operating plant with a storage tank. The modified design will only install a pump, disinfection equipment, and the piping necessary to deliver the water. Estimated cost for this project is $125,000. It is expected this project will deliver 1 million gallons a day (mgd). This will help lessen the amount of water taken from Carvins Cove. Room 364 Municipal South 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 (540) 853-2333 FAX (540) 853-1138 CityWeb:www. c i. roanoke.va, us Honorable Mayor and Members of Council April 15, 2002 Page 2 Ultraviolet Treatment at Crystal Spring - A preliminary engineering report (PER) has been delivered to the Health Department for use of ultraviolet (UV) treatment as a supplement for parasite inactivation until the microfiltration plant is complete. It is anticipated that the Health Department will permit the use of UV treatment, although not until the level in the Carvins Cove Reservoir reaches 30 feet below spillway. The cost is estimated at $250,000. By comparison, the cost of buying a combination of water equivalent to 4 mgd from the City of Salem and Roanoke County is $230,000 per month. The cost of buying 4 mgd from Roanoke County exclusively is $330,000 per month. An important consideration with this project is the construction timeline in relation to the installation of the microfiltration plant. Equipment delivery for the UV system is 12 weeks. The microfiltration plant will be operational by December of this year, and could be operational as soon as mid-October. If the Health Department cannot be persuaded to modify its position soon, there will be no reason to install the UV equipment. Quick procurement of the equipment is critical. The Health Department has only approved two vendors to supply this equipment. The authority to negotiate directly with these two vendors is requested in lieu of regular procurement procedures. An early deliver incentive may also be offered to reduce delivery time. Well(s) to Supplement Crystal Spring - After reviewing the geologic survey undertaken by the City in 2000, there is a reasonable possibility that a well (or wells) can be drilled near Crystal Spring in hydrologic zones different from the spring. Crystal Spring delivers between 3.5 and 4 mgd. However, the existing pumping facility and the microfiltration plant currently being constructed both have the ability to treat and deliver 5 mgd. The geologic survey work suggests that groundwater resources in the immediate area are sufficient to provide another 1 mgd. This well water would most likely be classified as "under the influence of surface water" and would require treatment. However, the water could be introduced with the Crystal Spring water for filtration, increasing the plant's output by 20%. Estimated costs for this option vary with the length of piping needed from the well to the Crystal Spring site but are not anticipated to exceed $125,000 if existing City-owned property could be used. If the well water quality is as good as Crystal Spring, this water may also be suitable for UV treatment under the temporary treatment system proposed for Crystal Spring, assuming approval can be obtained to place such a system into operation. It is important to note that wells to supplement the natural flow from Crystal Spring have been tried in the past. Flows from these wells were small with high iron content, making them impractical for use without additional treatment. The geologic survey suggests that deeper wells would yield better quality water but exploratory drilling is needed for confirmation. Authorization is requested to negotiate directly with the hydrogeologist that completed the previous groundwater survey work for the City for additional consulting and well drilling services. Honorable Mayor and Members of Council April 15, 2002 Page 3 Recommended Action: Amend the Water Fund FY 2001/2002 budget and appropriate $500,000 from the Water Fund prior year retained earnings into three separate accounts to be established by the Director of Finance to provide design and construction of the three projects described in this report. Council declare that an emergency exists within the meaning of § 41 of the City Charter and allow the City Manager to make emergency improvements without following the normal procurement methods to the extent reasonably necessary for the above projects. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate directly with the two vendors approved by the Health Department to supply the UV Treatment equipment and to take such further action or to execute such documents as may be necessary to implement and administer the UV Treatment project. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate directly with Golder Associates of Richmond, VA to provide consulting and well drilling services and to take such further action or to execute such documents as may be necessary to implement and administer the Crystal Spring Supplemental Well project. Authorize the City Manager to take such further action or to execute such documents as may be necessary to implement and administer the Muse Spring Well project. Respectfully submitted, Darlene L. Burnham City Manager DLB/mtm C: Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Michael McEvoy, Director of Utilities Jesse Perdue, Water Division Manager Dr. Molly O'Dell, Director of Allegheny & Roanoke Health District #CM02-00070 CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk April 22, 2002 File #60-144-472 Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk Jesse A. Hall Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Hall: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35791-041502 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2001-02 General Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of $497,471.00, in connection with Solid Waste Management. The abovereferenced measure was adopted on its first reading by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 1,2002, adopted on its second reading on Monday, April 15, 2002, and will be in full force and effect ten days following the date of adoption. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager George C. Snead, Jr., Assistant City Manager for Operations Robert K. Bengtson, Director, Public Works Frank W. Decker, III, Solid Waste Management Operations Superintendent Barry L. Key, Director, Office of Management and Budget H:XAgenda.02XApril 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35791-041502. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 General Fund Appropriations. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 2001-2002 General Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Appropriations Judicial Administmti°n $ 5,945,275 Residential/Detention Services (1) ............................. 1,125,576 Public Works $ 16,743,425 Solid Waste Management- Refuse/Recycling (2-4) ............... 5,944,548 Fund Balance Reserved for CMERP - City (5) ................................. $ 100,000 1 ) Residential/Detention Service 2) Contract Labor 3) Fees for Professional Services 4) Advertising 5) Reserved for CMERP - City (001-121-2130-2008) (001-530-4210-1060) (001-530-4210-2010) (001-530-4210-2015) $ (4oo,ooo) 181,793 311,239 4,439 (001-3323) (97,471) ATTEST: City Clerk. Office of the Ci~ Manager April 1, 2002 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: Appropriation of Funds For Solid Waste Management Background: It has been nine (9) months since the reengineering of solid waste collection programs was completed. In the months that followed last summer's difficult transition period, staff members have done a good job of meeting their goals. The arrival of the spring season is expected to bring a growing volume of trash which will create greater demands on a collection system that continues to experience challenges due to the condition of the aging solid waste fleet of trucks. City Council's approval of last year's Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP) included nine (9) solid waste trucks. To date, Council has approved the lease-purchase of seven (7) of these units, with delivery expected to occur between now and the end of July. Bids were recently received for the remaining two (2) trucks. Breakdowns of existing trucks and the unreliable nature of this aging fleet has prompted staff to rent several trucks at a cost projected to reach $119,000 by the end of the fiscal year, the cost of which had not been budgeted. Rented trucks will be returned as the new trucks are placed into service. This has caused expenditures in excess of the Solid Waste Division's budget. It should also be noted at this time that there are several other trucks in the solid waste fleet for which replacement will be sought in the next CMERP. Trash volumes are also on the increase. After the October, 2000 conversion from the former bulk and brush collection system to the new weekly collection system, quantities immediately began to increase. These volumes did not level off as anticipated. Trash collected by solid waste crews is averaging 9% more than in last fiscal year. This is likewise causing tipping fee expenditures to exceed that which was budgeted for the 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 April 1, 2002 Page 2 current fiscal year. It should also be noted that this increase does not include recyclables that we are collecting in amounts far greater than the previous year. Consequently, while the recyclables are generating savings in the form of cost avoidance, the total waste stream is creating costs estimated to reach $239,965 in excess of that which was originally budgeted. As Council may recall, there were a number of locations identified where trash collection would change from the alley to curbside. As changes were implemented, many citizens complained that the change to curbside collection created a hardship for a variety of reasons. Staff re-evaluated those situations and then reinstated portions of more than 50 alleys for alley collection. This resulted in the need for additional alley crews to be reinstated. The popularity of the recycling program also caused the need for one additional crew on Thursdays, and the number of Physically Challenged customers grew to a volume that also required an additional crew. These additional crews were supplemented by temporary labor services, charges for which are expected to total $334,147, funding for which was likewise not budgeted. An additional $4,439 was expended for advertising and publicity of changes made in our solid waste programs. Historically, the Solid Waste Management budget has required supplemental funding near the end of the fiscal year due to the uncertainty of trash volumes and other related expenditures. In recent years, it has not been uncommon for this figure to be in the range of $330,000. Following last summer's transition period, Council was informed that solid waste costs were expected to remain within budget by virtue of cost avoidance in the recycling and leaf collection programs as well as the use of lapse money for overtime expenditures used during the transition period. At this time, given the vehicle rental charges, the increased tipping fees, and use of temporary labor, expenditures will exceed available funds within this budget by a projected total of $697,471. Recommended Action: At this time, $497,471 has been identified for appropriation into the Solid Waste Management Account (001-530-4210). An additional transfer closer to the end of the fiscal year will need to be brought to City Council if financial projections for expenditures in excess of the current budget remain accurate. It is recommended that City Council authorize the appropriation of $400,000 from Juvenile Detention Services Account (001- 121-2130-2008) and $97,471 from Unappropriated CMERP Account (001-3323) into the following line items of the Solid Waste Management Account: Honorable Mayor and Members of Council April 1, 2002 Page 3 001-530-4210-1060 001-530-4210-2010 001-530-4210-2015 Contract Labor Fees for Professional Services Advertising Total $181,793 $311,239 $ 4,439 $497,471 Sincerely, 'Darlene L. B~ City Manager DLB/RKB/gpe C: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Robert K. Bengtson, P.E., Director of Public Works CM02-00058 1N THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 15th day of Apr±l, 2002. No. 35816-041502. A RESOLUTION establishing the date of a of the City of Roanoke. Special Meeting of the Council BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. A Special Meeting of City Council shall be held on April 29, 2002, commencing at 7:00 p.m., in the Exhibit Hall, Civic Center, 710 Williamson Road, N.W., Roanoke, Virginia, for the purpose of holding public heatings as to the General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2002-2003, HUD Funds, effective tax increases, and conducting a public hearing on proposed increases to certain zoning and subdivision fees. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to take whatever steps are deemed necessary to notify the public of the time and place of such Special Meeting. ATTEST: City Clerk. CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk April 22, 2002 File #55 Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002, Mayor Smith inquired as to the status of a briefing with regard to the transit system; whereupon, it was the consensus of Council that a special meeting of the GRTC Board of Directors be held on Monday, April 29, 2002, to discuss transit operations. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh pc: David A. Morgan, General Manager, Valley Metro H:XAgenda.02LApr/1 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk April 22, 2002 File #20-66-80-304-467 Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002, Council Member Wyatt called attention to concerns expressed by owners of businesses located in the Williamson Road area in regard to teenagers congregating at the intersection of Williamson Road and Trinkle Avenue, N. W., and Mayor Smith expressed concern with regard to teenagers also congregating at Trinkle Avenue and Winsloe Drive, N. W. Sincerely, M~~. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh HSAgenda.02'xApril 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) ) To-wit: CITY OF ROANOKE ) I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof, do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council which was held on the fifteenth day of April, 2002, KIRK A. LUDWIG was appointed as a member of the Advisory Board of Human Development for a term ending November 30, 2005. Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenty-second day of April, 2002. City Clerk H:XAgenda.02~April 15, 2002 correspondence.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 April 22, 2002 File #51 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant Deputy City Clerk Mr. Cesar Dominguez 512 McDonald Drive Vinton, Virginia 24179 Dear Mr. Dominguez:. I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 35817-041502 rezoning a tract of land lying in the City of Roanoke, located at 325 Jefferson Street, N. E., identified as Official Tax No. 3012801, from RM-2, Residential Multi-family, Medium Density District, to C-3, Central Business District, subject to certain proffers contained in the petition filed in the City Clerk's Office on February 7, 2002. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002, and will be in full force and effect ten days following the date of adoption. Sincerely, Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure pc~ Trustees, First Baptist Church, 407 North Jefferson Street, Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Claytor, Inc., 811 Grayson Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Ms. Barbara Keeling and Ms. Darlene Keeling, 9 Gilmer Avenue, N. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Althea Bolden, Executive Director, The Harrison Museum of African-American Culture, 523 Harrison Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Mr. and Mrs. James Allen, 12 Gilmer Avenue, N. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 H:XAgenda.02~.pril 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd Mr. Cesar Dominguez April 22, 2002 Page 2 pc: Evelyn D. Bethel, President, Historic Gainsboro Preservation District, Inc., 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 V. Lee Wolfe, President, Gainsboro Neighborhood Alliance, 206 Rutherford Court, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 George H. R. Heller, Gainsborough Southwest Community Organization, 322 Patton Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Willard N. Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission Ronald L. Smith, Building Commissioner Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney H:~Agenda.02'xApfil 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd / / IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35817-041502. AN ORDINANCE to amend §36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 301, 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, Cesar Dominguez, 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 C-3, Central Business 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 heating 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 April 15, 2002, 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 oppommity 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 rezoned as herein provided. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. Section 36. I-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 301 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other: That tract of land lying in the City of Roanoke, located at 325 Jefferson Street, N. E., and designated on Sheet No. 301 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, known as Official Tax No. 3012801 be, and is hereby rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, to C-3, Central Businei~s District, subject to the proffers contained in the Petition filed in the Office of the City Clerk on February 7, 2002, and that Sheet No. 301 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: \0 RDINANCF~,S~>-re:r. DomJeffSt RMlt o~3. w~pd Roanoke City Depadment of Planning Building and Development Room 166, Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (540) 853-1730 (Fax) 853-1230 Email: planning@ci.roanoke.va.us April 15, 2002 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Council Member Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council: Subject: Request from Cesar Dominguez that a tract of land located at 325 Jefferson Street, N.E., designated as Official Tax No. 3012801, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, to C-3, Central Business District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission public hearing was held on March 21, 2002. By a vote of 6-0 (Mr. Dowe absent), the Commission recommended approval of the requested rezoning. Mrs. Evelyn Bethel spoke in favor of the request. Reverend Kenneth Wright of First Baptist Church supported the request, but expressed some concern for extending commercial zoning on Gilmer Avenue. Planning staff recommended approval of the rezoning. Background: On February 5, 2002, the petitioner submitted a petition to rezone 325 Jefferson Street, N.E., from RM-2, Residential Multifamily Medium Density District, to C-3, Central Business District, subject to certain conditions. The purpose for the petition is to renovate a deteriorating commercial building for office space. Proffered conditions are as follows: The existing building will be rehabilitated and reused for uses provided for within the C-3, Central Business District. The existing shed in the rear of the property will be removed. 2. There will be no sale of alcohol permitted in conjunction with any use of property. The petitioner advises that he has spoken to representatives of Historic Gainsboro Preservation District Inc., and Gainsboro Neighborhood Alliance, and each group supports the rehabilitation of the subject property. Planning Commission public hearing was held on March 21, 2002. Mr. Dominguez presented the rezoning request advising that the building has been vacant for some time and now in a blighted condition. He advised that representatives of Historic Gainsboro Preservation District Inc. and Gainsboro Neighborhood Alliance supported the rehabilitation of the subject property. Mr. Dominguez also stated that it will take extensive rehabilitation and that the only way for it to be financially feasible is to make it professional office space. Mr. Jacques Scott, City Planner, presented the staff report, recommending approval of the rezoning. Ms. Evelyn Bethel represented Historic Gainsboro Preservation District Inc. and stated that her organization was in support of the rehabilitation of the subject property. Kenneth Wright, Pastor of First Baptist Church, stated that the church supports the rehabilitation of the building but they were concerned with zoning the property to C-3, Central Business District. He expressed concern that other properties on Gilmer Avenue could be rezoned. Considerations: The subject property is located on the corner of Jefferson Street and Gilmer Avenue and is subject to the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District overlay district (which encompasses Jefferson Street, Gilmer Avenue, Patton Avenue and 2nd Street. area). Currently, the building is vacant and has been uninhabited for over eight years. Zoning patterns for the area are as follows: North of the subject property is RM-2, Residential Multifamily Medium Density District, and H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District. Across the street of the subject property is a vacant lot, formerly the site of the "old" First Baptist Church. South of the subject property is C-3, Central Business District. Adjacent to the subject property are several vacant lots, and across Wells Avenue stands Hotel Roanoke. East of the subject property is RM-2 Residential Multifamily Medium Density District, and H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District. Adjacent to the subject property is a single-family dwelling. West of the subject property is C-3, Central Business District. Across Jefferson Street stands the "new" First Baptist Church. The petitioner wants to extend the C-3, Central Business District, in order to repair and reuse the historic building on the property. The commercial building was the location of the Moses Store and included an upstairs apartment where the owners lived. Currently, a shed stands at the rear of the property. If he property is rezoned as requested, the petitioner has proffered to demolish the shed. Parking is available on the street. No significant traffic is expected to be generated by the proposed project. Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, recommends that: 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. · Commercial Development - Identify underutilized commercial sites and promote revitalization. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan and would enhance the neighborhood character by rehabilitating and restoring an existing blighted commercial structure that has been vacant for some time. Recommendations: The Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the request. Respectfully submitted, Robert B. Manetta, Chairman City of Roanoke Planning Commission attachments cc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Rolanda Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Evelyn Bethel, President, Historic Gainsboro Preservation District, Inc. V. Lee Wolfe, President, Gainsboro Neighborhood Alliance George H. R. Heller, President, Gainsborough Southwest Community Organization CONDITIONAL PETITION TO REZONE IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA INRE: Rezoning of a tract of land lying in the City of Roanoke being 325 Jefferson Street NE., Southeast comer of Gilmer Avenue and Jefferson Street., Tax Map No. 3012801 from RM2- Residential Multifamily Medium Density District to C3- Central Business District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: The petitioner, Cesar Dominguez, is contract purchaser of land in the City of Roanoke containing .25 acres, more or less, located at 325 Jefferson St. N. E., Tax Map No. 3012801. Said tract is currently zoned RMI - Residential Multifamily Medium Density District. A map of the property to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit A. Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned from RM2 - Residential Muitifamily Medium Density District to C3 Central Business District, subject to certain conditions set forth below, for the purpose of renovating a deteriorated commercial building. A concept plan outlining the features of the existing building and propose use of the property is attached as Exhibit B. The Petitioner believes the rezoning of the said tract of land will further the intent and purposes of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan, in that it will enhance the quality of the neighborhood and revitalize a neglected vacant property. PETITION TO REZONE The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by, the following conditions: 1. The existing building will be rehabilitated and reused for uses provided for within the C-3, Central Business District. The existing shed in the rear of the property will be removed. 2. There will be no sale of alcohol permitted in conjunction with any use of the property. 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 fi.om the property to be rezoned. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-described tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke. Respectfully submitted this 5th day of February, 2002. Respectfully submitted, Owner~. Purchaser ROANOKE CITY GIS Parcel: Owner: 3012801 Parcel Address: OLD S E COR GILMER AVE O S & JEFFERSON 30X90 BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF RiCHMOND P O BOX 1529 ROANOKE, VA Instr. No.: 00004421 Acres: 3,627,307 3,627,094 [ i ,063,~30 Map Widlh=212' Location Map DLSCLAIMER: The intommtion contained on this Page is NOT to be consu "legal cies~ilmon". Map information is bdievezl m b~ accural~ but accuracy i ~rots ot omissions should I~ r~pott~i t~ th~ City of Roanoke Engino~in$ D~ will ~ City of Roanoke tn liable frs any damnS, imludin$ Ires of data, I~ mterrul~on, loss ofbusinma infmnmtion or oth~ p~xttuaty loss that might as this map o~ the information it comam~ Map Dam aa o~ Jan 2002 Real Estat~ Data as o~. Jan 2002 I of 2 02/04/2002 11:43 AM LIST['NG OF ADJOFNING PROPERTY OWNERS , EXHIBIT Official Tax No./ Street Address 2012812 310 N. Jefferson St. Name of Property Owner Trustees First Baptist Church Mailing Address 407 N. Jefferson St. N E. Roanoke, 24016 2011901 413 Old Gainsboro Rd. NW Claytor, Inc. 81 i Grayson Av NW Roanoke, 24016 3011422 407 N. Jefferson St. NE" Trustees First Baptist Church 407 N. Jefferson St. NE Roanoke, 24016 3011423 12 Gilmer Av. NE James & Brenda Allen 12 Gilmer Av. NE Roanoke, 24016 3012806 9 Gilmer Av. NE Barbara & Darlene Keeling 9 Gilmer Av. NE Roanoke, 24016 3012802 Jefferson St. NE The Harrison Museum 523 Harrison Ay. NW Roanoke, 24016 Historic Gainsboro Preservation District, Inc., 35 Patton Ave., NE, Roanoke, VA 24016 (540) 342-0728 February 18, 2002 To Whom It May Concern This statement verifies that this organization supports the current efforts to creatively adapt and reuse the Moses Store. We have been assured that the building will be restored to its original exterior-- retaining the facade and other unique features. We understand that a request for rezoning to C-3 on that specific area is required but a proffer will be asked that certain activities not be permitted, i.e., no alcohol or strong drink, etc. We also understand that the building will be used primarily for office, community and/or institutional space and the rear shed is to be removed. We are very pleased that the owner has shown a great deal of respect for this area and is willing to work with the us in retaining the neighborhood's integrity. The restoration and creative re-use of the Moses Store will greatly enhance our historic and surrounding neighborhoods and be an asset to the entire Roanoke Valley. Evelyn D._Bethel,. l~asidm~---~ Historic Gainsboro in Roanoke, Virginia MARY F. PARKER, CMC City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF CITY CLERK 21:5 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I-i :536 Telephone: (540) 853-2541 Fax: (540) 853-1145 E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.va, us March 26, 2002 File #51 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant Deputy City Clerk Mr. Cesar Dominguez 512 McDonald Drive Vinton, Virginia 24179 Dear Mr. Dominguez: 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, April 15, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, on your request that a tract of land located at 325 Jefferson Street, N. E., identified as Official Tax No. 3012801, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multi- family Medium Density District, to C-3, Central Business District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. For your information, I am enclosing copy of a report of the City Planning Commission, a notice of the public hearing and an Ordinance. please review the documents and if you have questions, you may contact Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney, at 540-853-2431. Questions with regard to the City Planning Commission report should be directed to the Department of Planning, Building and Development at 540-853-1730. It will be necessary for you, or your representative, to be present at the April 15 public hearing. Failure to appear could result in a deferral of the matter until a later date. MFP:mh Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Enclosure CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk April 22, 2002 File #60-266 Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35820-041502 amending Ordinance No. 33019- 070196 adopted by Council on July 1, 1996, which established certain local incentives for the area designated as Enterprise Zone Two in the City of Roanoke by modifying it to delete Paragraphs 4 and 5 and substituting Paragraphs 4 and 5 to extend incentive rebates to include rehabilitation work in addition to new building construction and to modify the percent of rebates available and that such modified incentives be applicable from July 1,2002 through June 30, 2007, and also modifying and/or extending certain funding limits in connection with certain local incentives in Ordinance No. 33019-070196; amending Ordinance No. 35414-061801, adopted by Council on June 18, 2001, which extended the availability of local incentives through December 31,2003, by modifying it to extend such local incentives through June 30, 2007; adding a local incentive to provide limited funds for partial grants for the cost of certain building facade renovations only within Enterprise Zone One; and authorizing the City Manager to apply to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (VDHCD) for approval of the amendments and/or to take further action as may be necessary to obtain or confirm said amendments. H:X, Agenda.02~April 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd April 22, 2002 Page 2 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance Barry L. Key, Director, Office of Management and Budget Elizabeth A. Neu, Director of Economic Development H:~genda.02~April 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35820-041502. AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No. 33019-070196, adopted by City Council on July 1, 1996, which established certain local incentives for the area designated as Enterprise Zone Two in the City by modifying it to delete paragraphs 4 and 5 and substituting the paragraphs 4 and 5 set forth below to extend the incentive rebates set forth therein to include rehabilitation work in addition to new building construction and to modify the percent of rebates available and that such modified incentives will be applicable fi.om July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2007, and also modifying and/or extending certain fi~nding limits in connection with certain local incentives in that ordinance; amending Ordinance No. 35414-061801, adopted by Council on June 18, 2001, which extended the availability of local incentives through December 31, 2003, by modifying it to extend such local incentives through June 30, 2007; adding a local incentive to provide limited funds for partial grants for the cost of certain building facade renovations only within Enterprise Zone One; authorizing the City Manager to apply to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (VDHCD) for the approval of the above amendments and/or to take such further action as may be necessary to obtain or confirm those amendments; and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, on July 1, 1996, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 33019-070196 approving, adopting, and establishing certain local incentives for the area designated as Enterprise Zone Two in the City of Roanoke, and which applied to a Subzone that was created by a boundary amendment authorized by Resolution No. 34024-092198, adopted by Council on September 21, 1998; and WHEREAS, on July 19, 1999, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 34412-071999, for the purpose of providing that the local incentives established for the area designated 'as Enterprise Zone Two, including the Subzone of Two, shall also apply to the City's Enterprise Zone One as of July 19, 1999, and that the incentives in Enterprise Zone One would likewise apply to Enterprise Zone Two as of that date, except to the extent a local incentive was unique to a particular Enterprise Zone, and such ordinance will remain in effect for such purpose; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 35414-061801, adopted by City Council on June 18, 2001, provided that the local incentives' made applicable to the City's Enterprise Zones would end on December 31, 2003, unless otherwise modified by Council, and Council now wishes to extend the applicable time period for such local incentives to be applicable to Enterprise Zones One and Two, including the Subzone of Two, from December 31, 2003 through June 30, 2007, at which time such local incentives will end unless otherwise modified by Council. Provided, however, that the local incentives for Enterprise Zone One may terminate on December 31, 2003, if Enterprise Zone One is not extended by the Commonwealth of Virginia and terminates on that date. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Ordinance No. 33019-070196, adopted by City Council on July 1, 1996, is hereby amended as follows: Ao Paragraph number 4 is deleted effective July 1, 2002, and hereby replaced by the following paragraph number 4: (4) Any business firm undertaking new building construction and/or rehabilitation work within the City's Enterprise Zones shall be entitled to a rebate of up to 100% of water, fire, and sewer hookup fees based on appropriate and approved documentation of the amount of new building construction and/or rehabilitation investment of $125,000 or more undertaken by such business firm within such Enterprise Zones. All water, fire, and sewer hookup fees shall initially be paid in full by the business fu'm. Upon completion of the new building construction and/or rehabilitation work and upon proper documentation of the issuance of a permanent certificate of occupancy for the new building and/or proper documentation of completion of the rehabilitation work the business firm may then apply for a rebate under this local incentive. Upon the City's 2 approval of the application, the business firm will receive a rebate from the City of the following percentage of water, fire, and sewer hookup fees the business firm previously paid (without interest) for such new building construction and/or rehabilitation work: Amount invested Percent City Rebates $1,000,000 or more 100% 900,000 - 999,999.99 90% 800,000 - 899,999.99 80o/0 700,000 - 799,999.99 70% 600,000 - 699,999.99 60% 500,000- 599,999.99 50% 400,000 - 499,999.99 40% 300,000 - 399;999.99 30% 250,000 - 299,999.99 20% 125,000- 249,999.99 10% 0- 124,999.99 0% The effective date of the availability of this local amended incentive is July 1, 2002. This local incentive shall be available only for water, fn'e, and sewer hookup fees paid between the period of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2007, at which time the local incentive will end, unless extended by Council. The City Manager shall establish appropriate rules and regulations necessary to implement this local incentive. It is the intent of this Ordinance that effective July 1, 2002, all rebates for this local incentive shall be controlled by this paragraph unless otherwise modified by Council. Paragraph number 5 is deleted effective July 1, 2002, and replaced by the following paragraph number 5: (5) Any business firm undertaking new building construction and/or rehabilitation work within the City's Enterprise Zones shall be entitled to a rebate of up to 100% of building permit and comprehensive development plan review fees paid based on appropriate and approved documentation of the amount of new building construction and/or rehabilitation investment of $25,000 or more undertaken by such business firm within such Enterprise Zones. All building permit and comprehensive development plan review fees shall initially be paid in full by the business fa're. Upon completion of the new building construction and/or rehabilitation work and upon proper documentation of the issuance of a permanent certificate of occupancy for the new building and/or proper documentation of completion of the rehabilitation work, the business firm may then apply for a rebate under this local incentive. Upon the City's approval of the application, the business firm will receive a rebate from the City of the following percentage of building permit and comprehensive development plan review fees the business firm previously paid (without interest) for such new building construction and/or rehabilitation work: Amount Invested PercentCity Rebates $100,000 or more 100% 75,000 - 99,999.99 75% 50,000 - 74,999.99 50% 25,000 - 49,999.99 25% 0 - 24,999.99 0% The effective date of the availability of this local amended incentive is July 1, 2002. This local incentive shall be available only for building permit and comprehensive development plan review fees paid between the period of July 1, 2'002 through June 30, 2007, at which time this local incentive will end, unless extended by Council. The City Manager shall establish appropriate rules and regulations necessary to implement this local incentive. It is the intent of this Ordinance that effective July 1, 2002, all rebates for this local incentive shall be controlled by this paragraph unless otherwise modified by Council. (C) The limitations on the total amount of funding to be provided for certain local incentives in the Ordinance in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, and 10 are hereby amended to reflect that such limitations on the total funding for any such local incentives shall be for a period consisting of a total of consecutive years, such as any consecutive five year period, that such local incentives are available and not for just a specific 5 year period or term as originally stated in the Ordinance. Furthermore, any appropriated funds not used during a particular fiscal year for any such local incentive may be used for that local incentive in subsequent years. These provisions shall be applicable as long as any such local incentives are available, unless otherwise modified by Council. 2. Ordinance No. 35414-061801, adopted by Council on June 18, 2001, is hereby amended so that all references in the Ordinance to December 31, 2003, are hereby deemed to be amended and changed to read June 30, 2007, provided, however, that such local incentives for 4 Enterprise Zone One may terminate on December 31, 2003, if Enterprise Zone One is not extended by the Commonwealth of Virginia and it terminates on that date. The intent being that the local incentives for the City's Enterprise Zones be extended as set forth hereinabove and in the City Manager's letter to Council dated April 15, 2002. 3. The Council hereby approves and adopts for the City's Enterprise Zone One only the additional local incentive set forth below: (A) The City will provide funds to the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, (fi)A) so that the IDA can enhance economic development in Enterprise Zone One by providing facade grants of 33% of any building facade renovation costs for those facades in need of renovation that visually improves the facade (the principal face or fi'ont of a building) of a building within Enterprise Zone One up to a maximum of $25,000 per grant, with a maximum yearly limit for all such grants of $100,000. The effective date for this local incentive is July 1, 2002, and it will extend fi.om that date through June 30, 2007, unless otherwise modified Council. Provided, however, that this local incentive may terminate on December 31, 2003, if Enterprise Zone One is not extended by the Commonwealth of Virginia and it terminates on that date. Furthermore, any appropriated funds not used during a particular fiscal year for such local incentive may be used for that local incentive in subsequent years. (B) The City Manager is authorized to establish appropriate rules and regulations necessary to implement and administer this local incentive. 4. Council hereby certifies that it held a public hearing as required by the Virginia Enterprise Zone Program Regulations. 5. The local incentives and amendments set forth above and in the City Manager's letter dated April 1 St 2002~ are subject to approval by the VDHCD and should any of them not be approved, those not approved will not become effective so that any prior measures, if any, on the particular matter, will stay in effect. 6. Any funding required for any such local incentives is subject to the appropriation of such funds by Council. 7. As amended, Ordinance No. 33019-070196, adopted July 1, 1996, and Ordinance No. 35414-061801, adopted June 18, 2001, are hereby affirmed and remain in full force and effect. 8. The City Manager is authorized to submit to the VDHCD all information necessary for approval or confirmation of the above amendments regarding local incentives and the addition of a local incentive, and to take such further action or to execute such further documents as may be necessary to meet other program requirements or to establish and administer the local incentives as set forth above. The City Clerk is authorized to execute and attest any documents that may be necessary or required for the purposes as set forth above. 9. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this Ordinance will be in full force and effect upon its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. H:~dea~ut~7~Z Incm~ivm Amz~m~.do~ CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk April 22, 2002 File #60-266 Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk Jesse A. Hall Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Hall: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 35819-041502 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2001-02 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, providing for the transfer of funds in connection with amendments to the Enterprise Zone Program for water, sewer and fire hookup fee rebates, as well as building permit and comprehensive plan review fee rebates. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Attachment pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Elizabeth A. Neu, Director of Economic Development Barry L. Key, Director, Management and Budget H:X, Agenda.02XApril 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35819-041502. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 2001-2002 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 2001-2002 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Appropriations Economic Development Incentive Funds Business ATT (1) ............................ Facade Grant Program (2) .................................. Enterprise Zone Fee Rebates (3) ............................. 1) CMERP - Equipment Purchases 2) CMERP - Equipment Purchases 3) CMERP - Equipment Purchases (008-310-9735-9132) (008-310-9736-9132) (008-310-9738-9132) (35,OOO) 20,000 15,000 $ 24,259,525 15,000 100,000 15,OOO 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 April 15, 2002 Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor William H. Carder, Vice Mayor William D. Bestpitch, Council Member C. Nelson Harris, Council Member W. Alvin Hudson, Council Member William White, Sr., Council Member Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council: Subject: Amendments to Local Incentives for the City's Enterprise Zones Background: The City's Enterprise Zone One (formerly called the Roanoke Urban Enterprise Zone) was designated by the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1984, with limited local incentives. Enterprise Zone Two and the 581/Hershberger Subzone were established in 1996 and 1998, respectively. By Ordinance No. 33019-070196, Council established certain local incentives for Enterprise Zone Two, which applied to the Subzone when it was established in 1998. By Ordinance No. 34412-071999, Council made the local incentives of each Enterprise Zone applicable to the other Enterprise Zone to the extent they were not unique to one Enterprise Zone. By Ordinance No. 35414-061801, Council extended the availability of such local incentives through December 31, 2003, when Enterprise Zone One will either terminate or be extended by the Commonwealth of Virginia. In 2001, the City Department of Economic Development completed an evaluation of the Enterprise Zone local incentives. The Department concluded that amendments to the local incentives should be made to increase the effectiveness of the program. The amendments propose to do the following: (a) expand the availability of rebates for water, fire, and sewer hookup fees and for building permits and comprehensive development plan review fees to include rehabilitation work in addition to new building construction; (b) to extend the availability of the local incentives for the Enterprise Zones from December 31, 2003 to June 30, 2007; (c) to add a local incentive to provide limited funds for partial grants for the cost of certain building fa(;ade renovations within Enterprise 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 April 15, 2002 Page 2 Zone One; and (d) to modify and/or extend certain funding limits in connection with certain local incentives. A summary of the amended local incentives is attached as Attachment A. The amended incentives will be applicable to Enterprise Zones One and Two (including the Subzone for Two) except as noted in (c) above, and would be effective July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2007, unless extended. Provided, however, that the local incentives for Enterprise Zone One may terminate if that Enterprise Zone is not extended by the Commonwealth of Virginia and terminates on December 31, 2003. Considerations: The requirements for Enterprise Zone amendments require Council to hold a public hearing on the matter before the City can file an application with the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (VDHCD) to approve the amendments to the City's local incentives. Funding for the incentives will be necessary until the end of the life of the incentives, July 1, 2007, unless otherwise extended. The limitations on the total amount of funding provided for the incentives as stated in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Ordinance No. 33019-070196 should be extended so that such limitations on the total funding for any such local incentive will be for a period consisting of a total of five consecutive years and not just for a specific five year period as originally stated therein. The Department of Economic Development has funds sufficient to capitalize the Facade Grant incentive for at least one year, as well as $15,000 for the other incentives. Additional funds may be needed in the future, depending on the demand for the incentives. Please see Attachment B for a more detailed explanation of these funding needs as they may arise in the future. Recommended Action: Lacking comments at the public hearing that would require further consideration, Council amend the appropriate measures to establish the above-mentioned local incentives subject to the approval by the VDHCD with an effective date of July 1, 2002. Furthermore, Council authorize the City Manager to apply to the VDHCD for approval of the above local incentive amendments and to add the local incentive, and to take such further action and/or execute such additional documents as may be necessary to obtain or confirm such local incentives and to establish appropriate rules and regulations to implement and administer such local incentives once approved. Honorable Mayor and Members of Council April 15, 2002 Page 3 Funding of $80,000 is currently available in account 008-310-9736-9132, Enterprise Zone Local Incentives. This account name should be changed to "Fa(;ade Grant Program" to more accurately reflect the planned use of these funds. It is recommended that City Council transfer $20,000 from account 008 310-9735-9132 to account 008-310-9736-9132 (Fa(;ade Grant Program). In addition, transfer $15,000 from account 008-310-9735-9132 to an account to be established by the Director of Finance for water, sewer and fire hookup fee rebates, as well as building permit and comprehensive plan review fee rebates. Respectfully submitted, Darle~ City Manager DLB:sem C~ Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Elizabeth A. Neu, Director of Economic Development CM02-00050 Attachment A to Council Letter Dated April 15, 2002, #CM02-00050 Enterprise Zone Amendment Changes 2002 Current Incentives (1) City pays for water, fire and sewer hookup fees of up to 100% based on new building construction investment with limitations. City Rebates 100% ,999.99 90% ,999.99 80% ,999.99 70% .999.99 60% .999.99 50% .999.99 40% .999.99 30% .999.99 20% 0% Amount Invested $1,000,000 or more $900,000-$999 $800,000-$899 $700,000-$799 $600,000-$699 $500,000-$599 $400,000-$499 $300,000-$399 $250,000-$299 $0-$249,999.99 Proposed Incentive Change (1) City pays for water, fire and sewer hookup fees of up to 100% based on new building construction investment and/or building rehabilitation investment with limitations. AmountInvested $1,000,000 or more $900,000-$999 $800,000-$899 $700,000-$799 $600,000-$699 (2) Real Estate Tax Exemption for substantial rehabilitation, renovation or replacement of commercial or industrial buildings at least 15 years of age pursuant to Section 58.1-3221 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. (3) Machinery & Tools Tax Rebate of 50% of the Machinery & Tools tax owed, based on new equipment investment of at least $1,000,000, to the extent permitted by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. $500,000-$599 $400,000-$499 $300,000-$399. $250,000-$299 $125,000-$249,999.99 $0-$124,999.99 999.99 999.99 999.99 999.99 999.99 999.99 999.99 999.99 (2) No change to incentive. City Rebates 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% (3) The Machinery & Tools Tax Rebate was never offered because it was determined to be against State code. Therefore, this type of rebate will not be considered or offered unless State law changes to permit such rebates to be used as an incentive. Enterprise Zone Amendments 2002 Current and Proposed New Incentives Page I of 3 Attachment A to Council Letter Dated April 15, 2002, #CM02-00050 (4) Up to 100% rebate of Development Fees (Building Permit. Site Plan Review) based on new building construction investment in the building only. Amount Invested City Rebates $5,000,000 or more 100% $1,000,000-$4999,999.99 50% $0-$999,999.99 0% (5) Architectural Advisory Assistance for existing industrial facility rehabilitation and new facility construction. Roanoke City staff architect will advise prospective development projects of architectural requirements, options on ADA, the fire code, and the building code. (6) Job Training Grants to train residents for new jobs created by industrial expansion or relocation. (7) Business Development Seminars (8) Personal Development Seminars (9) Project Cost Reduction through public/private partnerships (10) City pays for water and sewer line extensions to certain properties in census tract 6.98, Block groups 1, 2 and 8 who need water and sewer service. (4) Up to 100% rebate of Building Permit fees and Comprehensive Development Plan Review fees based on new building construction investment and/or building rehabilitation investment. Amount Invested City Rebates $100,000 or more 100% $75,000-$99,999.99 75% $50,000-$74,999.99 50% $25,000-$49,999.99 25% $0-$24,999.99 0% (5) No change to incentive. (6) No change to incentive. (7) No change to incentive. (8) This incentive is being deleted because the Department of Economic Development does not have the expertise and to provide these seminars would duplicate the efforts of other capable organizations in the Roanoke Valley. (9) No change to this incentive. (10) No change to this incentive. Enterprise Zone Amendments 2002 Current and Proposed New Incentives Page 2 of 3 Attachment A to Council Letter Dated April 15, 2002, #CM02-00050 (11) Residents in census tract 6.98, Block groups 1, 2 and 8 wishing to take GED classes or enroll in other high school graduation programs are eligible for mini grants for enrollment fees, books or testing, based on the financial need of the recipient. (12) Street lights will be added to neighborhoods in census tract 6.98, Block groups 1, 2 and 8 based on feasibility and need. (13) Install up to 2200 linear feet of sidewalks and curbs in neighborhoods in census tract 6.98, Block groups 1, 2 and 8 based on feasibility and need (14) Certain neighborhood organizations in census tract 6.98, Block groups 1, 2 and 8 wishing to promote civic pride are eligible for mini grants from the Neighborhood Partnership. (15) Housing rehabilitation assistance for homeowners in the Enterprise Zones. (11) No change to this incentive. (12) No change to this incentive. (13) No change to this incentive. (14) No change to this incentive. (15) No change to this incentive. (16) The City of Roanoke will provide funds to the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke (IDA) for the IDA to provide Fa(;ade Grants only for Enterprise Zone One of 33% of only building fa(;ade renovation costs for those facades in need of renovation, capped at $25,000 per grant, and limited to $100,000 per year for all such grants. Enterprise Zone Amendments 2002 Current and Proposed New Incentives Page 3 of 3 0 0 o, 0 >, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Before The Council of the City of Roanoke For Enterprise Zone Amendments The Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a public hearing on Monday, April 15, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 4th Floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia to consider the following: Pursuant to the requirements of the Virginia Enterprise Zone Act, §59.1-270 et.seq., Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the City of Roanoke proposes to make an application to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development to amend the local incentives offered in the City's Enterprise Zones One and Two (including the Subzone of Two). The amendments propose to do the following: (a) expand the availability of rebates for water, fire, and sewer hookup fees and for building permits and comprehensive plan review fees to include rehabilitation work in addition to new building construction; (b) to add a local incentive to provide limited funds for partial grants for the cost of certain building facade renovations within Enterprise Zone One; (c) to extend the availability of the local incentives for the Enterprise Zones from December 31, 2003 to June 30, 2007; and (d) to modify and/or extend certain funding limits in connection with certain local incentives. A copy of the local incentives currently offered and the proposed amended incentives are available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, Roanoke, Virginia, 24011, phone 853-2541 Ail parties and interested 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 City Clerk's Office at 853-2541 before 12:00 noon on the Wednesday before the date of the hearing listed above. GIVEN under my hand this 20th day of l~arch ,2002. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. Note to Publisher: Please publish twice in The Roanoke Times, once on Sunday, March 31, 2002, and once on Sunday, April 7, 2002. Send Publisher's Affidavit to: Send Bill to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 Elizabeth A. Neu, Director of Economic Development 111 Franklin Plaza, Suite 200 Roanoke, VA 24011 H:~PHEARNOT DOC NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Before The Council of the City of Roanoke For Enterprise Zone Amendments The Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a public hearing on Monday, April 15, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 4th Floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia to consider the following: Pursuant to the requirements of the Virginia Enterprise Zone Act, §59.1-270 et.seq., Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the City of Roanoke proposes to make an application to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development to amend the local incentives offered in the City's Enterprise Zones One and Two (including the Subzone of Two). The amendments propose to do the following: (a) expand the availability of rebates for water, fire, and sewer hookup fees and for building permits and comprehensive plan review fees to include rehabilitation work in addition to new building construction; (b) to add a local incentive to provide limited funds for partial grants for the cost of certain building facade renovations within Enterprise Zone One; (c) to extend the availability of the local incentives for the Enterprise Zones fi:om December 31, 2003 to June 30, 2007; and (d) to modify and/or extend certain funding limits in connection with certain local incentives. A copy of the local incentives cun'ently offered and the proposed amended incentives are available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, Roanoke, Virginia, 2401 l, phone 853-2541 All parties and interested 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 City Clerk's Office at 853-2541 before 12:00 noon on the Wednesday before the date of the hearing listed above. GIVEN under my hand this l[6th day of March ,2002. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. Note to Publisher: Please publish in the Roanoke Tribune on Thursday, April 4, 2002. Send publisher's affidavit to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Send bill to: Elizabeth A. Neu, Economic Development Dir. 111 Franklin Plaza, Suite 200 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 The Roanoke Times Roanoke, Virginia Affidavit of Publication The Roanoke Times OFFICE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 215 CHURCH AVE., S.W. ROOM 353, MUNICIPAL ROANOKE VA 24011 REFERENCE: 80084300 01873769 Enterprise Zone 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 su~scribe~ before me this .... / day of Apri~Q~2 ~ ~-~W~t~s my band and official My commission expires .... PUBLISHED ON: 03/31 04/07 2002, at 7:00 p.m, in the Noel C. *rs~ MunIc~ it~ 225 Ch.nh Avon.e, S.W., AL~ Lr, O.'l-270 eUeq., Code od' Vlrdd. (29~)), ,,- .mend- _(kq'~'____'d~.l_ m~'S.l~ ,m'T,,,o). do tl,~ oon~tmction; (b) to .todd a k]c.l ~One; (c) to extend lhe Ci~ CledCs Office at 853-254.1 (/873769) TOTAL COST: 403.44 FILED ON: 04/09/02 Authorized Signature: __~~____~ ............ Billing Services Representative 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 April 22, 2002 File #51 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant Deputy City Clerk Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte P. O. Box 2887 Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2887 Dear Ms. Goodlatte: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 35821-041502 rezoning a tract of land containing 3.56 acres located on Tazewell Avenue, Fourth Street and Dale Avenue, S. E., consisting of 25 tracts of land lying and being in the City of Roanoke, and described as Official Tax Nos. 4012201,4012205-4012210, inclusive, and 4012246-4012248, inclusive, 4012212, 4012601-4012608, inclusive, 4012628, and 4012611-4012615, inclusive, from RM-2, Residential Multi-family, Medium Density District, and C-2, General Commercial District, to INPUD, Institutional Planned Unit Development District, subject to certain proffers contained in the petition filed in the Office of the City Clerk on March 26, 2002. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002, and will be in full force and effect ten days following the date of adoption. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure pc: Mr. Frank G. Roupas, 1841 Warrington Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Mr. and Mrs. Paul Crawford, 527 Fifth Street, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 P & L Property Enterprises, Inc., 318 Ray Street, N. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24019 H:'xAgenda.02L&pril 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd Maryellen F. Goodlatte April 22, 2002 Page 2 pc: Ms. Polly Ann Altice, 521 Fifth Street, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Ms. Leola M. Wilson, 519 Fifth Street, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Mr. and Mrs. Edward Dull, 513 Fifth Street, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Mr. Jesse L. Chisom, Sr., and Ms. Bonnie S. Bishop, 420 Dale Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Mr. And Mrs. Donald L. Graybill, Route 2, Box 31711, Vinton, Virginia 24179 Ms. Maggie H. Grove, c/o Ms. Carolyn Crewson, 709 Shelbourne Avenue, Vinton, Virginia 24179 Mr. Timothy Haxton, 416 Tazewell Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Mr. Gregory T. Decol, Jr., 3242 Webster Road, Glade Hill, Virginia 24092 Mr. Otis Truman Lowder, 3114 Hillcrest Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Ms. Tracy A. Qahhar, 434 Eureka Loop, Newport News, Virginia 23601 Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth W. Conner, 2244 Twelve O'Clock Knob Road, Salem, Virginia 24153 Moore Associates, LLC, 2115 Crystal Spring Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Mr. Mark Peterson, 1210 Penmar Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Ms. Christine Proffit, 424 Bullitt Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Mr. Bobby Meadows, 410 Bullitt Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Willard N. Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission Ronald L. Smith, Building Commissioner Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney H:h~.genda.02XApril ! 5, 2002 correspondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35821-041502. AN ORDINANCE to amend {}36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 401, 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 Rescue Mission of Roanoke, Inc., 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, and C-2, General Commercial District, to INPUD, Institutional Planned Unit Development 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 ~ April 15, 2002, 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 oppommity 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 heating, is of the opinion that the hereinafter described property 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. 401 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other: That tract of land containing 3.56 acres located on Tazewell Avenue, Fourth Street and Dale Avenue, S.E., consisting of twenty-five (25) tracts of land lying and being in the City of Roanoke, and described as Official Tax Map Nos. 4012201, 4012205, 4012206, 4012207, 4012208, 4012209, 4012210, 4012247, 4012246, 4012248, 4012212, 4012608, 4012607, 4012606, 4012605, 4012628, 4012601, 4012602, 4012603, 4012604, 4012611, 4012612, 4012613, 4012614, and 4012615, be, and is hereby rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, and C-2, General Commercial District, toiNPUD, Institutional Planned Unit Development District, subject to the proffers contained in the Petition filed in the Office of the City Clerk on March 26, 2002, and that Sheet No. 401 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. N:\CAPS\OR.~) [~[ANC ES~o-re~Re~cueMis~[~rI~UI). wPd ~CHARTERED 1~8821~ Roanoke City Department of Planning Building and Development Room 166, Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (540) 853-1730 (Fax) 853-1230 Email: planning@ci.roanoke.va.us April 15, 2002 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Council Member Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council: Subject: Request from The Rescue Mission of Roanoke, Inc. that 3.56 acres, more or less, consisting of twenty-five parcels generally located on Tazewell Avenue, Fourth Street and Dale Avenue, S. E., be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, and C-2, General Commercial District, to INPUD, Institutional Planned Unit Development District, subject to certain proffered conditions. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission public hearing was held on March 21,2002. By a vote of 4-2, the Commission recommended approval of the requested rezoning (Messrs. Butler, Campbell, Chrisman and Hill voting for the petition; Messrs. Rife and Manetta voting against; and Mr. Dowe absent). Citizens spoke both in favor of and in opposition to the rezoning. Planning staff recommended denial of the rezoning. Background: Petition to rezone properties from RM-2 and C-2 to INPUD, subject to certain proffered conditions, was filed on February 7, 2002. Amended petition to rezone was filed on March 15, 2002. Second Amended Petition was filed on March 26, 2002, after a discussion at the Planning Commission meeting that clarified programs at the new facility, specifically with respect to the "infirmary". The Rescue Mission Thrift Store is not included in the rezoning request. Proffered conditions of the rezoning are as follows: The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the Development Plan prepared by Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, dated March 15, 2002, a copy of which is attached to this Petition for Rezoning as Exhibit B, subject to any changes required by the City as part of its Comprehensive Development Plan review. A congregate home, housing the Women's Residential Recovery Program, will be in the Women and Children's Building and will have a maximum of twenty-four (24) women program participants, who will live in the Women and Children's Building with their children. In addition to the participants in the Women's Residential Recovery Program, the following programs will be housed in the Women and Children's Building: The Family Shelter (12 units/48 beds maximum); the Female Transient Program (1 unit/10 beds maximum); the Infirmary (2 units/12 beds maximum); and Residential staff (2 units). No beds other than for those programs and personnel identified in this paragraph (and subject to the maximum numbers identified in this paragraph) will be added to the Women and Children's Building. The exterior of the Women and Children's Building will be in substantial conformity with the elevations prepared by Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern dated March 15, 2002, and attached to this Petition for Rezoning as Exhibit B, subject to any changes required by the City as part of its Comprehensive Development Plan review. 4. The number of beds for male transients in the Rescue Mission will not exceed 101. 5. Except for those shown on the Development Plan, no other buildings will be constructed on the property. Purpose of the proposed zoning change is to expand the existing Rescue Mission facilities to include a new building for services to women and children and an infirmary. The existing facility currently provides approximately 200 beds allocated to Men's Transient Program (101 beds), Men's Recovery Shelter (39 beds), Women's Transient Program (10 beds) and a Family Shelter (48 beds). Some of the existing programs are proposed to move to the new building. The new facility is proposed to include the following programs: Women's Residential Recovery Program (14 units/24 beds), Female Transient Program (1 unit/10 beds), Family Shelter (12 units/48 beds), Infirmary (2 units/12 beds), and residential staff (2 units). This rezoning request is being considered concurrently with a request to close four alleys in the viCinity of Tazewell Avenue, Dale Avenue and 4th Street, S. E. The existing Rescue Mission facility was established at this location in 1973, after it was relocated from First Street, S.E. Additions to the facility were made in 1989, 1993, and 1998 to accommodate new social services. A new thrift store was constructed in 2000. Documented discussions with city staff and neighborhood leaders regarding a new facility for women and children have occurred since 1997. In 1998, a rezoning of the subject parcels was considered, but was never officially filed. Since 1997, neighborhood concerns have been expressed regarding the existing facility and the possible expansion. Residents and other citizens acknowledge the Rescue Mission's 2 good community work; however, they have expressed concerns for the overall social and physical effects of the programs on the southeast neighborhood (i.e. loitering of transients, disruption of residential quality of life, crime and safety issues, offensive behaviors of clients, littering in alleys, and demolition of residential buildings). In June 2000, the City Manager encouraged greater dialogue between the Rescue Mission and neighborhood interests regarding the future of the Rescue Mission and resolution of neighborhood issues. Institutional zoning that included an adopted master plan was identified as a possible tool for consideration that had worked in other communities. During the summer of 2000, several community walks and meetings were held to review neighborhood conditions and discuss future expansion plans of the Rescue Mission. City planning staff helped to facilitate the community workshops The Rescue Mission's architectural consultant, Hayes Seay Mattern & Mattern, discussed three master plan concepts for an expanded Rescue Mission in a campus setting. Based upon comments received, a plan was developed that proposed a new brick building on 4~h Street that articulates the residential character of the area and includes landscaping and recreational amenities. Initially, the plan included a proposal to close Dale Avenue in order to establish a controlled campus environment; however, the proposal now has been withdrawn. While some agreement with respect to a development plan was reached, there was not a strong consensus regarding future development for the Rescue Mission. Consensus points from the meetings (see notes submitted with petition) indicate that an alternative location was recommended for consideration, as well as options for new housing on the property proposed for expansion. The Institutional Planned Unit Development District (INPUD) was developed and adopted in May 2001 for use by institutions that have a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The intent of the district is to encourage harmonious development of land uses, to minimize impacts on neighboring uses, and to recognize the special relationships of institutional complexes. Development standards are established and an approved development plan is required that depicts the location and use of buildings, facilities, streets, infrastructure, lighting and open space. Compatibility of structures with the character and appearance of the surrounding neighborhood also is reviewed in terms of height, bulk, and location. Planning Commission public hearing was held on March 21,2002. A draft copy of the minutes of the meeting is attached for your review. Over 100 persons attended the public hearing. Mrs. Maryellen Goodlatte presented the requests for rezoning and the alley closures. Evie Lander presented the planning staff report, recommending denial of the rezoning advising that while the Rescue Mission provided needed social services, the expansion would be a strain on the residential quality of life for the Belmont neighborhood and could adversely affect residential revitalization and investment, particularly for those properties on 5th Street and Bullitt Avenue. Nine persons spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Eight persons spoke in favor of the rezoning. Valid reasons for both approval and denial of the request were presented. 3 Considerations: Zoning of the subject parcels is C-2 (generally Tazewell Avenue to Dale Avenue) and RM-2 (generally Dale Avenue to Bullitt Avenue between 4th Street to 5th Street). The corner of Dale and 4th Street is zoned C-2. The subject area requested for rezoning meets the minimum two acre requirement for an INPUD district. Current land uses on the parcels requested for rezoning include the existing Rescue Mission group care facility (north of Dale Avenue) and vacant land (south of Dale Avenue between 4th and 5th Street). Previously, a commercial building and several single-family residential properties were located on the parcels south of Dale. Group care facilities, including congregate homes, are permitted in the INPUD district. Utilities for water and sewer are available to serve the proposed new development. Traffic associated with the new development is expected to be minimal and can be sufficiently accommodated. Thirty-five parking spaces already exist for the facility; new parking lots are proposed off of Dale Avenue (12 spaces) and a future parking area (24 spaces) is proposed off of 4th Street. It is expected that most residents of the facilities will not have cars. Four alley closures are proposed in conjunction with this development plan. New utility easements are proposed for relocation of alley utilities. A new alley connection also is proposed between Tazewell Avenue and Dale Avenue. Sidewalks are proposed for the new development. Proposed new facility is expected to contain 39,920 sf of space, be three stories in height and be 45 feet high, or less. The building is illustrated on the submitted plan as being constructed of brick and dryvit with a pitched composite shingle roof and projecting front bays of varying dimensions. Landscaping is shown adjacent to the new building and on the street frontages and public alleys. The new building is proposed to th th be setback 50 feet from the public alley between 4 and 5 Streets. Open space comprises 58 percent of the total land area. Lighting is to be provided so as not to illuminate adjacent residential areas. No perimeter fencing is proposed, except for a decorative fence around the children's playground. A comprehensive development plan for the new facility has been submitted and is approvable, pending final zoning action. Neighborhood organizations for this area include the Southeast Action Forum (member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership) and Historic Belmont Preservation Association. In addition, Faith Works, an inter-denominational church group is active in the community. The proposed rezoning, alley closures, and expansion of the Rescue Mission has created substantial controversy in both the neighborhood and in the larger community. A summary of the comments received to date (not including Planning Commission hearing comments) is included as an attachment to this report. Many neighborhood residents are opposed to the rezoning request and the expansion of the Rescue Mission. They have expressed concerns relating to disruptive transients, public safety, reduced property investment, concentration of social services, negative effects on residential life, and lack of an adopted neighborhood plan. Support for the proposed 4 request also has been received. Many of these supporters live outside of the neighborhood and express their support for the good work of the Rescue Mission and needed facilities for women and children. Both the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee and the Neighborhood Presidents Council have expressed their opposition to the request. Belmont-Fa#on Neighborhood Plan workshops were held in 2001. The neighborhood plan is being drafted, but has not been completed. Based upon the neighborhood workshops held, the priority issues to be addressed include community appearance and safety, housing revitalization and preservation, gateways and connections, and neighborhood economic development. Problems with vagrancy, litter, and resident safety were specifically cited as issues. Improving the conditions of housing and ensuring that new development fits with existing houses also were identified as priorities. The requested rezoning and expansion of the Rescue Mission are not in agreement with the preliminary recommendations of the Belmont-Fa#on Neighborhood Plan. The addition of another institutional facility and additional programs could detract from the residential environment of the neighborhood and contribute to nuisance issues that are already adversely affecting the neighborhood's quality of life. Also, the proposed institutional expansion would not further the housing revitalization goals identified by the neighborhood. The vacant lots proposed for the Rescue Mission expansion offer an opportunity for compatible, new housing development to enhance the residential homes located between Dale and Bullitt Avenues. Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan recommends the following policies for new development: Neighborhood plans. The City will adopt neighborhood plans for all neighborhoods. The neighborhood plans will address land uses zoning, transportation, infrastructure, neighborhood services, village center, and recognize those neighborhoods with architectural and historic value, among other issues. Neighborhood plans should include indicators for measuring neighborhood health and sustainability. 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 a mixture of residential uses on a large site, located within or adjacent to existing developments of established neighborhoods.) 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 the City. Concentration of federally subsidized, assisted or affordable housing will be discouraged. 4. 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. It was recommended that a plan be developed 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. 4. Health and human service a.qencies. Roanoke will support a range of health and human services to meet the needs of Roanoke's citizens. 5. Health care programs. Roanoke will support health care programs that encourage healthier living to improve community health. 6. Local and reqional collaboration. Roanoke will support efforts for local and regional collaboration and cost-sharing measures to assist health and human service agencies. 7. 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. Recommendation: By a vote of 4-2, the Commission recommended approval of the request for rezoning to INPUD for the purpose of expanding the Rescue Mission facility. Planning Commission members in support of the request cited the need for human service facilities, including a women's and children's facility; they also felt the expansion would not adversely impact the neighborhood because there was already an existing facility and they did not consider the expansion as clustering. Those Commission members opposed to the request cited clustering of the shelters in the area; the effects on the residential neighborhood; it was not in conformance with the preliminary recommendations of the neighborhood plan; and that past demolitions and new construction did not enhance and protect the historic neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, Robert B. Marietta, Chairman City of Roanoke Planning Commission C~ Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Rolanda Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Steve Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Maryellen Goodlatte, Attorney for the Petitioner Mark Petersen, President, SEAF Christine Proffitt and Bobby Meadows, Historic Belmont Preservation Association 6 SECOND AMENDED PETITION TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: The Petitioner, The Rescue Mission of Roanoke, Incorporated, a Vir~nia corporation, owns the following properties in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, Tax Map No. Tax Map No. Tax Map No. Tax Map No. Tax Map No. Tax Map No. Tax Map No. Tax Map No. Tax Map No. Tax Map No. Tax Map No. Tax Map No. Tax Map No. Tax Map No. 401 Tazewell Avenue, S.E., Zoned C-2 406 Fourth Street, S.E., Zoned C-2 Fourth Street, S.E., Zoned C-2 418 Fourth Street, S.E., Zoned C-2 Fourth Street, S.E., Zoned C-2 Zoned C-2 Zoned C-2 Zoned C-2 4012201, 4012205, 4012206, 4012207, 4012208, 4012209 Fourth Street, S.E., 4012210 Fourth Street, S.E., 4012247 Dale Avenue, S.E., 4012246 Dale Avenue, S.E., Zoned C-2 4012248 412 Dale Avenue, S.E., Zoned C-2 4012212 Dale Avenue, S.E., Zoned RM-2 4012608. Dale Avenue, S.E., Zoned RM-2 4012607. Dale Avenue, S.E., Zoned RM-2 4012606, Dale Avenue, S.E., Zoned RM-2 Tax Map Tax Map Tax Map Tax Map Tax Map Tax Map Tax Map Tax Map Tax Map Tax Map Tax Map No. 4012605, Dale Avenue, S.E., No. 4012628, Dale Avenue, S.E., No. 4012601, Dale Avenue, S.E., No. 4012602, Fourth Street, S.E., No. 4012603, Fourth Street, S.E., Zoned RM-2 Zoned C-2 Zoned C-2 Zoned C-2 Zoned C-2 No. 4012604, No. 4012611, No. 4012612, No. 4012613, No. 4012614, No. 4012615, Fourth Street, S.E., Zoned C-2 514 Fourth Street, S.E., Zoned RAM-2 Fourth Street, S.E., Zoned RM-2 602 Fourth Street, S.E., Zoned RM-2 Fourth Street, S.E., Zoned RM-2 Fourth Street, S.E., Zoned RM-2 Said tracts are currently zoned either RM-2 (Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District) or C-2 (General Commercial District) as individually identified above. A map of the properties to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit A. 2 Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned from the present zoning districts noted above to I/q-PUD (Institutional Planned Unit Development District) District, subject to certain conditions set forth below, for the purpose of facilitating the harmonious development and operation of the Rescue Mission facility in a campus like setting. The institutional development plan prepared by Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. dated March 15, 2002 and attached hereto as Exhibit B ("Development Plan"), provides the detail required by the INPUD ordinance including the detail for a proposed new building - the Women and Children's Building. A description of the current operations of the Rescue Mission together with the proposed operation of the new program (the Women's Residential Recovery Program) which will be housed in the Women and Children's Building is attached hereto as Exhibit C. In addition to the Women's Residential Recovery Program, an infirmary will be housed in the Women and Children's Building. The infirmary will consist of two units containing no more than 12 beds. The 58-bed Family Shelter currently housed in the main building will be moved to the ne~v building. The new Family Shelter will consist of 12 units with a 48 bed maximum. The Female Transient Program currently housed in the main building as part of the Family Shelter will be moved to the new building. It consists of 1 unit with a maximum of 10 beds. Residential staffwill also be housed in the Women and Children's Building. Moving the Family Shelter and the Female Transient Program from the main Rescue Mission building to the Women and Children's Building will provide additional office space and residential staff quarters in the main Rescue Mission building. No additional beds for male transients xvill be created in the main building. The Rescue Mission believes that the rezoning of the said tract of land will further the intent and purposes of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its Comprehensive Development Plan. The functions of the Rescue Mission are best addressed by and regulated within the IN'PUD District. The Plan recognizes that appropriate housing services for individuals with special needs should be available. Providing much needed health care to the City's under-served population is encouraged by the Plan. The Plan recognizes that facilities for individuals with substance abuse problems are needed in order to develop such citizens to their maximum potential. There is no facility in the Commonwealth of Vir~nia, like this one, which focuses on rehabilitating ~vomen with substance abuse problems, permitting and encouraging their children to live with them. All other treatment facilities require the separation of mothers fi.om their children. By stren~hening the parental bond while helping the mother overcome substance abuse, this proposed development meets Plan goals of supporting and strengthening the family while encoura~ng self-sufficiency for mother and child. The Comprehensive Plan also encourages community involvement. As noted in the report of Hayes, Seay, Mattem & Mattem attached hereto as Exhibit D, much time and effort has been spent in involving the community in a comprehensive planning process, which culminated in the proposed development. The Women and Children's Building maximizes the services of the adjacent Rescue Mission, while providing a residential structure for its residents and the neio~borhood. The residential character of the proposed building provides a solid transition to the nearby residential neighborhood and also acts as a buffer between the residential neighborhood and the existing interstate highway. 4 The Rescue Mission hereby proffers and agrees that if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning will be subject to, and that it will abide by, the following conditions: 1. The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the Development Plan prepared by Hayes, Seay, Mattem & Mattem, dated March 15, 2002, a copy of which is attached to this Petition for Rezoning as Exhibit B, subject to any changes required by the City as part of its Comprehensive Development Plan review. 2. A congregate home, housing the Women's Residential Recovery Program, will be in The Women and Children's Building. The Women's Residential Recovery Program will have a maximum of twenty-four (24) women program participants, who will live in the Women and Children's Building with their children. In addition to the participants in the Women's Residential Recovery Program, the following programs will be housed in the Women and Children's Building: The Family Shelter (12 units/48 beds maximum); The Female Transient Program (1 unit/10 beds maximum); The Infirmary .(2 units/12 beds maximum); and Residential staff (2 units). No beds other than for those programs and personnel identified in this paragraph (and subject to the maximum numbers identified in this paragraph) will be added to the Women and Children's Building. 3. The exterior of the Women and Children's Building will be in substantial conformity with the elevations prepared by Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattem dated March 15, 2002 and attached to this Petition for Rezoning as Exhibit B, subject to any changes required by the City as part of its Comprehensive Development Plan review. 4. The number of beds for male transients in the Rescue Mission will not exceed 101. 5. Except for those shown on the Development Plan, no other buildings will be constructed on the property. By separate application, the Rescue Mission has requested that four alleys be vacated, discontinued and closed. The Rescue Mission requests that the portion of the alleys for which vacation be sought be also zoned INP~ (Institutional Planned Unit Development District) District, subject to all of the conditions hereinabove proffered. Attached as Exhibit E are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owners of all lots or properties immediately adjacent to, immediately across a street or road from the property to be rezoned. WHEREFORE, the Rescue Mission requests that the above-described tracts be rezoned as requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke. Respectfully submitted this ~] ~ day of ~'~,.~,-~/x., ,2002. Respectfully submitted, THE RESCUE MISSION OF ROANOKE, INCORPORATED, a Virginia corporation By: of Cdunsel Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Esq. Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte P. O. Box 2887 Roanoke, Vir~nia 24001-2887 (540) 224-8018 - Telephone (540) 224-8050 - Facsimile The Rescue Mission of Roanoke, Incorporated, a Virginia corporation, owner of the property subject to this second amended petition hereby consents to this rezoning petition and agjees to be bound by the conditions that are proffered in this second amended petition. THE RESCUE MISSION OF ROANOKE, INCORPORATED ,its: 40%2110 ~0;2201 AIINIOONED R.O.W. TO S~ CON'V~I~ TO RESCUE: 4012205 4012206 4012207 40~ 22~ ~ 4012211 6.9(7.48~ = .i 60 USE PEAKING ,86X4=3.4 Cl 4012211 ,~o~ 2~ SOUTH 4012211 40~ 2211 401221 ~ 4012211 4012209 4012602 4012603 4012604 4012611 ~ANOONm ~_o.w. TO 10 RESCUE 26~2 40;2615 40126 4012617 4012618 4012679 4012620 R.O.W. UISSlON ~072610 4011 40727 401271( 4012712~ 40127;8 I IIIII111111111~1 '1 i l!llllpIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I / '1 · ..FROM T13~E EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Sixty-eight years ago my father staggered into a Rescue Mission on Chicago's Ski&ow. That event became the pivotal point in his life. A violent, dirty, alcoholic, criminal was transformed into a person of integrity, kindness and persevering vision. Having experienced this dramatic lifestyle change, he vowed to dedicate the remainder of his life to rescuing others just like hknself. My mother and father got off the train at the Roanoke stat/on on July I, 1948. On July 2, they opened the City Rescue Mission at 111 East Salem Avenue on the market. From the beginning, their vision was to establish a Rescue Mission where everyone would be welcome. They sought to establish a Christ centered ministry that was accepted, guided and supported by the entire community and that had programs designed to help hurting people in a holistic way: physically, emotionally, socially and spiritually. After two years the Rescue Mission celebrated three events: · It was endorsed by the local minister's conference · It was incorporated as a 501-C-3 organization and elected a local board of directors : · The birth of the Johnson's first child, a girl named Nancy Joy I was bom on February 9, 1950 and was christened in the Tazewell Avenue Methodist Church. (Where the Rescue Mission is currently located) Although I had a crib behind the piano in the Mission Chapel and a playpen in the Mission kitchen, at my birth my parents had moved out of the Mission building to'an apartment at 711 Tazewell Avenue, SE. The rent was $34 a month. Two years later, my brother Wayne was bom and my parents became home owners, purchasing a 4 room house on the Gl bill at 1139 Tayloe Avenue, SE with a mortgage of $43 a month in a working class neighborhood where most of the residents worked for the Visco Plant or the N&W Railroad Shops. I attended Morningside School. My best friends all lived in the same block. In the summer I rode the mule owned by the man down the street to plough local SE gardens. I followed the Clover Creamery truck asking for pieces of ice with all the other kids in the block. We never locked our doors. In those first six years I felt safe. I was getting ready for bed at age 7 when we got a bomb threat at our house because an African American Missionary,, who had been a guest speaker at the Mission Auxiliary, was spending the night at our house. I became aware of racism and the reputation my neighborhood had for intolerance. When [ was 12 the Rescue Mission had grown to the extent that we had rented two apartments across the street to house homeless families. We then purchased a larger building across the street on Salem Avenue to accommodate more shelter beds. The deed was signed and recorded and that night the building (which had been vacant) burned to the ground. The board of the Mission voted to build a new Mission on the property, but were asked by the City to consider moving to another location so that the property could be used for additional downtown parking. The board agreed. Land was located and purchased on First Street, SE. Public officials, board members and friends of the Mission gathered for a ground breaking ceremony with gilded shovels in hand, when a representative arrived with an injunction . we could not build on that site. No one had ever heard ofI-81 before that day. The Westinghouse Warehouse next door to the vacant lot was for sale, and so it was purchased, gutted and made into the second home of the Rescue Mission for the next eight years until a change in the engineering of First Street, Elmwood Park and the advent of Community Hospital took that property as well. A city planner suggested we look at the Tazewell Avenue Methodist Church Building. It had been abandoned years earlier and the City of Roanoke thougdat it would be an excellent location for the new Rescue Mission. The board of the Rescue Mission agreed. It was on a bus route, close to a hospital and affordable. A community campaign raised $600,000 to build the building on the comer of 4t~ and Tazewell Avenue, SE. Ln the fall of 1973,with the blessing of the City and the overwhelming response of the community, we moved into the fn:st building we had actually designed and built to be used as a Rescue Mission. My father was buried on Christmas Eve of the same year. Unlike many of my neighborhood friends, I was given the opportunity to attend college following high school. I went on to graduate school resulting in two masters degrees, one in social work and the other in church and community relations. Unlike most of my friends, as an adult, when I returned to Roanoke 16 years ago, I moved back into my old SE neighborhood. My husband and I invested an additional $15,000 into the house on Tazewell Avenue across the street from the Mission and two doors down from another house then being used to house homeless families. It was a nice house and convenient to work and other downtown amenities. But there was a crack house next door. Gangs partied in the house during all hours of the day and night. Crime, vandalism and arson increased. A mission volunteer was so severely beaten when delivering items to the shelter in the alley behind the crack house, that when his wife saw his body she had a heart attack and they both had to be hospitalized. On a sunny afternoon, when our 7 year old son was playing on the front porch of our house, guns were fired next door. The Rescue Mission (across the street from our house) was a safe place, but the surrounding neighborhood was also the home of a growing drug culture and increased criminal activity. It was not safe for my family or the homeless families in the houses to stay on that side of the street. So, in 1989 the community donated 1.1 million dollars to build a family shelter adjoining the main mission building. Safety (round the clock staff presence, security cameras, etc) was possible on the Rescue Mission campus. The family shelter was finished just in time. The numbers of homeless women and children began to explode, not just in Roanoke, but all over the country. The shelter stayed full and several other local shelters opened or expanded to deal with the overflow. Emergency shelter and food and clothes are basic survival needs that must be met for the weakest citizens of every community. The leadership of the Rescue Mission was also concerned about the precipitating causes of homelessness and human suffering in our city. As a result of this concern, the Rescue Mission developed one of the premiere residential recovery programs in the country. This innovative program attracted delegations fi.om many other states. Delegations form other countries (Australia, New Zealand, Japan, England, France, Kenya, Ghana, Russia, etc) have toured our facility. Our innovative program has attracted national attention and private grant monies locally and from other parts of the state. This Mission is the only Rescue Mission and one of the only institutions in SW Virginia to receive a Kresge Grant ($300,000) fi.om the Kresge Foundation in Troy, MI. As is often the case, those outside of a community often see the treasures of a particular community before the locals realize what they have. Last year, the Rescue Mission provided direct social services to citizens in crisis saving the community over 5 million dollars. With the advent of the healthcare center in June these savings will rise just as our weakest citizens face a depressed economy, limitations on employment, inadequate access to healthcare and a shrinking public and private social service budget. Last year, my family moved back to Southeast. We live in what two years ago was one of the worst houses in the neighborhood. With the help of 500 volunteer friends of the Rescue Mission, the house at 402 Bullitt has become a model of what can be done with the housing stock in this fragile, transitional neighborhood. Over 2,000 people have toured this house. The hope of the leadership of the Rescue Mission is that this house will help realtors, businesses and future home owners "check out" the opportunities for economic development in Southeast. The Rescue Mission is not running for election or competing for city, state or federal funds. Our mission statement is to "alleviate human suffering" in Jesus name. We seek to do this in parmershir> with all agents of ~oodwill. We are in for the long haul not just until the grant money runs out, or the politicians change seats, or the philosophy of urban planning takes a new direction. We seek justice and mercy for people who do not have power, but are citizens of this community. We have no hidden agenda. We are peacemakers. We strive for consensus. But we will stand fu-rn in our calling to advocate for the poor, the dispossessed and weakest of our citizens. A series of public meetings were held concerning this expansion as early as 1997. Some of these'were held at the Rescue Mission, some at the Presbyterian Center, some at the Old Fire House on Jamison Avenue, and some at Belmont Christian Church. The Rescue Mission continues to seek input from and work in collaboration and partnership with the SE Action Forum, The Southeast Christian Parmership and Faith Works. One of the reasons the Rescue Mission program works is that we realize that to "do good" we have to "do well." So, we have consistently kept our standards higher than required. The buildings we build are functional, efficient, and architecturally appropriate. Everyone agrees that our property is well maintained. We are located between an interstate highway and a mixed use neighborhood representing three different property zones in one block: light manufacturing, commercial, and residential. We were advised to build in this location thirty years ago, because the Rescue Mission Could become a buffer or a transition between the interstate, the light manufacturing/commercial zones and the residential part of the neighborhood. With the advent ofi-73 or the widening of I-81 this is more ume than ever. The natural topography of this location also works to make the Rescue Mission a buffer between these mixed uses of property. The Rescue Mission has actively sought community input since 1993 for this expansion. Neighborhood surveys were taken, neighborhood groups were consulted, and representatives from planning were invited to give input in a number of public meetings. ...ABOUT THE RESCUE MISSION AND ITS PROGIL~dVIS The Rescue Mission is a comprehensive crisis intervention ministry utilizing a systematic approach to the issue of homelessness on a local level, involving a local board of directors, a staff of 59 employees and over 1800 local volunteers. The approach is holistic with an emphasis on personal responsibility, an internal transformation of values and vision, and a restoration of self-respect. The staff uses cutting edge technology, therapeutic tools and pro.ams to accomplish dramatic resuks in the lives of hurting people. The Rescue Mission's systematic approach has six component pro.ams: · Shelter ministry for men, women and children (including residential recovery-50,560 nights of safe shelter in 2001) · Food service ministry. (211,631 meals in 2001) · Recycling ministry (clothing, furniture, householdgoods and cars- 17,871 items distributed to those in need in 2001) Retreat ministry (children's day camp for homeless children in the summer and adult retreats during the other seasons) · Learning center ministry (academic, social skills and art therapy) · Healthcare ministry (medical andpsychiatricfree clinics on site) The Rescue Mission uses these services as the entree to an intervention that can enable a family to break the cycle of poverty and homelessness and become healthy, solvent, contributing citizens. The final part of this comprehensive pro.am is the addition of women and their dependent children to the existing residential recovery pro~'am. The Rescue Mission operates three levels of shelter ministry. First Level Emergency shelter beds are available for men, women and children. The people who fill these beds each night need shelter for a variety of reasons including: a) 0 e) h) Fire and flood victims Evictions and condemnations Domestic violence victims and relocan'ons Agricultural migrant workers and other transient workers Stranded motorists and travelers The unemployed Veterans and others receiving treatment at a local medicaI facili~ Hospital and other institutional discharges These guests enter the shelter system for a specified time (average time is approximately 9 weeks) and upon Funding employment or hoUSing, they reenter society. Second Level In addition to these guests, the Rescue Mission is the shelter of last resort to the local chronic homeless population. These beds are filled with local residents who often have periods of homelessness due to medical and psychiatric illnesses and substance abuse. If they were not in the Rescue Mission shelter they would be literally "on the street and sleeping on grates" as they are in some other cities. Most of these people are not capable of independent living, but our community to date has not produced the "system of community based group care facilities" promised when this mainstreaming began some 20 years ago. For now, the Rescue Mission stands in the gap. Third Level The third shelter ministry, of the Rescue Mission is a faith filled, 5-phase, 12- Step, residential recovery program. Currently the program is for men and involves a 12-month voluntary commitment. The plan has always been to eventually include women (specifically women with dependent children) as well. The "Discovery Recovery Program" includes: · a 12 step approach to substance abuse involving meetings, classes, a mentors program and intentional community accountability. · a community service assigm'nent and the development of a healthy work ethic · a spiritual inventory and involvement in a number of local faith communities · academic classes (literacy, GED, computer literacy and job readiness training, etc.) · social skills classes (hygiene, nutrition, budgeting, anger management, parenting, co-dependency, etc.) · pastoral care (See Discovery Recovery Pro,am Chart that Follows) RESCUE MISSION DISCOVERY RECOVERY PROGRAM CHART The Rescue Mission Discovery Program is a 5-Phased, residential, Christ- centered, holistic approach to recovery involving personal responsibility, self determination, an internal transformation of values and a restoration of self-respect within the context of an institution which promises to provide an accepting, encouraging, safe, structured, mentoring environment. Phase I (6-8 r~eeks) Modules *Reprieve Module Assessment, Detoxification (Emotional, Spiritual, Physical), Orientation, and Integration 21 consecutive individual units of instruction for 1 hour *Service Assignment 6-8 hours daily, 6 days per week (All Phases) *Hygiene Module *Journal *Intro. 12-Step Module *Discipleship *Stop The Chaos *Learning Center *Directions Phase II (16 Weeks) Modules *Reunion Group *Decision Making Module *Anger I Module *Relapse Issues Module * Christianity Intro. Module *Peer 12-Step Module *Study Group Module 1 hour of weekly instruction for 3 weeks 1 hour of weekly instruction & daily entries (Continuous through Recovery Pr%re'am) 1.5 hour class 4 days per week for 3 weeks 1 hour per week (Continuous through Recovery Program) 1 hour of weekly instruction for 4 weeks I 0 hours per week (Continuous through Recovery Program) 3/4 hour meeting per week every 3 weeks (Continuous throu~ Recovery Prograrn) Commitment and Involvement 1.5 hour interaction weekly & monthly retreat (Continuous through Recovery Pro.am) 1 hour of weekly instruction for 7 weeks 1 hour class weekly for 6 weeks 1 hour of instruction per week for 6 weeks 1 hour of instruction per week for 6 weeks 3/4 hour meeting weekly for 14 weeks 1 hour of instruction and interaction weekly for 24 weeks Phase m (12 Weeks) Modules *Job Skills * Codependency Module *Anger II Module *Budget & Finance Module Phase IV (8-I2 Weeks) Modules *Separation Module *Social Integration Module * Gender Relations Module Phase V (a) (4-6 Weeks) *Full-time Employment Self Awareness, Healing, and Restoration 1 hour of instruction twice weekly for 13 weeks 1 hour of instruction twice weekly for 6 weeks 1 hour class & 1 hour ~oup weekly for 6 weeks t hour of instruction per week for 5 weeks Goal Setting, Transition, Graduation (Full-time emplo, vment or permanent housing) 1 hour of instruction per week for 5 weeks 1 hour of instruction per week for 5 weeks 1 hour of instruction per week for 7 weeks Separation Completion of one Service Assigurnent shift weekly Phase V (b) (3 Month Segments) Residential Support Staff Residential recovery is a whole-life approach to dealing not only with the immediate issue ofhomelessness, but its precipitating causes, thus breaking the cyclical nature of poverty. This is much more than a "3 hots and a col' mentality. ...ABOUT THE PROPOSED WOMEN AND CHILDREN' BUILDENG The History hn 1989 the Rescue Mission built an addition to its existing complex to provide emergency shelter to the growing number of women and families who were joining the ranks of the homeless. (Previous to this ri'me, women and families had been housed by the Rescue Mission in residential &'pe houses in the neighborhood surrounding the Rescue Mission) Due to a surge in the number of homeless women and children (this was not just a local phenomena, but a national one) the 48-bed wing was filled within the frrst month of operation. An additional 10 beds were added in 1999. Although several other local shelters have since come into existence or expanded (Trust, TLC, Turning Point and Interfaith Hospitality Network) the number of women and children seeking shelter continues to ~'ow. (For a full report, please see the City Manager's Annual Reports on Homelessness and the Continuum of Care Reports since 1996). This past year (due to a number of factors such as the slow down of the economy, the change in welfare laws, the changes in access to adequate healthcare, etc.) the trend continued. There was a 7% increase in the number of women seeking shelter at the Rescue Mission and a 57% increase in the number of children seeking shelter. These women and children need a place to stay and something to eat tonight. But, it doesn't end there. Just as with homeless men, the precipitating causes of their homelessness need to be addressed. The Rescue Mission is in a unique position to testify to the fact that a "band- aid" approach to these families is not only inefficient and ineffective, but can actually become another precipitating cause of homelessness, producing a whole new generation of homeless people. The Current Needs Assessment In a Rescue Mission Family Shelter survey done two years ago, 85°4 of the women seeking shelter in the Rescue Mission Family Shelter, reported being physically and/or sexually abused as children. Approximately 90% reported that substance abuse (their own addiction or that of their significant other) was a factor in their present homeless state. These findings are consistent with other local programs and national surveys (see below). The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) r.eports there are more than 4 million women in our country who abuse drugs.~ In their book, A Nation in Denial ii, Alice Baum and Donald Burnes demonstrate that 65-85% of all homeless adults suffer from chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, mental illness or some combination of the three. According to one study, up to two thirds of homeless adults suffer from alcoholism and at least half suffer from drug disordersf' In the "Annual Snap Shot"ivtaken by the International Union of Gospel Missions, which surveys 15,000 homeless people seeking shelter in rescue missions, 21% of the residents in rescue mission shelters were women and more than 60% of the women seeking shelter were under age 45.~ The number of poor children in Virginia rose 34% from 1989 to 1993. The rise in the number of poor children in Virginia can be correlated, at least in part, with the rise in substance abuse (particularly crack cocaine) among V women of child-beating age. In our immediate community (according to the 1995 NHSDA), there are over 4,000 chemically addicted women (aged 15-44). Fifteen hundred of these women have young children living with them and over 375 of them have dependent children under the age of two.vi There are another 2,700 women in our community categorized as "heavy drinkers" (more than 60 drinks per month). "More than 85% of the 300 plus women who have participated in Project LINK were the victims, as children, of sexual or physical abuse. Well over half are from a broken home. Many have lived in foster homes. Most lack family and social support, and most grew up in an environment where substance abuse--usually alcohol--was the norm," reports Phebe Cress, the Coordinator of Project LINK (a collaborative program of Blue Ridge Community Services in Roanoke dealing with the issue of perinatal substance abuse.)vii Some substance abuse is the result of not knowing about the risks involved. The first nationally recognized information about the dangers of prenatal alcohol use was not published until 1989, when The Broken Cord, by Michael Dorris was published. "But most serious abuse is the result of a woman's having a hole in her soul so big she self-medicates to help ease the pain.,,'~ Although long term, residential recovery pro,ams are the most effective treatment plans for people who suffer from addiction), there is no program in the state of Virginia which enables a woman to keep her children with her while in a residential recovery program,ix Giving up their children is a major obstacle to chemically addicted mothers who seek help. "All of these moms love their children.''x If they do not receive the help they need, the abuse cycle continues into another generafionwvictims beget victims. When women with children are chemically addicted there is a substantial economic cost to our society, specifically to those institutions involved in · ,, ,r · ~xii health caren. In a study by Johns Hopkins nospma~ , 28% of all admissions to ICU were drug related (alcohol 9%, tobacco 14% and drugs 5%). These alcohol, tobacco and other drugs (ATOD) admissions were more severe than the other 72%, requiring 4.2 days in ICU versus 2.8 days. The cost of these ATOD admissions averaged $9,610 (63% ~eater) than the cost of the non-drug related admissions. A full 39% of the resources of the ICU went to treat ATOD related diseases. It has been estimated that 25% to 40% of all Americans in §.eneral hospital beds are there due to complications of alcoholismfi'" A second study conducted in Harrisonburg, PA'~v found that the children of alcoholic parents (COA) had a 24% increase in inpatient hospital admissions over children of non-alcoholic parents. They also exhibited a 29% greater average stay in the hospital, had hospital utilization rates 62% greater than non-COA's and the COA's hospital costs were 36% greater than for other children. When the cost of long term care for children born with such conditions as fetal alcohol syndrome, crack addiction and AIDS is figured into the equation, the cost to our society associated with young mothers who are chemically addicted becomes astronomical. The cost of just one condition, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) nOw costs our country about 2 billion dollars each year.xv The cost of medical treatment for non-using third parties is staggering.~ According to a telephone interview with Corrine Gott in 1998, then the Director of Social Services for Roanoke City, our city spent approximately $1,440,000 (40% of the foster care budget) for the foster care of children of chemically addicted parents. Dr. June Osbom of the New Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy says "there must be a bridge between what the public believes and the science." She urges corvanunities to put more resources into recovery programs and less into punitive measures. "Drug treatment can cut down crime by 80%."Says Norman Hoffman, a Brown University researcher who studied female substance abusers who were in jail. He found that 62% of those treated were not re-arrested. Another study done in California reported that involvement in drug sales, drug-related prostitution and theft decreased threefold after treatment,xvii The cost to incarcerate one woman who has been arrested due to her drug addicted life style (dealing, distribution, possession or prostitution) can cost as much as $25,000 to $45,000 per year (more than twice the cost of a long term residential recovery program),x''iii Only about 15% of the people who need treatment for substance abuse get it. ROANOKE VIRGINIA THERE ARE 4,000 CFFEMICALLY ADDICTED WOMEN 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 m4000 CHEMICALLY ADDICTED WOMEN BI1500 WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN E3375 WITH BABIES UNDER AGE 2 Only one in five pregnant substance abusers are now receiving treatment because there are too few programs, there is an inability to pay and there are no programs that will take women with children, reports Dr. Jeffrey Merrill of the University of Pennsylvania-xi~ In 1987, only 8% of the people interviewed by the Roanoke City Manager's stuwey of homeless shelters, were female,x~ By 1995, that number had climbed to 35%. Between 1978 and 1984 there was a 17% decrease in the number of treatment beds available to the indigent (those without insurance or funds to pay for care). According to the most recent congressional figures, only 12.5% of the nation's 6.5 million drug users have access to publicly funded treatment. TM The Rescue Mission has developed an 18 month residential, faith centered, recovery program for chemically addicted women and their children which will enable the women with the fewest resources to receive the opn'mum opportunity for overcoming their addictions. The changed lives of these women will have a dramatic and immediate effect on their own children. Children of chemically addicted women react by overachieving, rebelling against society, clowning or withdrawing from the family. These coping mechanisms develop into life-long unhealthy patterns which predispose the child to the same chemical dependence in adulthood as their parents. With proper intervention this cycle of abuse can be stopped and a cycle of health can be established for these families. The future holds fewer-- not more-- resources for these xvomen. Left untreated, the health care facilities of our community will soon be inundated by uninsured, unemployed, substance abusers and their children. Already, the Veterans Medical Center estimate they refer 30 people per month to the Rescue Mission's transient shelter and recove~ pro,ams. The Carilion Medical System's Social Services Dept. estimates their referrals to The Rescue Mission to be at a rate of approximately 650 patients per year. The advent of the Rescue Mission on site healthcare center in June of this year will allow all program participants to get the access to medical and psychiatric services in the most efficient and economical way with the most positive health outcome. Only about 15% of the people who need treatment for substance abuse get it. The Rescue Mission realizes that substance abuse is not only a physical problem, but a social, psychological and spiritual one as well. As one former addict who had repeatedly relapsed in secular treatment programs, explained to Senator Dan Coats (R-IN) "Those programs take addictions from you, but don't place anything within you. I needed a spiritual lifting.''xxii "No bureaucracy can instill the feelings of dignity mhd self worth out of which grows the desire to change.''xxiii As Cai Thomas wrote "...while rescue missions cannot force people to change, they can lead them to confront the responsibility they have to deal with their problems and can empower them in ways that secular government calli1ot.''xx~v Victory Fellowship, a faith-centered recovery program with over 75 locations in the western Unked States, Central America and South America, has a 70% success rate with men suffering from drug addiction. The success rate of secular programs treating drug addiction in the United States has less than a 2% success rate. (Success is defined as maintaining sobriety or being drug free for six months following treatment).'~ Mary, McGory writes that the success rate of rescue missions nationally is 70%, "their alumni stay sober and clean and get good jobs.''~'4 The Rescue Mission incorporates these essential elements in its recovery program: · Close supervision by staff andpeers · An environment with a strong sense of respect for authority · Modeled discipline · Administered with a real love of the addictedperson The Rescue Mission recruks former addicts and alcoholics who are living successful lives of recovery to work in the program. At present, one third of our staff are "survivors" or family members of survivors of addiction. This means they often see their work as a vocation, a calling, as well as a profession. The Rescue Mission currently operates a residential recovery program for men. This 12 month, faith-centered, residential recovery program for men consistently has a waiting list. Currently there are 36 men in the program. Last year 12 men graduated fi.om the program. The concept of recovery emphasizes the fact that it is a process--not an instant cure for the disease of drug and alcohol abuse. Addiction, according to the )d'nerican Medical Association, is defined as "an illness that impairs the emotional, psychological, spirit-ual, physical and social areas of a person's life.'''~ii This drug dependence interferes with a person's mental/physical health and adaptation to her/his environment. This dependency is a "compulsive, life-dominating disorder with its primary characteristic or symptom being the loss of control (powerlessness) over the drug of choice.''~iu There is a vast difference between abstinence (stopping the active use of alcohol or drugs) and recovery (an active involvement in a program of personal growth).~ Abstinence is an essential first step in order to establish therapeutic accessibility.'~'~ Recovery is "the practice of abstinence followed by the development of a new, healthy, chemical free lifestyle." A new world view or perspective, including the adoption of a new value system, establishment of a new community as a source of nurture and a well- defined sense of life' s purpose must be established and practiced in order to allow the recovery process optimum success. Only long term, residential approaches to recovery allow the time and environment for the practice part of this equation. Detox and Discovery · Maintenance, Character and Skill Building · Preparation, Family relations, Exit and Reentry There are three valid methods used in the Rescue Mission Recovery Program to establish a recovery friendly environment: support groups, mentoring and modeling. The Rescue Mission has developed a written recovery plan format which' serves as an organized approach to maintaining a structured program while still identifying and meeting the unique needs of each individual participating in it. The program is based on compassion (being with the participant in time of suffering), teaching (marketable sk/lls as well as life skills) and personal accountability.'~ In 1992 the Knox Area Rescue Ministry commissioned a study of recovery programs by the SRI Gallup Organization.'~'~i that established the six critical "life themes"* necessary, to sustain a permanent recovery lifes~-le enabling the woman to derive incremental health gains, improve social functioning, reduce harmful self-destructive behaviors and increase social integration while: Remaining sober · Maintaining her own residence · Sustaining employment The six critical life themes* necessary to sustain a permanent recovery lifestyle are: 1. Spiritual: Spiritual as a source of personal strength and as the basis for rebuilding relationships with other people, lYomen who evidence a high regard for prayer, Bible study and church attendance are able to become more discriminating in their activities. This theme seems to be very important in the beginning of the recovery process and the sustaining of the new drug free lifestyle. The spirituality seems to not only strengthen the woman individually, but becomes the basis for a commonality in building relationships with other people. A survey by John Gartner of Loyola College of Maryland and David Larson of Duke University Medical Center found over 30 studies that show a direct correlation between religious _participation and avoidance of crime and substance abuse.~:~ii 2. Self-Insight: Overcoming denial and understanding lead to a new and accurate knowledge of one's self. lYomen who can accurately describe their stren~hs and weaknesses have the cognitive ability to make objective assessments about themselves. For example, a woman can know that her drug use is destroying her health and her relationships with her family and as a result of that insight can make a plan to change that self-destructive behavior, lYomen with little or no self-insight are doomed to make the same mistakes over again. They live in an unrealistic world, blaming others for their troubles and brokenness, never seeing the conneca'ons between their own decisions and behavior and the results or consequences those decisions and that behavior bring. 3. Security: Feeling safe both physically and emotionally. When a woman feels safe she is able to take the risks necessary to seek help. A secure woman will seek help and form healthy attachments. The security of her children is a separate "security" issue for women who are the primal3/care givers of dependent children. I-laving the children present with the mother in recovery is an added source of strength and motivation for taia'ng planned "risks" to guarantee sobriety and drug.free living. 4. People Support: Being in touch with one's own emotions. Man, v women who are chemically addicted also suffer from the destructive effects of "co- dependency" which is usually the result of a lifetime of abusive relationships.~v Women who have adequate people support know there are jCriends, family, peers and collea~ues who intentionally care about them and are willing to invest in them in a healthy way (non co-dependent). These incoming messages of love and support provide the fuel for the woman to begin to support others--perhaps her children or a peer. This act makes the woman stronger in her own recovery process. The ability to receive and consequently to give support is the surest sign of a healthy self~concept. 5. Self-Awareness: The ability to have others who care enough to be truly involved with one's life. Women who are able to name their own emotions and feelings can use these memories as building blocks for life. Many chemically addicted women are immobilized by "toxic shame ", the inner sense of being defective, faulty, unlovable, undeserving, unredeemable and hopeless. This condition (toxic shame) is the "glue" which holds the wall of denial together.~ As they become more self-aware, women can express and talk about their feelings, their hurts and their joys. Being able to express feelings, eventually brings them to the point where they can acknowledge the bad things that have happened to them, but not let those past facts mortgage their futures. Likewise, they can remember those times they felt "good" about themselves and strive to make a plan ~vhere those feelings can be achieved once again. 6. Suppression: Being reconciled with one's past and able to reject negative thoughts, worries, and a poor self-concept. Suppression is the ability of the woman to block out pain, depression, worry or physical discomfort. This process allows the women to see themselves as they want to be versus the concept others may have had of them in the past. Suppression allows a woman to close the door on her negative, unhealthy past in order to focus on the development of a positive, healthy present in which she is able to seek a sense of real contentment with herself and her relationship with her children. "To overcome addiction, one has to have phenomenal motivation," notes Patrick Fagan of the Heritage Foundation, who has reviewed studies on the impact of religion. "Most addicts have so often disappointed loved ones that no one trusts them. So there is powerful blessing in a knowledge of God's acceptance. Spiritual · Self Insight · Security · People Support · Self Awareness · Suppression The intended outcome of this program will be to provide an 18 month, residential recovery program for chemically addicted women and their dependent children. Our stated goals for those participating in the program will be to accomplish three goals: (a)Maintain a clean and sober lifestyle trb)Maintain their own residences (c) Sustain adequate employment Corresponding program components and distinct methods of evaluation accompany each of these long-range goals. Each participant in the program is evaluated monthly by the Recovery Team during the residential part of the program. The Team uses a variety of methods in this evaluation: These evaluations are designed to give the Recovery Team and the participant a way of measuring progress and identifying problem areas. Participant Questionnaires · Recovery Team Observations · Peer Accountability Group Evaluations. · Auxiliary Staff Narratives Each participant is randomly drug and alcohol tested while in the program, which provides a clear documented record of"clean time." This detailed account of testing is a valuable tool not only for the encouragement of the participants and their families, but also as a resource for future employers. In the final module of the program, each participant must complete a Separation Plan detailing: (1) Permanent residence (a copy ora sig-ned lease) (2) Employment (completion of 30 days on the job) of the graduate (3) Evidence of financial security (opening a bank account and creating a "shoebox budget plan ") (4) Completion of the Learning Center academic project (5) Obtain passing grades on all life skills courses (6) Document 90% attendance in regular inside/outside step meetings (7) Establish a recovery network (family, church, meetings, etc.) Following graduation, the graduate will receive a series of communications from the Recovery Program Team. The graduate will receive a daily call during the gu'st week, a weekly call during the first month and a monthly call during the first year. Graduates are invited and encouraged to attend the weekly Rally and to attend all special events. This program will serve as a model program for other communities. The Recovery Program for Women will service women who are already residents of our community. There are 4,000 chemically addicted women currently living in our community. This program will also serve as a model program that can be duplicated by other communities who have their own corps of chemically addicted women. Long-term residential recovery programs offer the most effective treatment for substance abuse.'xxxvii Currently, there is no other facility in the state of Virginia, and only a handful in the nation, offering long-term, residential recovery for women while allowing them to keep their dependent children with them. The recovery unit will accommodate up to 24 female participants and their dependent children. (There will be residential staff in the building.) Realistically, not every woman who begins the program will finish the course, however, based on experience with our men's program, we anticipate that as many as 30% of those in the tn:st year of operation will gn-aduate. Our community has demonstrated an overwhelming need for an available resource for long term, residential recovery for chemically addicted women with children. Without this resource, most of these women will not only continue to destroy themselves with continued drug abuse, but will destroy their children's lives as well. Bringing recovery services to addicted women and their children at a local, community based facility is the best way to offer these services to the greatest number of those in need at the least cost. (A SAMPLE OF OUR PROGRAM SCHEDULE FOLLOWS.') Women's Residential Recovery Program Definition and Design, Proposed Classes, Groups, and Phase Breakdown The Rescue Mission of Roanoke Residential Recovery Program for Women will seek to continue the loving, compassionate, for~ving, and transforming ministry of Jesus Christ. Currently, the Rescue Mission provides a place of grace for all seeking an intentional lifestyle change from self-destructive and dysfunctional behaviors. The Rescue Mission's proposed Women's Recovery Program will offer a 5- phased, fully residential, Christ-centered and holistic approach to recovery fi-om substance and / or self-abuse. The length of the program is designed to last 18 months. Program goals and success will be achieved through the acceptance of personal responsibility, self-determination, internal transformation of values, and a restoration of self-respect. Both residential and hired staff will be available and on-call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, ensuring a secure and comfortable environment within the Women and Children's building. An on-site medical unit will be available for all participants and children, as well as an infirmary for those who may be too ill for the general population residential arrangements. Too often after completing a program of recovery, an individual returns home and is faced with the daily stresses of independent living, paired with the feelings of displacement, abandonment, anger and resentment her children may have. Addiction is a family disease. Successful recovery must be a family process or the cycle of addiction and relapse will continue. The Rescue Mission's Recovery Program for Women will offer a safe, structured, and encouraging environment providing 12-step classes, groups, recovery tools, instruction in family issues, and mentorship to facilitate spiritual growth and recovery fi-om a dysfunctional lifestyle in a home-style setting. Children will live with their mother as residents of the program that provides the opportunity to include the daily responsibilities Phase I (3 to 4 months) Assessment, Detoxification (Physical, Emotional, and Spiritual, Orientation and Integration) Reprieve - the f~rst 21 days of Phase I. Reprieve is the initial period that affords an individual the chance to commit fully as a Program Participant. During this stage, the individual and her family will be housed within the Rescue Mission's Family Shelter. She will attend classes and receive instruction on the Family Shelter. She will arrange for appropriate schooling and transportation for her children. Reprieve offers a participant increased awareness and orientation of her new surroundings. It is a period that allows detoxification and preparation to enter the Program. Hy~ene and Nutrition - 3 weeks, 1 hour per week instruction. Completed in the Family Shelter as a part of the Reprieve Module. Topics include personal hy~ene, spread of germs, nutrition, laundry, care, communicable diseases, and basic fitness. Parenting/Childcare Basics - 3 weeks, 1 hour per week. Completed in the Family Shelter as a part of the Reprieve Module. This instruction includes childcare basics and parenting techniques. Intro. To 12-Step - 3 weeks, 4 1-hour classes per week. This class will begin after the participant has completed Reprieve and is housed within the residential Women's Recovery Community Build/rig. The focus is on an introduction to the 12 - step recovery process from an intentionally Christian perspective. Learning Center Activity- Continuous througlaout the program, a minimum of 2 hours per week. This required activity includes personal journal exercises, increased computer knowledge, improvements in math, reading, writing, and comprehension, and provides an oppommity for completing a GED. Formations - Continuous throughout the program, 1 hour spiritual instruction every 3 weeks. Offers instruction and guidance in the understanding and acceptance of God and the necessity of a personal relationship. Service Assignment - Continuous throughout the program, 6 to 8 hours per day. Assiguments may include, but are not limited to, childcare, housekeeping responsibilities within the Women's Recovery Community Building and on the Family Shelter, reception duties, Thrift Store assistants, laundry, duties, and day-camp assistants at Jubilee Acress(senior program participants only). Service Assi~mu'nents will be segregated from the men's Recovery Program, made possible by the separate building and residential living arrangements, and ensuring a secure and comfortable work environment. Faith, perseverance, dependability and responsibility can all be encouraged and achieved through the competent use of a setwice assignment as a tool in the recovery process. Stop the Chaos - 9 weeks, 1 hour of instruction per week. Offers skills and information that lead to a strong foundation for the recovery, process. Phase II (3 to 4 months) Commitment and Involvement Family Group - Continuous throughout the program after completion of Phase I. 1 hour group meeting per week and monthly retreats. This accountability / support group demonstrates the importance of holding one another accountable, concepts of teamwork, and the importance of active use of available support systems. Anger I - 6 weeks, 1 hour instruction per w~k. Offers information on anger awareness and management through reflection and discussion, and demonstrates the need for the active implementation of anger as a positive force behind change. Anger Group - 1 hour group meeting per week. Continuous throughout the program. Addresses personal anger issues with the participants in a supportive, group setting. Codependency Class - 12 weeks, 2 hours of instruction per week. Increases knowledge and awareness of unhealthy relationships, and how they relate to addiction, and the recovery process. Intro. To Christianity - 1 hour of instruction for slx weeks. Reviews the basics of the Christian faith, and familiarizes the participants with the origins of Christianity, the Bible, issues of faith, prayer, forgiveness and ~ace. Relapse Issues - 5 weeks, 1 hour of instruction per week. Aids in the recognition that susceptibility to relapse increases as attention to the details of daily recovery, decreases. Demonstrates how to achieve intentional recovery through the adaptation of behavior, and perception change. Children's Issues A - 9 weeks, 2 hour instruction per week. This class is offered to each participant with children on-site, and is to be attended with them. The focus is on the recovery process through the eyes and tundersranding of the child. It offers information pertinent to the healing of child/parent relations during the recovery, process, and approaches the education of the children to the dangers of substance abuse. Study Group - 24 weeks, I hour interaction per week. Teaches a practical way to use a Christian, 12-step approach to recovery.. Demonstrates and inte~ates the 12-steps as an ongoing part of the spiritual pil~m'image. Phase III (3 to 4 months) . Self-Awareness, Healing, and Restoration Codependency Group - Continuous throughout the remainder of the program. 1 hour ~oup meeting per week. Serves as a support system and reminder of the issues discussed in Codependency Class, and increases behavior changes through interaction and discussion that lead to the development of healthy relationships with peers and other family members. ,anger II - 6 weeks, 1 hour of instruction per week. A continuation of Anger I, w/th the emphasis on understanding the anger process in a spiritual light. Gender Relations - I hour of instruction per week for 7 weeks. Explores the emotional differences between men and women and how those differences can be utilized as a positive factor in healthy relationships. Provides the hnformation necessary to develop a new appreciation of personal differences. Children's Issues B - 9 weeks, 1 hour of instruction per week. Specifically for the children. This group setting offers a safe environment for the children of participants to discuss their fears and desires, and increases understanding of their emotions as relating to the parent and the recovery process. Promotes healing and positive relationships through understanding. Phase IV (3 to 4 months) Goal Setting, Graduation, and Transition Budget and Finance - 8 weeks, 1 hour of instruction per week. Demonstrates how the ability to use daily budgeting skills can manage a limited budget. Increases the awareness of dangerous spending habiu and makes the distinction between wants and needs. Separation Class - 7 weeks, 1 hour instruction per week. Focuses on the preparation towards independent living outside of the Rescue Missions Community. Aids in the completion of a resume, a monthly food and expense budget, and demonstrates tools for job selection and interviewing skiils. A plan for a healthy lifestyle post program is also completed. Children's Issues C - 9 weeks, 1 hour of insmaction per week. A~ended by mothers and children, this class is a continuation of the previous two, and integrates information gathered throughout the program as it relates to the parent / child relationship. Focuses on maintaining positive communication and understanding after departure from the Program. Job Skills - 13 weeks, 2 hours of instruction per week. Focuses on the responsibilities of a dependable employee, manners in the workplace, relationships with co-workers, interviewing skills, how to complete an application, cover letter, and resume, and job competence. Provides information that may lead to the opportunity of long-term employment and improved job marketability. Graduation Plan - in effect a minimum of 8 weeks before graduation. Integrates all information necessary for a successful transitional plan into independent living after Program graduation. The entire Recovery Team Staff is involved with the planning process for each individual participant. Phase V Program Completion and Graduation Full-Time Employment and Housing and Separation .... Questions and Answers about the Expansion: ~2'll our property values go down as a result of this expansion? No, in fact, the Rescue Mission secured statements and studies from five certified appraisers, both residential and commercial as to the effect of the expansion of the Rescue Mission on property values. The results were unanimous and affirming. Property values have and will continue to rise in fids neighborhood in part because of the Mission expansion and the new construction. These documents were given to the City Manager's Office on April 25, 2000. Will the Mission's expansion add more male transient beds? No, the additional beds will be for women and children. In the most recent statistical report, the number of male transients actually went down 1%, while shelter needs for women went up 7% and for children went up 57%. The Rescue Mission's expansion has already created a sheltered, off street waiting area for male transients. Local police (as recently as a meeting held with Police Chief Gaskins on January 25, report that criminal activity in SE continues to be Iow, and calls concerning public drunkenness have declined significantly in the past six months.) The Rescue Mission continues to participate in initiatives to keep Downtown Roanoke and surrounding neighborhoods safe. Our efforts at being active as an agent for "Neighborhood Watch" was sited in a speech by the police officer assigned to our area at the SE Action Forum in 2001. We are active members of the Sheriff's Interdiction Committee, Faith Works, The SE Christian Partnership, The SE Action Forum and The Committee on Public Vagrancy. Who will reside in the building? Currently the Rescue Mission has a 58 bed family shelter. These exisitng beds will be moved to the new building in the following way: · The Family Shelter (12 traits-48 beds maximum) · The Female Transient Program (1 unit-10 beds maximum) In terms of the new beds, the building will accommodate: The Women and Children's Recovery Program with a maximum of 24 women participants and their dependent children (ten 1 bedroom units and four 2 bedroom units) · The Infirmary (i unit-8 tol0 beds) · Residential Staff (2 units) The building will also have some common areas including indoor and outdoor play areas, a Reading Readiness Lab for preschoolers, a meeting room and two offices for staff. How will the Rescue Mission proposal effect neighborhood appearance? The proposal will enhance neighborhood appearance. The Rescue Mission has been applauded as an agent for clean neighborhoods and has been sited as a winner of the Clean Valley Award in 1999 for our efforts. Last year (2001) we contributed 599 volunteer hours to neighborhood trash pick up resulting in 246 bags of trash, assorted tires, and abandoned furniture, appliances and mam'esses being picked up by the Rescue Mission Clean Sweep Teams. The Rescue Mission has planted 14 trees and various shrubs and flower gardens on both sides of 4m street. The Rescue Mission has also completely rehabilitated one of the neighborhood "eyesores" at 402 Bullitt, SE. Will the Mission's Expansion benefit the people of SE in any way? Yes. The expansion has already been and will continue to be beneficial to SE residents in a variety of ways. In the last five years the Rescue Mission has invested $4,607,228 in new construction in SE. These buildings have been brick and architecturally appropriate. The total plant investment to date in SE exceeds eight million dollars. The Rescue Mission is located in a fragile, transitional neighborhood between an interstate highway and three different property zones: light manufacturing, commercial and residential. In April of 2000, we were encouraged to delay the building of our last building so that the Mission's plans could be fully incorporated into the city's master planning process. We were asked to present a site plan that would limit the Mission's expansion into the existing neighborhood, while still acting as a buffer between the neighborhood and the highway and manufacturLng district and still allow for the completion of the expansion. We were encouraged to seek professional help in designing this plan and facilitating yet another community process seeking consensus. The leadership of the Rescue Mission agreed with this request and Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mat-tern was retained by the Rescue Mission for this purpose. (The report of their activities on behalf of the Rescue Mission are included with their report.) Some Additional Information of Note Race Relations WI,at was once a racially homogeneous neighborhood is increasingly diverse. There have been 22 ethnic and language groups identified in our SE neighborhood (27 language groups now represented in city schools). The addition of a variety of ethnic groups has been good, but not without incident or cost. There is still tension between racial groups here. The Rescue Mission continues a 54-year tradition of being an "inclusive" institution in terms of its guests, its staff and its leadership. Churches Churches, which were once strong in this neighborhood are also in transition. Some have chosen to close their doors and relocate. Some are "hanging on" in a survival mode. Several have recently had an infusion of new leadership and interest and are making a valiant effort to stay and minister in new ways to their neighborhood of origin. The advent of the SE Christian Parmership and Faith Works have been beacons of lip;bt. The issues ahead are not for the faint hearted, but there seems to be a =o-rowing coalition (in which the Rescue Mission is heavily invested) willing to participate in the transformation of this communit¢'. Literacy Adult illiteracy continues to be a problem in SE. We continue to have the hig/'~est adult illiteracy rate in the city. The adult learning center operated by the Rescue Mission continues to advocate adult literacy training in SE. In addition the Presbyterian Center has opened an after-school, tutoring program for SE children. The Girls and Boys Club have located a center in SE. It has been documented that 79% of homeless children never attend pre- school and are 1,000 hours behind non-homeless children by the time they enter the first grade. The Rescue Mission has a "Reading Readiness Program for Preschoolers" as an extension of its academic programs and located in the proposed expansion. The first target group for this program will be homeless children, but children in the neighborhood could become the second target group. Healthcare SE has been sited as a medically under-served area. '["ne Rescue Mission along with other members of the SE Christian Partnership have funded a parish nurse for this neighborhood. Nancy Hart, RN was installed on January 27m at Belmont Presbyterian Church to become the new congregational nurse for SE. Meetings have been held with Faith Works to initiate discussions concerning locating a healthcare center within the neighborhood. A free clinic specializing in the medical and psychiatric needs of the homeless will open at the Rescue Mission in June of this year. (a copy ora medical assessment survey of the homeless is included). The Rescue Mission will also participate in several community health prop-rams. Last month, the Rescue Mission was able to give free flu vaccines to anyone in the community. This program will be repeated in area churches. The following chart represents the latest medical assessment of the local homeless population as it relates to access to healthcare. I~[EDICAL CONDITION NEEDED Respiratory-sore throat, runny 30°,/o nose, hea&'chest congestion Asthma 11% Skin problems/poison 14% oak/poison ivy Fungus Bug Bites/Spider bites Sunburn/Heatstroke Season_al aller~es (40:133) RECEIVED 45% (18:40) NOT RECEIVED 55% (22:40) (14:133) 71% (10:14) 29% (4:14) (18:133) 63% (5:18) 72% (13:18) 5% (7:133) 29% (2:7) Dehydration 17% (23:133) Scabies/Lice 6% (8:133) Backaches/Joint pain 30% (40:133) Cuts/abrasions 16% (21:133) Blood 19% (25:133) pressure/checks/treatment Dental problems 23% (30:133) Diabetes 6% (8:133) Earaches 10% (13:133) Heating loss 8% (11:133) Foot Problems 14% (18:133) Alcohol related problems 23 % (30:133) Eyes/Vision 29% (38:133) Stomach pain/digestive 18% (24:133) 71% (5:7) 79% (19:24) 18% (24:133) 21% (5:24) 9% (12:133) 8% (1:12) 92% (11:12) 12% (16:133) 56% (9:16) 44% (7:16) 44% (10:23) 56% (13:23) problems 25% (2:8) 33% (13:40) 24% (5:21) 88% (22:25) 75% (6:8) 68% (27:40) 76% (16:21) 12% (3:25) 40% (12:30) 60% (18:30) 63% (5:8) 37% (3:8) 54% (7:13) 46% (6:13) 36% (4:11) 64% (7:11) 39% (7:18) 57% (17:30) 36% (48:133) Emotional: nerves, anxiety, depression, hearing voices Drug dependency HIV/AIDS and related conditions Family planning: birth control 32% (12:38) 63% (15:24) 50% (24:48) 61%(11'18) 43% (I3:30) 68% (26:38) 37% (9:24) 50% (24:48) Parenting Information 3% (4:133) 50% (2:4) 50% (2:4) Headaches (frequent) 27% (36:133) 42% (15:36) 58% (21:36) Prenatal/pregnancy 5% (7:133) 71% (5:7) 29% (2:7) 9% (12:133) 42% (5:12) 58% (7:12) 0% (0:133) 0% (0:0) 0% (0:0) 3% (4:133) 25% (1:4) 75% (3:4) Safety Traffic continues to be a problem for the residents of SE. Meetings, hosted by Faith Works, with the city manager's office, the vice mayor and the chief of police continue to investigate ways to slow traffic down as it passes through residential neighborhoods. The use of radar and ticketing has increased, but further traffic engineering issues need to be addressed. The Rescue Mission, has planted 14 trees (one of the suggestions made in one of the community meetings and by one of the city planners, to beautify the gateways and slow traffic) along Fourth Street between Tazewell and Elm Avenue. The Rescue Mission program participants and volunteers continue to pick up all trash around its property on a daily basis and to send out a team once each week to clean other neighborhood alleys. Th_is is a program we have done for over 5 years. Urban trash removal is a problem in every city, especially surrounding convenience stores and commercial districts. The alleys and streets surrounding the Rescue Mission are cleaner than most. There are alleys in SE that need better maintenance. But there are similar situations in all four quadrants of the city (see enclosed report). The Rescue Mission, when it comes to public trash removal has been a model corporate entity. The Rescue Mission is part of the solution, not part of the problem. The Rescue Mission was awarded the 1999 Clean Valley Award for its efr%rts. The Rescue Mission has also used its trucks to pick up loads of trash in neighborhood wide trash pickup efforts. In the coming year, the Rescue Mission in collaboration with the SE Action Forum has agreed to use its trucks to have a tire round-up before the summer mosquito season begins. Employment Opportunities The Rescue Mission Thrift Store is not only a cost center for the Rescue Mission, but an asset to the residents of SE in other ways as well. Twenty-seven employees of the Rescue Mission lived in the neighborhood last year. (Theypaid over $52,000 in taxes.) For them, the Rescue Mission provided a job, medical insurance, life insurance, tuition reimbursement and a number of other opportunities. Recycling Last year 17,871 items were distributed to people in need who could not afford to buy clothing, furniture and household goods. Over 22% of the families participating in this program were from SE. · The thrift store generated sales taxes in the amount of $19,120 last year. The recycling part of the thrift store keeps approximately more than 1 million pounds out of the landfill each year. Over 128 tons of textiles were recycled in addition to the items sold and given away. Do the majority of the residents of SE see the Rescue Mission as an asset to the community? An overwhelming majority of neighborhood residents see the Rescue Mission as an asset to the community. One of the ways to assess community involvement and support is to look at the numbers. Although SE is the poorest quadrant of the city in terms of income per capka, $12,740.95 was donated by 281 neighborhood residents in the 24013 zip code to support the operational budget of the Rescue Mission last year (2001). In addition to these donations, over $30,000 was donated specifically for the expansion fund by neighborhood residents, churches, civic groups and businesses. Another way to assess community involvement is to look at who is using the services of the Rescue Mission. For example, approximately 22% of the clothing/household goods and furniture vouchers (market value of $30,805.20) issued at the Rescue Mission Thrift Store went to residents of SE. This number does not include the vouchers given to the City School Program for needy students, vouchers given to the Red Cross for SE fire victims, and vouchers given to other agencies such as Virginia Cares for people re-entering the work force. Many of the recipients of these vouchers are also SE residents. Many neighborhood residents who do not have cooking facilities or resources to purchase food, eat in the hospitality dining room at the Rescue Mission. Last year 211,631 meals were served (market value of $812,663.04) Will the expansion act as a magnet to the homeless from other communities? Consistently, over the past three years, we have demonstrated that approximately 85% ('most recent snapshot survey on Janua~ 28 was 84.21 °4) of those seeking services at the Rescue Mission are local residents. The homeless population mirrors the general public in that they leave one community and enter a new community primarily for three reasons: They move to be closer to family, to follow employment opportunities or to seek medical attention. At any given time there is a steady stream (approximately 15%) of people entering and leaving Roanoke for these reasons. It is difficult for ali communities to realize that they grow their own homeless population, their own criminal population, their own mentally ill, their own substance abusers, their own physically challenged and their own poor. Difficult, but true. The myth that these folks come from somewhere else is neither helpful nor true. The Rescue Mission expansion focuses on the precipkating causes of these social problems. The Rescue Mission does not create these social problems, but in fact attempts to alleviate them. In the same sense that a hospital system does not create sick people, it attempts to heal them. The Rescue Mission accomplishes this task in a systematic, holistic approach. If the Rescue Mission were to close its operation today, the City. of Roanoke would have some immediate consequences. · There would be a dramatic increase in petty and serious crime. · There would be people sleeping on grates. · There would be deaths due to exposure. · There would be an increase in child abuse. There would be an increase tn suicides, homicides and domestic violence. · There would be an increase tn truancy. · There would be an increase tn indigent healthcare costs. · There would be an increase tn communicable diseases. · There would be an increase tn STD's · There would be a dramatic increase in public begging and pan handling. · There would be an increase tn DUI's. · Them would be an increase tn trespassing. · There would be an increase m arson. All of these things would increase taxes, decrease public safety, and cause tremendous human suffering for ckizens of Roanoke. Att e M orv, before we a. y we a'.,k om,' e th,e . c,o if we Ct we The Rescue Mission is in a unique position. We believe we have been called by God to mhnister to '~the least, the last and the lost." We, because of our history and present seasoned recovery program staff, are able to identify and treat chemically addicted women and their dependent children as part of an existing systematic, holistic, faith based program. This is the most efficient and pragmatic approach to a serious problem. The Rescue Mission program has the best potential outcome for all concerned. The need is great. The Rescue Mission leadership, staff, community volunteers and donors are ready to accept the challenge. TIMELINE 1948 1955 Mission Begins at 111 East Salem Avenue First Rescue Mission Family Shelter 1956 First Rescue Mission Thrift Store 1964 Rescue Mission Moves to First Street 1973 Rescue Mission Moves to Tazewell Avenue 1989 Rescue Mission Family Shelter Addition 1993 Jubilee Lodge is Built 1998 Jubilee Residence is Built 2000 2000 Jubilee Challenge Course is Built New ThriR Store Completed 2001 Rescued House 402 Bullitt Avenue KDAC Addition of Rescue Mission is Completed Art on a Mission Store Opens at Tanglewood 2002 Rescue Mission New Adult Lemming Center Completed 2002 Rescue Mission Medical Clinic Opens 2002 Proposed Women and Children's Building i'Tqational Household Survey on Drug Abuse", National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1995. UA Nation in Denial, Alice Baum and Donald Bumes, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1993. ia"Mental Illness and Substance Abuse in the Contemporary Homeless Population," paper submitted at the Professional Symposium, Recent Findings and New Approaches to the Treatment of Mental Illness and Substance Abuse, Pamela J. Fischer and William Bealdey, Tulsa, OK, 1998. i'"Annual Snapshot of the Homeless", Nationwide Survey of 15,000 homeless: One in Five at Rescue Missions, International Union of Gospel Missions, phil Rydman, Kansas City, MO, 1997. v "Perinatal Substance Abuse is More Complex than Most Think," Phebe F. Cress, The Roanoke Times, December 1997. ~4"National Household Survey on Drag Abuse", National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1995. ~4i "Perinatal Substance Abuse is More Complex than Most Think," Phebe F. Cress, The Roanoke Times., December 1997. ~iIbid. re'Can Churches Save America?", US News & World Report, p.46-53, September 9, 1996. ~"Perinantal Substance Abuse is More Complex than Most Think," Phebe F. Cress, The Roanoke Time.s, December 1997. ~i"Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives", Public Health Service, 199 I. ~i'Substance Abuse-Related Admissions to Adult Intensive Care", W. Andrew Baldwin et al, CHEST, Vol. 103, p.21-25, January 1993. ~iiiA Nation in Denial, Alice Baum and Donald Burnes, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1993. "The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse and Mental Illness" Dorothy P. Rice, et al, Institute for Health and Aging, University of California, 1990. 'a'"Hidden Problems: Hidden Costs-Children of Alcoholics in the Medical System", Children of Alcoholics Foundation, 1990. ~"Children of Alcoholics in the Medical System: Hidden Problems?rlidden Costs", Children of Alcoholics Foundation, 1990. ~a'Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives", Public Health Service, 1991. "The Economic Cost of Alcohol and Drug Abuse and Mental Illness", Dorothy P Rice et al, Institute of Health and Aging, University of California. "U.S. Health Care Financing Administration" Health Care Financing Review, Fall, 1991. ~'~ "Study: Help, not Jail, Best for Drug Problem", Associated Press, The Roanoke Times, (A, 1-3) Wednesday. March 18, 1998. mu Ibid. "= Ibid. ~""No Place to Call Home", The Roanoke City Manager's Report, Committee on Homlessness, 1987. mA Nation in Denial, Alice Baum and Donald Burnes, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1993. m"Guide to Effective Rescue Missions Recovery Programs", Michael Liimatta, Lnternational Union of Gospel Missions Publication, Kansas City, MO, 1993. re"Addiction and Forensic Information Service", Robin Melville, Nottingham Healthcare, N~S Trust, 1996. m""Responsibility 101", Bruce Upbin, Forbes Mag&-ine, p. 46-47. May 19, 1997.. re"Rescue Ministries of Knoxville, TN Recovery. Study, Summary of Research", SRI Gallup, Lincoln, NE, July 1992. 'm"Can Churches Save America?", US News & World Rer}ort, p.46-53, September 9, 1996. 'm"The Bruised Reeds" (video), Shirley Morris, Trinity Lutheran Seminary, 1987. m""A Guide to Effective Rescue Mission Recovery. Programs (tape series), Michael Liimatta, International Union of Gospel Missions, 1993. =="Can Churches Save America?" US News & World Rer)ort, p. 46-53, September 9, 1996. 'm"Faith Centered Charity" Philanthroov Magazine, Vol. X, No. 3, Indianapolis, IN, Summer, 1996. m"No Place to Call Home", The Roanoke City Manager's Report, Committee on Homlessness, 1987. mA Nation in Denial Alice Baum and Donald Bumes, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1993. x=i"Room at the Inn", Mary McGrory, The Washin~on Pos*-, December 25, 1997. ~dii"Rescuing the Homeless", Lee Schmoolder, The Wall Street Journal, August 13, 1996. roY"The Homeless Make a Comeback", Cai Thomas, The Roanoke Times, December 31, 1997. ~."Rescuing the Homeless", Lee Schrnookler, The Wall Street Journal August 13, 1996. "Faith Centered Charity", Philanthropy Magazine. Vol. X, No. 3, Indianapolis, IN, Summer, 1996. =~'~"Room at the Inn", Mary McGrory, The Washin~on Post, December 25, 1997 ~i"Mental Illness and Substance Abuse in the Contemporary Homeless Population," (A paper submitted at the Confessional Symposium, Recent Findin~ and New Approaches to the Treatment of Mental Illness and Substance Abuse", Pamela J. Fisher and William Beakley, Tulsa, OK, 1998. ~n"A Guide To Effective Rescue Mission Recovery Programs, Michael Liimana, International Union of Gospel Missions, Kansas City, MO, 1993. "Prevalence Detection and Treatment of Alcoholism in Hospitalized Patients", R.D. Moore et al, .lournal of American Medical Association, 261:403-407, 1998. "Annual Snapshot of Homeless Services", Phil Rydman, The International Union of Gospel Missions, Kansas City, MO, November, 1997. ~"Guide to Effective Rescue Missions Kecovery Programs", Michael Liimatta, International Union of Gospel Missions Publication, Kansas City, MO, 1993. ~"Addiction and Forensic Information Service", Robin Melville, Nottingham Healthcare, NIlS Trust, 1996. ~x~""Responstbility 101", Bruce Upbin, Forbes Ma_~azine, p. 46-47. May 19, 1997.. =~xii"Rescue Ministries of Knoxville, TN Recovery Study, Summary of Research", SRI Gallup, Lincoln, NE, July 1992. ="m"Can Churches Save America?", US News & World Keport, p.46-53, September 9, 1996. ~=~V"The Bruised Keeds" (video), Shirley Morris, Trinity Lutheran Seminary, 1987. ='-~'""A Guide to Effective Rescue Mission Recovery Pro.m-ams (tape series), Michael Liimatta, International Union of Gospel Missions, 1993. =~'i"Can Churches Save America?" US News & World Reoort, p. 46-53, September 9, 1996. '="~i"Faith Centered Charity" Philanthroov Magazine, Vol. X? No. 3, Indianapolis, t'N, Summer, 1996. RESCUE MISSION Proposed Development Plan for Institutional PUD Zoning The proposed development plan that accompanies the Rescue Mission's request for rezoning to the Institutional PUD (DrPUD) classification is the result ora planning process that began in July 2000. That process was in/tiated as the result of discussions between the Rescue Mission and the City of Roanoke about furore growth opportunities for the Mission. It was believed that a Master Plan, which would finitely identify the ultimate limits of Rescue Mission development, would allay the fears, opposition, and hostility of some southeast residents who foresaw future expansion as limitless. The process was characterized by its openness and its efforts to maximize participation by all stakeholders. The challenge was to build consensus for a master development plan for the Rescue Mission "campus" among the members of the southeast neighborhood on the edge of which the Rescue Mission resides. Methodology The planning process was predicated on a series of community workshops, co-hosted by the City planning staff to maximize citizen participation. Each event was replicated at three distinct times to make it as accessible as possible. Each event was also well publicized and often received coverage by the media. The initial event was an Awareness Walk of the study area which was defined as that portion of the neighborhood bound by Tazewell Avenue, I58 l, Elm Avenue, and 7th Street. Participants were led on a walking tour of the area and were prov/ded a "script" of questions aimed at heightening their awareness of existing conditions and elicit their reactions to issues which were pertinent to the planning process. A summary of their responses and map of the walk are included in the attachments to this narrative. The walk was immediately followed by a workshop where the discussion during the walk was expanded and participants had an opportunity to record their comments, concerns and desires on an enlarged map of the study area. There were several key areas of consensus. Most agreed that the topography of the area is a maj or factor in disting'uisking the Rescue Mission development fi.om the residential neighborhood. Most also felt that the residential neighborhood beans along 5t~ and Dale and extends south and east. There was unanimous agreement that the existing Rescue Mission buildings are well-kept, high quality structures, wkich enhance the neighborhood. The most significant items of contention were the disposition of the residences along the east side of 4th Street (which have since been demolished by their owner) and the migration of those the Rescue Mission serves, into the neighborhood. Subsequent workshops explored master planning alternative approaches, identified action items for the City, Police Department and Rescue Mission, and developed a consensus for a particular planning approach. (Summary Listings of these items are included in the attachments). Altemative Concepts Three distinct conceptual approaches to developing a Rescue Mission Master Plan were developed based upon the results of the initial workshops. These were oredJcate, ct ,~,, thr~ · The removal of the existing residential structures on the east side of 4th Street and the acquisition oft. hat property by the Mission · The restoration of the 4th Street residences and their retention in the fabric of the nei~borhood · The significant impact on available property and vehicular circulation resultant from a potential 1-73 routing. The commonality among the concepts was the recognition that the area's topo~aphy suggests a distinct zone wi'rich is perceptually removed from the residential neighborhood and the opportunity within that zone to develop a Rescue Mission campus characte~zed by a consistency of architectural expression and inward focus ofbu/iding orientation. Through the dialogue of several workshops where the concepts were evaluated and a planning approach more clearly articulated, a consensus was developed for the Proposed Development Plan presented herein. It must be pointed out though, that consensus is not unanimity. While the clear majority of participants were in a~eement, a passionate few were unswayed from their orib~inal disposition. They believe that the Rescue Mission should be located elsewhere and, absent that, it should be limited to its current facilities. They are unwavering and uncompromising in this minority option. Proposed Development Plan The proposed development plan seeks to create a deft.ned, contained, and controlled Rescue Mission campus. A key component of the plan which enables this goal is the reconSgurafion ofvehicular routes currently linking the Rescue Mission to the residential neighborhood. The plan proposes that Dale Avenue be terminated in a cul-de-sac pr/or to its intersection with 4th Street and that all existing alleys within Rescue Mission property boundaries be abandoned and incorporated into the campus. This proposal is in direct response to the primary neighborhood concern expressed in the pl~ning workshop: undesired migration of vagrants from the Rescue Mission into the residential areas. Reconfi~m~ring ri_?d'~ts of way as proposed permits a continuous fenced boundary to be created at the Mission's residential edge. This would greatly inhibit the undesirable migration and force those intent on infiltrating the neighborhood to use more visible and arduous routes. Some concern may exist, from an urban plmnnlng theoretical perspective, that terminating Dale Avenue disrupts the organizational street grid of this area. However, th/s area is hard against 1-581 and creating a contained institutional zone along that edge provides the residential neighborhood with a protective buffer. By deeding the abandoned segment of Dale to the Rescue Mission, it becomes possible to site the proposed Women and Children's Building more proximate to the existing building. This has several benefits. · It creates more distance between the proposed three story building and residential properties to the east · It allows the proposed building to be consn'ucted at the lower plateau of the area maintaining views from uphill residences to downtown It capitalizes on existing investment made by the Rescue Mission in its new Dining Hall and Chapel facilities adjacent to Dale Ave. in the existing building. The proposed building front yard setback and architectural expression seek to echo scale and setting of the residences that once stood on this site to create an archirecturml transition fi.om the institutional to the residential. The buildings' front fa.cade along Street is hiojxly articulated to reduce the mass of the building and create a more residential rhythm of form at the street. The predominant use ofbr-ick on the building facades is consistent with other Rescue Mission structures stren~hening the campus identity and imbuing the b,,iilding with a sense of quality and endurance. Landscaping enhances the development with additional trees strate~cally placed to enhance the architecture and sense of ordered streetscape befitting its urban setting. An outdoor recreation area is situated behind the building along Dale Avenue both as a functional amenity for the building and as a gesture to the nei~borhood. The play area and basketball court, althou~ fenced, is proposed to be gated to allow some potential use of this area by neighborhood residents. Conclusion The proposed development plan for the Rescue Mission seeks to provide necessary expansion opportunities for an invaluable service within a clearly defined campus. The campus seeks to protect the adjacent residential nei~hborhood fi.om unwanted pedestrian traffic and to enhance it with hicj:t quality., architecturally respectful new construction. ATTACHMENTS AWARENESS WALK SUMMARY What is your opinion of the Rescue Mission buildings? Quality? Appearance? Unanimous opinion that quality and appearance are very positive -"enhances the neighborhood", "well kept", "high quality" The houses on 4th Street are scheduled for demolition. The houses on dale street are isolated from other residential development. What type of development should occur in this area? Majority opinion that land between 4th and 581 should be institutional/commercial. Suggestion of landscaping to buffer from 581 Divided opinion on houses on 4th Street · rehab and maintain on 4th Street · rehab and utilize for Rescue Mission program · remove and allow Rescue Mission to expand What effect do you think 1-73 could have on the development of 4th Street if it utilizes the 581 corridor? Consensus opinion that 1-73 will have a major impact and will eliminate residential viability of land along 4th Street and relegate it to commercial. Mission development concerns about: noise, landscaping, street configuration Looking towards Elm Street describe the character of the existing commercial development. Major opinion that commercial development is acceptable although older, lacking uniform appearance and condition, and needing landscaping to soften paving, noise, and better blending into the residential neighborhood. How do you feel about the general condition of this area? Major opinion that this is an area in transition, improving but still in need of more renovation, selective demolition, better code enforcement and better maintenance of curbs and street fronts all suggested. Observation that area has a sense of neighborhood, but no sense of community with 4th Street area. AWAREN E,.4S WALK SUMMARY What would you change about the area along 5th Street? majodty opinion that sidewalks, curb and guttering, and parking need improvement. Also, majority feel more renovation is needed with suggestions for fencing standards and more front yard clean up. What is your perception of the linkage between this area and the Rescue Mission ? majodty opinion that the Rescue Mission facilities are not connected to this area visually or physically. Minority concerns expressed for migration of Mission patrons into neighborhood. As you walk down 5th Street, describe the pedestrian activity you see. No pedestrian activity seen. Some attributed this to topography and lack of sidewalks. Look all around. Where do you think the residential neighborhood begins? Consensus that the residential neighborhood's edge at 5th and dale and extends south and east. Equal minodty opinion that neighborhood begins on 4th Street and that there are no discernible boundaries due to vacant lots and homes in disrepair. What is the most striking feature within view? Majority cited downtown and particularly the First Union Building. Next most frequently mentioned: Rescue Mission buildings. Are the institutional uses and multifamily development in this area good for the neighborhood? Why? Why not? Majority opinion that multifamily, Iow income housing was good for the neighborhood. No significant objections to Salvation Army presence. As you walk down 7th Street, describe the pedestrian activity you see. Again, no pedestrian activity noted, although several people noted it was the "wrong time of day". AWARENESS WALK SUMMARY To what do you attribute the difference in general condition of the areas on Stewa~ on either side of 7th Street? Most attribute poorer condition of houses west of 7th to the dead end, some to the fact that these are rental properties. Where so you perceive the center of this portion of the neighborhood' to be ? the intersection of 7th and Stewart was sighted more than any other location, but the overriding conclusion here is that there is no cleady identified center of the neighborhood. What physical feature most impresses you here ? The topography was the majority opinion, with the street and vehicular traffic mentioned by several. Does it have an impact on development in the area? What? Majority feel the topography limits and complicated development. How would you describe the traffic on Tazwefl? Traffic on Tazwell characterized busy/heavy and too fast. How does it impact development of the neighborhood? Most felt Tazwell is a boundary line separating development on either side. Is the cemetery an asset or liability to the neighborhood? Consensus opinion is that the cemetery is an asset of histodc significance which needs to be repaired, maintained, and cleaned up. What would you change about it? Suggestions for change include higher fencing, more lighting and landscaping, and elimination of vandalism. AWARENESS WALK SUMMARY What do you feel most linked or connected to at this location? The Rescue Mission and Downtown were the predominant answers here. Only two people cited the neighborhood. Doe's the rescue Mission building signify entrance from downtown into the Southeast neighborhood? The majority felt the Rescue Mission is a gateway to the Southeast neighborhood. Does it signify entrance into a Rescue Mission campus? The majority also felt the existing building signifies entrance into a Rescue Mission "campus". AWARENESS WALK PHOTOGRAPHS PLANNING WORKSHOP ITEMS OF CONSENSUS Considerations for Zoning · ® Establish architectural guidelines for building heights, forms, materials, and setbacks ® Establish guidelines for campus and buffer landscaping Roanoke City Actions ® Increase City's investment in infrastructure in this area (streets, curbs and gutter, sidewalks, lighting, streetscape) ® Identify and implement "traffic calming" measures on Tazewell Avenue ® Provide maintenance assiStance to elderly residents Police Actions ® Provide better code and nuisance ordinance enforcement ® Increase police patrol of neighborhood ® Enforce current laws at police and judicial levels ® Initiate "Beggars Ordinance" Rescue Mission Actions ® Provide meeting place and participate in Neighborhood Watch ® Develop sense of "campus" for Rescue Mission ® Locate police "quadrant office" at Rescue Mission ® Discuss program revisions with neighborhood representatives AWARENESS WALK THE RESCUE MISSION AND NEARBY NEIGHBORHOO0 I~IFTY YEARS PLANNING WORKSHOP ITEMS OF CONSENSUS Considerations for Zoning ® Establish architectural guidelines for building heights, forms, materials, and setbacks ® Establish guidelines for campus and buffer landscaping Roanoke City Actions ® Increase City's investment in infrastructure in this area (streets, curbs and gutter, sidewalks, lighting, streetscape) ® Identify and implement "traffic calming" measures on Tazeweil Avenue ® Provide maintenance assistance to elderly residents Police Actions ® Provide better code and nuisance ordinance enforcement ® Increase police patrol of neighborhood ® Enforce current laws at police and judicial levels ® Initiate "Beggars Ordinance" Rescue Mission Actions ® Provide meeting place and participate in Neighborhood Watch ® Develop sense of "campus" for Rescue Mission ® Locate police "quadrant office" at Rescue Mission ® Discuss program revisions with neighborhood representatives L_ _j WORKSHL~P ITEMS OF CONSENSUS Protect view sheds/institute height limitations on nonresidential development Develop a sense of "campus" for the Rescue Mission Require a landscaped buffer around the Rescue Mission "campus" Develop a park in the neighborhood Investigate alternatives for residences on 4th Street Consider alternate loCations for future Rescue Mission development L_ SUGGESTIONS FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION Establish architectural guidelines for the study area, particularly for nonresidential development Provide better code and nuisance ordinance enforcement Start a neighborhood watch as a joint effort between the residents and the Rescue Mission Increase the City's investment in infrastructure in this area (streets, curbs and gutter, sidewalks, lighting, streetscape) Identify and implement "traffic calming" measures on Tazewell Avenue Provide .maintenance assistance to elderly residents Increase police patrol of the neighborhood Locate a police substation in the neighborhood Enforce current laws at the police and judicial levels Initiate a "Beggars Ordinance" L_ _j ,_.:-ii "-..~ I CURRENT ZONING '11 CURRENT RESCUE PROPERTY L MISSION I:1 -CONCEPT' A AREA OF OPPORTUNITY ,! CONCE CAMPU .----- ~.-- .~ 3," ..... t W~¥~ ~'~ ':':- ~-:~?"'" CONCEPT A CONC[ CAMPUS DEVEL.OPMEN¥ AREA-( CONCEPT B CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT CON ARE, CONCEPT C AREA OF OPPO RTUN I-FY" C'AIV c-;lc/-.-;: -- ._._- :..i~ .... CONCEPT C CAMF'U S DEVELOPMENT ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS TIlE RESCUE MISSION OF ROANOKE, INCORPORATED Tax Map Number Name and Address 4012616 4012621 4012620 4012619 4012618 4012617 4012610 4012609 Frank O. Roupas 1841 Wamngton Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24015 Paul E. Crawford, Jr. Lisa H. Crawford 527 Fifth Street, SE Roanoke, VA 24013 P & L Property Enterprises, Inc. 318 Ray Street Roanoke, VA 24019 Polly Ann Altice 521 Fifth Street, SE Roanoke, VA 24013 Leola M. Wilson 519 Fifth Street, SE Roanoke, VA 24013 Edward L. Dull Pamela R. Dull 513 Fifth Street, SE Roanoke, VA 24013 Maggie H. Grove P. O. Box 342 Boones Mill, VA 24065 Donald L. Crraybill Shirley M. Graybill Route 2, Box 31711 Vinton, VA 24179 4012213 Jesse L. Chisom, Sr. Bonnie S. Bishop 420 Dale Avenue, SE Roanoke, VA 24013 4011526 Timothy E. Haxton 4 t 6 Tazewell Avenue, SE Roanoke, VA 24013 4011525 Gregory T. Decol, Jr. 3242 Webster Road Glade Hill, VA 24092 4011524 Gregory T. Decol, Jr. 3242 Webster Road Glade Hill, VA 24092 4011523 Otis Truman Lowder 3114 Hillcrest Avenue, NW Roanoke, VA 24012 4011522 Tracy A. Quhhar 434 Eureka Loop Newport News, VA 23601 4011521 Kenneth W. Conner Wanda W. Conner 2244 Twelve O'Clock Knob Road Salem, VA 24153 4012211 City of Roanoke 215 Church Avenue, SW, Room 250 Roanoke, VA 24011 4012110 Moore Associates, LLC 2115 Crystal Spring Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24014 4012115 The Rescue Mission ofRoanoke, Inc. P. O. Box 11525 Roanoke, VA 24022 4012116 4012117 4012118 4012119 4012130 4012509 The Rescue Mission ofRoanoke, Inc. P. O. Box 11525 Roanoke, VA 24022 The Rescue Mission ofRoanoke, ~c. P. O. Box 11525 Roanoke, VA 24022 The Rescue Mission ofRoanoke, ~c. P. O. Box 11525 Roanoke, VA 24022 The Rescue Mission ofRoanoke, Inc. P. O. Box 11525 Roanoke, VA 24022 The Rescue Mission of Roanoke, Inc. P. O. Box 11525 Roanoke, VA 24022 Rescue Mission of Roanoke, Inc. 321 Tazewell Avenue, SE Roanoke, VA 24014 (P. O. Box 11525 Roanoke, VA 24022) City of Roanoke Planning Commission March 21, 2002 MINUTES The regular meeting of the City of Roanoke Planning Commission was held on Thursday, March 21,2002, in the City Council Chamber. Robert Manetta, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Roll call was held and attendance was as follows: Members Present: Gilbert Butler Wayne Campbell Kent Chrisman Melvin Hill Robert Manetta Richard Rife Members Absent: Alfred Dowe, Jr. Mr. Butler said that gi~/en the fact that there were so many people present who had to stand, he moved to amend the agenda to consider the two applications from the Rescue Mission first. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rife and approved 6-0. The following items were items were considered: 1. Approval of Minutes - January 17, 2002, January 23, 2002, February 19, 2002 There being no additions and/or corrections, Mr. Butler moved to approve the minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Chrisman and approved 6-0. Request from The Rescue Mission of Roanoke, Inc., represented by Man/ellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, that 3.56 acres, more or less, generally located on Tazewell Avenue, S.E., Fourth Street, S.E., and Dale Avenue, S.E., designated as Official Tax Nos. 4012201; 4012205 throuqh 4012210, inclusive; 4012246 throuqh 4012248, inclusive; 4012628; 4012601 throuqh 4012604, inclusive, be rezoned from C-2, General Commercial District, to INPUD, Institutional Planned Unit Development District; and that Official Tax Nos., 4012212; 4012605 through 4012608, inclusive; 4012611 throuqh 4012615, inclusive, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, to INPUD, Institutional Planned Unit Development District, such rezoninq to be subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Robert Manetta said that the Commission had received 20-30 e-mails, plus letters, which had been forwarded to City Council. He said that he was not going to read them because of the voluminous nature. He said that generally all those City of Roanoke Planning Commission Page 2 Mach 21,2002 corresponding extolled the good works of the Rescue Mission. He said that the Commission was familiar with the work of the Rescue Mission, and except for Mrs. Goodlatte and representatives from the Rescue Mission, he asked that those speaking not repeat that information. He spoke about what the Commission would be focusing on and said that the issues important to the Commission were the impact of the property on the surrounding area and whether there was any undeveloped land that could be used for this specific purpose. Maryellen F. Goodlatte, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission. The full text of Mrs. Goodlatte's presentation is attached to these minutes as Attachment 1. Mrs. Goodlatte also asked for a show of hands from those present that supported the Rescue Mission's petition. Most persons in the Chamber raised their hand. Mr. Manetta asked for comments from the Commission. Mr. Rife asked Mrs. Goodlatte to confirm the number of beds for the new and existing facilities with respect to transient men, transient women, recovery men, reprieve men, and infirmary beds. Mrs. Goodlatte said that the infirmary beds would be new and the number capped at 12 beds. Mr. Rife asked the number of beds in the current family shelter. Mrs. Goodlatte responded there were 48 female and 10 in female transient. Mr. Rife questioned whether the only new beds being added were for the new recovery women and children and the infirmary. Mrs. Goodlatte said that correct. Mrs. Goodlatte said the men in the recovery program were not the problem, it was the men in the transient program, hence the cap. She said there was no proffer for 40 male recovery beds. She said the Rescue Mission had no plans to increase the number of recovery beds or reprieve beds (9). She said that the additional space would provide for more spacious living quarters, more office space, administrative space and programming space. She said there were no plans to increase the number of beds in the male recovery program, but as time goes on, that may be something the Rescue Mission would like to do. Mr. Rife said that when he met with Mrs. Goodlatte a few weeks ago he had expressed his concern that the Comprehensive Plan was pretty clear, in his opinion, about discouraging expansion of social service residential programs within the City and discouraging clustering of those in a particular neighborhood. He suggested that as a trade for adding the women's recovery program, the Rescue Mission consider reducing the number of beds in the transient men's program. City of Roanoke Planning Commission Page 3 Mach 21,2002 Mrs. Goodlatte said that she appreciated the time that Mr. Rife and the members of the Commission had taken on this issue. She said that Mr. Rife's suggestion had been discussed and the Rescue Mission believed that capping the number of male transients would take care of Mr. Rife's concern. She said the Rescue Mission was willing to freeze it at the current level of 101. Mr. Rife said that in his opinion the Comprehensive Plan really discouraged expansion of this facility and if there were an adjustment in the total number of people housed in the facility, the physical expansion would lessen the impact on the neighborhood. He further said that the Comprehensive Plan stated that, "publicly assisted housing and shelters will be equitably distributed in all parts of the region" and "concentration of federally subsidized, assisted or affordable housing will be discouraged." He also read an action plan item, which stated "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." Mr. Rife asked Mrs. Goodlatte if she had a feel for how many facilities were outside the City of Roanoke. Mrs. Goodlatte said she didn't know that she could answer that. She said that what the Rescue Mission was providing to the City was a way to address the concern that Mr. Rife had pointed out in the Comprehensive Plan. She said within the INPUD, the Rescue Mission was creating limits on what was going on now in an unlimited fashion within the City. She said that she felt that as the City dealt with its other neighbors (Roanoke County, Salem) they could say they were doing their share and the work of the Rescue Mission could be leveraged. She said there were more shelters in southwest and northwest than in southeast. She said the Rescue Mission was changing the way they delivered services to a defined and narrow population (women with substance abuse problems). She said that the Rescue Mission felt they had adopted a creative way of dealing with the issue, meeting both the needs of the community (providing services not now provided) and meeting legitimate neighborhood concerns, while helping to spur investment in this part of City with a building that will be attractive, residentially designed, while providing the bulwark against which residential development further on can proceed. Mr. Rife asked Mrs. Goodlatte if she understood that the Commission was, under statute, required to find that any proposed change will further the purposes of this chapter (the zoning ordinance) and the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the Commission was not allowed to ignore the Comprehensive Plan because they may feel that the proposed use was good. Mrs. Goodlatte said she understood that. Mr. Hill asked if he understood from the presentation that the women's recovery center was the only women's recovery center in the City. He asked about Bethany Hall. City of Roanoke Planning Commission Page 4 Mach 21, 2002 Mrs. Goodlatte said that was correct. She said that Bethany Hall was for pregnant women. Ms. Joy Sylvester Johnson also responded that there was a limited way that Bethany Hall could deal with the women. Mr. Hill asked Ms. Johnson if she knew how much bed space was available at Bethany Hall. Ms. Johnson responded that the last time she sent someone to Bethany Hall there were 8 women there. Mr. Chrisman said that an issue the Commission tried to look at was hardship or need. He asked if the expansion could be granted through a special exception or some other means, while keeping the current zoning. Mrs. Goodlatte responded that three years ago when the Rescue Mission began discussions with the City, they were encouraged to look at the request broadly and consequently the INPUD was developed as a possible vehicle. She said that an INPUD zoning put more burden on the Rescue Mission. Again, she noted that three years ago the Rescue Mission was looking at doing it the conventional way, but were encouraged to look at what was down the road. Mr. Rife referenced a statement from Chief Gaskins in the material he had received from the Rescue Mission that deal with the male transients. He asked Mrs. Goodlatte if she knew the basis of that statement. Mrs. Goodlatte said that it probably dealt with the interdiction program. She said that the Rescue Mission had been working with the police. Mr. Campbell asked how the operations of the Rescue Mission would be affected if it was proposed to build the facility in another part of the City. Mrs. Goodlatte said that could not be done. She said that the expansion was part of a campus development and the new building was dependent on the facilities of the Rescue Mission right across Dale Avenue. Mr. Manetta asked for further questions from the Commission. There being none, he asked where the infirmary fell under City ordinance. He said there would be staff with nursing and physicians on a volunteer basis. He asked if the need for licensure had been explored or addressed with any state agency. Mrs. Goodlatte said that she had discussed the definition of infirmary with City staff and the City's zoning administrator had provided her with a definition of a congregate home, City of Roanoke Planning Commission Page 5 Mach 21, 2002 which fit the Rescue Mission proposal. She said the proposed use fit into this land use category and was an accessory use and a component. Ms. Johnson responded there had been discussions with state agencies about the clinic. She said that the infirmary was for sick beds only. Mr. Marietta asked if the Rescue Mission had determined if there was any additional licensure required for the infirmary under the State code. Ms. Johnson said that the facility would not be a nursing home or hospital; it would just contain sick beds. Mrs. Goodlatte said that the Rescue Mission clearly understood that they would have to meet all requirements and they have done that with the clinic. Mr. Talevi said he had to be concerned that whatever proffers are made and accepted by City Council are clearly understood down the line. He asked if Mrs. Goodlatte's client would be willing to slightly change the wording of the second proffer to state that "A congregate home housing the Women's Residential Recovery Program will be housed in the Women and Chidren's Building..." Mrs. Goodlatte said that she thought that could be done. She said that the petition had been reviewed and revised, but if the City Attorney's office viewed the new language as a clarification, she would be happy to amend the proffer. Mr. Talevi said that he wanted to make sure that Mrs. Goodlatte and everyone present understood that he was suggesting that language, not to suggest that the Planning Commission would recommend approval or the Council would approve the application. He said that the change would help the zoning administrator, at a later time, understand what was being promised. (Mr. Hill left the meeting at 2:20 p.m.) Mr. Manetta asked for further Commission comments. There being none, Mrs. Lander gave the staff report (Attachment 2). Mrs. Lander said that it was important that everyone realize that what was before the Commission was a land use decision, not a decision on whether the Rescue Mission was doing good work or whether this was a needed facility. Mrs. Lander also noted that additional engineering information had been received and it appeared that the plan was approvable. Mrs. Lander said that it was staff's recommendation that the requested rezoning and expansion was not in accord with the adopted development policies of the Comprehensive Plan and not in agreement with the preliminary recommendations of the neighborhood plan. She said that staff was recommending denial, as set forth in the written staff report. City of Roanoke Planning Commission Page 6 Mach 21,2002 Mr. Butler referred to a previous rezoning in the southeast area for the Amvets, who wanted to expand their existing use by addition of a parking lot. He said that at that time, the staff recommended denial. He asked staff when applying the Comprehensive Plan to a petition if they applied the same standards for an expansion of an existing use as they did for a new use. Mrs. Lander said she would apply the same standards. She said that expansion of the Rescue Mission facility would have a negative impact on neighborhood. She also noted that there was a big difference between the two rezonings that Mr. Butler had compared. Mr. Manetta said that he thought the Belmont neighborhood had a representative who wanted to speak. Mr. Eric Branscom, attorney, appeared before the Commission on behalf of Historic Belmont Preservation Association. He said that everyone supported the good work the Rescue Mission does and the contribution they make to the City. He said that his purpose in appearing before the Commission was to express some concerns of the Historic Belmont Preservation Association (HBPA). He said that it might be appropriate at this time to table the petition for a certain period of time. He said the idea germinated four to five years ago and over the course of several years discussions had been going on between the Rescue Mission and various neighborhood groups. He said that since the petition was filed on February 7th, there had been a change and the closure of Dale Avenue had been withdrawn. He said that he would like some time to work with the petitioner and he felt he needed more information; i.e., better information from the Police Department. He said he felt it would be appropriate for neighborhood groups, the Police Department and the Rescue Mission to meet and answer some of the concerns. He also said that a continuance would give more time for the neighborhood plan to be completed. Mr. Branscom said that other concerns of the HBPA were the design and appearance of the building. He noted that only one side of the building was shown on the plan and a lot of residential area was beside and behind the proposed structure. He said people were concerned about what the building would look like on the other sides. He said that Belmont was a neighborhood with historic value and the appearance of the building was not architecturally compatible with the other buildings in the area. Mr. Branscom also discussed the interdiction program and suggested that Mary Blaney, with the program, provide insight as to how effective that program was. Mr. Branscom said that creating an INPUD district was inappropriate and that the development, as proposed, was not harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood. He said that the proposal was a large, dorm-like structure with an institutional look. Mr. Branscom said that from the documentation presented by the Rescue Mission, it was known that there were a number of people who had substance abuse problems City of Roanoke Planning Commission Page 7 Mach 21,2002 and many of those people were brought into the area because of the location of the Rescue Mission. He said that caused a great deal of foot traffic and any development would increase the number of people and consequently increase the amount of pedestrian traffic and the risk that comes from the number of people there. He said the neighborhood had a concern because of the type of people that were being helped by the Rescue Mission. He noted some of the existing problems - drunkenness, littering, atmosphere of insecurity throughout the neighborhood. Mr. Branscom presented photographs taken in November, 2000, which show the litter and trash problem that existed in the alleyways in the neighborhood. He said the people in the neighborhood tied that sort of activity to the Rescue Mission. Mr. Branscom said that HBPA was asking that a greater consideration be given to what can counteract the problems and that the hidden costs of expanding the Rescue Mission be explored. Mr: Branscom referred to the facilities map presented by Mrs. Goodlatte and said that the map did not show the size of the shelters throughout the City and he suggested that the Rescue Mission was one of the larger ones. Mr. Branscom said that this was a transitional neighborhood; that it was a poorer neighborhood and for the neighborhood to maintain its integrity it was important to have owner-occupied housing. He said that the threat was that people would feel the pressure to leave if the rezoning were granted and the neighborhood would continue to decline. He said there was no strong neighborhood support for the Rescue Mission expansion as proposed. He said he had copies of letters from the President's Council as well as the Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee, who were not supporting the expansion. Mr. Branscom said that if the Commission was considering approving the request, the HBPA would suggest the following proffers: (2) no one be allowed to stay without bed space; (2) decrease in the number of male transient bed space; (3) landscaping, screening of the area from the neighborhood; (4) no alleys or street closures in the neighborhood: (5) no fence erected (erection of a fence gives the feeling of living next to a correctional institution); (6) commitment to a comprehensive screening of Rescue Mission clientele. Mr. Rife said he was puzzled as to why the neighborhood felt it was preferable to keep the alley next to the cemetery open. Mr. Branscom said that closure would make pedestrian travel more difficult for people living in the area. Mr. Rife said that the alleys struck him as prime lurking places and closing them might help. Mr. Chrisman said that he had been involved in repairing the tombstones and cleaning up the cemetery many times. He said that security was an issue. City of Roanoke Planning Commission Page 8 Mach 21, 2002 Mr. Manetta asked for further questions. There being none, he opened the floor for comment and asked that no one repeat statements that had already been made. Mr. John Bradshaw (3132 Burnleigh Road, S.W.)appeared before the Commission and stated he was not for or against the petition. He said he was speaking in opposition to staff's statements that this was not in agreement with the development policies of Vision 2001-2020. He said that nowhere in the Comprehensive Plan was it stated that neighborhood objectives rule out all other objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the Rescue Mission was an established institution of over 30 years at the exact same location. He said they were desirous to upgrade the facility and to provide needed services. He said that the other objectives in the Comprehensive Plan document needed to be reviewed. Mr. Bradshaw quoted the "Healthy Community" initiative from the Comprehensive Plan; noting that the Comprehensive Plan clearly stated that health programs were needed. He said that the Rescue Mission was a unique facility and needed to be located in the core of the City. Mr. Bradshaw quoted action PE A11 from the Comprehensive Plan. He said that basically that said that we wanted to create social and health facilities such as the one the Rescue Mission was proposing and to encourage them in the proper perspective. He said there was a conflict between what was stated by staff in their report and what was in the Comprehensive Plan. He again quoted from the Comprehensive Plan regarding opportunity sites and potential conflicts between zoning and land use. Mr. Bradshaw said the request before the Commission was not the same as trying to put a new facility within an existing neighborhood. He discussed the expansion of Carillon in South Roanoke and noted that it would not have been feasible to split those health-care facilities and put them in other areas. He also said that the Comprehensive Plan was not solely to protect neighborhoods; but was to provide services to the whole City. He said he would be in total agreement with the staff if this was a new facility going into an established neighborhood, however, this development was going near the edge of the neighborhood, adjacent to the interstate and railroad. He urged the Commission to consider the fact that this is not a total variance from the Comprehensive Plan and request that staff revisit the wording before going forward to City Council. Emily Hoyer, Pastor of Belmont Presbyterian Church, appeared before the Commission and said she was present to support the efforts of the Rescue Mission to provide space for a women's recovery program. She said that you hear a lot about protecting property and "not in my neighborhood," but heard very little from the people who would be able to use the facility. At this point, Mr. Marietta interrupted Ms. Hoyer's presentation and advised that the Commission had extensive information about the programs of the Rescue Mission, were very familiar with the program and appreciated the intent of the Rescue Mission. He said that the Commission needed to stick to the issues that related to the neighborhood. City of Roanoke Planning Commission Page 9 Mach 21,2002 Ms. Hoyer said that was what she was doing. She said that southeast was not just a neighborhood where decent people and sweet elderly people lived. She said that it was a neighborhood that needed help from the City and many people who lived in southeast were women who were addicts. She said that she believed the people in the neighborhood who were afraid of change have more to fear if the changes aren't made. She added that changes needed to be made in an area where there was public transportation. In conclusion, She said that crises happen for many reasons and the clients of the Rescue Mission need the services that the new facility could provide. Mr. Manetta reminded Ms. Hoyer that the issues she raised did not relate to zoning. Debra Jewell (corner of Dale and 5th Street, S.E.) appeared before the Commission and said she was opposed to the expansion of the Rescue Mission. She said that she saw the problems created by the Rescue Mission on a daily basis and she also said that the Rescue Mission was not dealing with the problems. She said that she opposed the closing of any of the alleys and giving the property to the Rescue Mission. She said that people used the alleys everyday. Ms. Jewell said that she felt she would have to move if the rezoning was approved. Ms. Jewell also talked about the request and the Comprehensive Plan and said that she believed the expansion would be wrong and illegal. David Harrison (3710 Bosworth Drive, S.W.) appeared before the Commission and stated he had been on the Board of the Rescue Mission for three years. He said he amplified Mr. Bradshaw's comments and felt the Rescue Mission expansion was in accord with the Comprehensive Plan as far as health care was concerned. He said that part of the Rescue Mission improvements would be a pediatric clinic. He discussed the clinic's staffing and also discussed the health issues of the homeless. Mr. Harrison questioned certain Comprehensive Plan policies quoted in the staff report. He said that the publicly assisted housing policy quoted did not apply in this case because the Rescue Mission was not publicly assisted housing, received no federal monies and was a shelter of the highest quality. Mr. Harrison also said that the neighborhood issues such as crime, loitering, litter, etc., were everyday issues. He said it was important to focus on the fact that the expansion was for a women's and children's program and he challenged anyone to document that women and children contributed to these problems. Mr. Harrison said that he believed that the Rescue Mission provided private security forces that policed the area at night and he also said that property values in the area had improved, not declined. He said that the suggestion that any expansion of the Rescue Mission should be accomplished at another location was not economically feasible. He urged the Commission to stand with those who will help make a difference in this small part of the world. Mr. Manetta asked Mr. Harrison if he had any information on the properties he was referring to when he talked about property values. City of Roanoke Planning Commission Page 10 Mach 21,2002 Mr. Rife commented that the Commission had some information, but it looked like it was a general opinion based upon construction of townhouse style development. He said the overall opinion seemed to be that the Rescue Mission did not have a negative impact. Mr. Manetta asked how long the Rescue Mission had been in negotiation with the prior owners of the properties that had been torn down along 4"~ Street. Ms. Johnson responded that it had been as long as 10 years ago on some properties. Mr. Manetta asked how long ago the houses had been torn down. Ms. Johnson responded that some houses were torn down six to seven years ago and some 16-18 months ago. Mr. Rife said that in reference to the Comprehensive Plan, he had been in the room when the discussion of group homes had taken place. He said the sentences seemed to be watered down from the first draft. He said there was very strong feeling that the City of Roanoke physically held a disproportionate share of these types of facilities in the Roanoke Valley. He said that these facilities serve the entire valley, but all the facilities are within the City limits. He said that there was also significant feeling that the City had done its share. Mr. Rife said that he did not necessarily think there was a conflict with the statement in the Comprehensive Plan that Roanoke should continue to provide innovative types of health care services to the region. Mr. Rife said that the intent was that the services should be dispersed. He noted that the Salvation Army's operations were dispersed. He said the Commission's charge was to decide if this was the optimum place for this from a land use perspective and they were not empowered to look at it from an economic perspective. Reverend Sam McPhail, chairman of the Southeast Partnership and Pastor of Belmont United Methodist Church at 806 Jamison Avenue, S.E., appeared before the Commission. He said that those he represented supported the concept because of the need and felt like the new building would enhance the neighborhood. He recommended the Commission consider the request favorably. Mrs. Christine Proffitt (424 Bullitt Avenue, S.E.) appeared before the Commission in opposition to the request and read from a written statement. Mrs. Proffitt's statement is Attachment 3 of these minutes. Mrs. Proffitt also read from a wdtten statement prepared by Mr. Bobby Meadows, President of HBPA, also in opposition to the request. Mr. Meadows' statement is Attachment 4 of these minutes. City of Roanoke Planning Commission Page 11 Mach 21,2002 Mr. Manetta said that he had an e-mail from Steven Keats, Crime Analyst, from the City Police Department. He asked if that was where Mr. Meadows had gotten the figures contained in his statement. Mrs. Proffitt stated that was correct. Addressing Mrs. Proffitt, Mr. Manetta said that he heard the attorney for HBPA say that the neighborhood group wanted to work with the Rescue Mission, but it seemed that from her statements, she was not willing to do that. Mrs. Proffitt said that the residents would take the position of no build. Mr. Rife asked Mrs. Proffitt which she would prefer - a downsizing in the number of transient beds versus the women's and children's center. Mrs. Proffitt said she had no comment. Mr. Richard Nichols (1620 Kirk Avenue, S.E.) appeared before the Commission and stated he was ex-president of the Southeast Action Forum (SEAF). He said that he had addressed Council four years ago about the proposed expansion of the Rescue Mission and the SEAF had supported that. He said that Ms. Johnson had bent over backwards in working with the community and he saw no reason why the addition should not be built. John McGonigal (706 Montrose Avenue, S.E.) appeared before the Commission and said he loved the ministry and the things the Rescue Mission did. He said that as a resident of southeast he was opposed to the zoning and closure of the alleys. He said that he took the position of no build and no more clustering. He said that if the Rescue Mission felt led to build the facility, the residents did not want to impede God's work, however, they felt it should be built somewhere other than southeast. He said that it was a known fact the clustering facilities had not worked in other cities. He asked if it wasn't time to consider the needs and welfare of the citizens of the neighborhood instead of the special needs group. He said he felt the neighborhood should be given back to the people who live there. Ms. Teresa Kidd (902 Penmar Avenue, S.E.) appeared before the Commission and stated she was secretary for the SEAF and the executive board of the SEAF was in support of the Rescue Mission expansion. She said the SEAF would work with the citizens of southeast to help deal with the problems. She said that she did not see a negative impact on southeast by adding one more building and she felt the City needed to provide more services for the women. Rick Williams, first vice president of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership (RNP), appeared before the Commission and said he was present to ask that the Commission uphold the recommendation of City staff on the matter and deny the rezoning request. City of Roanoke Planning Commission Page 12 Mach 21,2002 He said that the Commission should have received a letter from the RNP outlining the reasons for opposition. He said he was very concerned about the proposed development and its relationship to Belmont's neighborhood plan. He said that if the rezoning was approved in defiance of the neighborhood plan, it would be an admission that the neighborhood plan doesn't mean very much. He said that a neighborhood had very few tools to resist powerful interests and neighborhood plans, as well as the Comprehensive Plan, were currently the only tools available to deal with the issues. Mr. Williams said that many of Roanoke's struggling neighborhoods were often treated as dumping grounds. He echoed Mr. Branscom's comments about inharmonious development. He said it was a barracks-tike structure. He said that at the very least the proposal should be sent back for further review by staff, the Rescue Mission and the neighborhood with respect to deficiencies to the neighborhood plan and its design. (Mr. Hill returned to the meeting at 3:54 p.m.) Mr. Williams also said he would have to contradict Mr. Bradshaw's statements about the development being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He encouraged the Commission to reject and deny the request, but at the very least to send it back for further study. Edward Argabright (602 Dale Avenue, S.E.) appeared before the Commission and said he had a question about the alley portion next to his property. He said that he used the alley every day and questioned how people would be able to get to the rear of the properties. He said he saw no reason for the City to give public property to a private organization and he felt the property should not be removed from the tax rolls. Mr. Rife asked Mr. Argabright if he felt closing the alley would create a problem. Mr. Argabright said that it would create a dead-end situation. Mr. Lee Osborne (5152 Falcon Ridge Road, S.W.) appeared before the Commission and stated that he was an attorney, but was not a land use attorney. He said that he had a great deal of concern with a number of issues raised by the proposal and the broader areas of economic development. He said he was a member of the Roanoke Valley Allegheny Regional Commission and also had served as a member of the advisory committee for the Comprehensive Plan. He said he agreed with Mr. Rife's interpretation of the Plan; he then briefed those present on the process used in developing the content of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Osborne said that regardless of the genesis of the notion that the services should be disbursed throughout the region, that issue came up, not just in the context of social services or public safety, but also in the context of economic development. He said he had heard for a number of years that the City bore an undue share of the burden for social welfare in the region. He said that when looking at the language in the City of Roanoke Planning Commission Page 13 Mach 21, 2002 Comprehensive Plan, he did not see how the language cited in the staff report applied to this land use issue. He said he was referring to paragraph number four on page five of the staff report, headed publicly assisted housing. He said that what we are talking about was not publicly assisted housing, as determined by the common usage of the term, and there were no direct tax dollars involved in the funding of the Rescue Mission. He said he would question the interpretation of that section. Mr. Osborne said that the first sentence, "publicly assisted housing efforts and shelters will be of the highest quality that enhances neighborhoods" is the very essence of what the proposal embodies. Relative to the second sentence, "publicly assisted housing and shelters will be equitably distributed in all parts of the region," Mr. Osborne said that the only option of the Commission was to shut down any future publicly-assisted housing or at least refuse to recommend any proposals for publicly assisted housing in Old Southwest or the southeast or southwest portions of the City until the other sections of the City had received an equitable share. Mr. Osborne also commented on the last sentence, which references the recommendation of a plan and taking into account access of public transportation and proximity to other support services. He said that sentence suggests that efficiency and economics, which has been indicated should not be considered, should be taken into account because that is part of the consideration as to whether or not this is the best place to locate the facility. He said that it had been pointed out that it was economically advisable to locate the facility in another location, and if not approved, he felt the only option would be no build. Mr. Lee Clark (1408 West Drive) appeared before the Commission and read a letter on behalf of George Kegley, who was in favor of the closing of the alley adjacent to the City cemetery. He said that Mr. Kegley felt the closure would stop some of the undesirable activity in the cemetery. He said that Mr. Kegley was in favor of any plan that would help preserve the cemetery. Mr. Tom Chandler appeared before the Commission and said he was a resident of Roanoke County. He said that he had an interest in the property on Dale Avenue and was concerned about the closure of Dale Avenue. He said he now understood that was no longer under consideration. He said that his other concern was the continued growth of the Rescue Mission and its impact on the neighborhood. He said that for many years he had tenants on Dale Avenue and now they were feeling threatened by some of the transients. He said he hoped there was something that could be worked out to control the growth.' He also said that he (:[id not understand the rush since the Comprehensive Plan and the neighborhood plan had not been completed. He said he would like to see some proffers on other properties that the Rescue Mission owned. Mr. Chandler said he had great compassion for what the Mission was doing, but he also had compassion for the people in the neighborhood. Mr. Doug Trout (169 Maplelawn Avenue, N.E.) appeared before the Commission and said the Rescue Mission was a good thing and he was not opposed to it. He said he had problems with'the statement that the Rescue Mission policed their properties. Mr. Trout cited a number of incidents (stolen vehicles, clothes) where he had been directly City of Roanoke Planning Commission Page 14 Mach 21, 2002 involved with the Rescue Mission and their clients, and felt the Mission did not provide necessary service to him. Mr. Duane Howard (508 Walnut Avenue, S.W.) appeared before the Commission and said he was present to speak on the behalf of the former president of the SEAF. He said he was very supportive of the historic Belmont community. He said the former president and secretary of the SEAF were forced to resign because of their opposition to the Rescue Mission. He said that the SEAF was a relatively small group of people and he urged the Commission to table or oppose the request. Mr. Manetta asked for further questions. There being none, he asked Mrs. Goodlatte for further comments. Mrs. Goodlatte said she was ready to proceed and would be glad to answer any questions the Commission might have. Mr. Chrisman said that the HBPA had specific issues they would like addressed; i.e., orientation, appearance, landscaping plan, screening. He asked if there were any issues her client might be willing to address. Mrs. Goodlatte said that at this point, her client was ready for the Commission to make a decision and allow them to move forward. Mrs. Goodlatte said that many meetings had been held with a number of people. She said that Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern had provided renderings and she felt the building was attractive all the way around. She said that the Rescue Mission had talked and met a number of times and was not willing to table the petition. She asked that the Commission make their recommendation to City Council. Mr. Manetta asked if the elevations were proffered. Mrs. Goodlatte said they were not, but the front elevation was proffered. She said she would be willing to consider that between now and the Council hearing, but was not in a position to do that at the Commission meeting. Mr. Talevi said that the Commission needed to consider the petition as presented, with the amendment to the second proffer that had been discussed eadier. Mr. Chrisman asked if proffers could be amended before going to Council. Mr. Talevi advised that they could. Mr. Manetta questioned whether additional proffers that restrict the development plan could be made and Mr. Talevi responded that it would be impossible for him to see whether the existing development plan was less restrictive or not. City of Roanoke Planning Commission Page 15 Mach 21,2002 Mr. Rife suggested that the development plan could be presented to City Council as supplemental information and that if they wanted it proffered, it could be done at that time. He then asked if ail the alleyway beside the City cemetery was going to be conveyed to the Rescue Mission. Mrs. Goodlatte said that it was and that it would be gated at night. She added that the Rescue Mission would be conveying a portion of the right-of-way to provide access to the homeowners along Dale Avenue so that they will not lose access to the rear of their property. There was further discussion about conveyances and whether easements would be granted. Mrs, Goodlatte said that typically the City reserved a number of easements. She said that a subdivision plat would be prepared. Mr. Manetta asked if staff, through documentation, considered Belmont a historic neighborhood. Mrs. Lander responded there had been a historic survey done by the Department of Historic Resources a number of years ago. She said that the recommendation had been that the area was not an eligible historic district even though there were historic homes in Belmont. She said she could not recall whether this particular area was historic. With respect to alley closures, Mr. Talevi said that when the City closed alleys or streets it gave up the public right to that property. He said that whether the City executed a subdivision plat was not something that would happen by operation of law and that it was something the City would have to agree to. He said he did not know whether any portion of the alley would vest in the City or whether it would go right down the middle or to a third party. He said typically the property was split down the middle. Mr. Rife said the application said "conveyed to" and that was his concern. He asked if the City would be able to maintain the cemetery if they gave up their rights to the alley. Mr. Talevi said he did not know the answer to that question. Mrs. Goodlatte said that the City controls the process and this was something that would be resolved at the next step. Mr. Manetta reminded the Commission that since six members were present, it would take four votes to recommend approval o(the request. He asked for further comments. Mr. Hilt said that he had met with the HBPA so he was keenly aware of the arguments against the rezoning. He said that in his reading of the Comprehensive Plan, he did not find that this proposal did violence to the concept of not clustering shelters and publicly assisted housing in a certain area. He said he read that to mean, for example, if City of Roanoke Planning Commission Page 16 Mach 21,2002 another group or organization were to propose a shelter in any part of the city, then the Comprehensive Plan wants the Commission to look very seriously at that and not to cluster or put together a lot of different kinds of facilities in one particular area. He said that the Comprehensive Plan, in his view, did not prohibit the Commission from approving an expansion of a facility, such as the Rescue Mission. He said it was more important to look at the language that, "Roanoke would support a range of health and human services to meet the needs of Roanoke's citizens." He said that while he was sympathetic to the residents of Belmont and southeast, he did not find that the expansion would increase the transient and crime problems in the area. He said that he had spent a significant part of his career as an Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney for the City of Roanoke and had found that substance abuse was great in the City. He said that as much as we could, the City should provide quality substance treatment for everyone. He said that he did not believe the citizens of southeast would see a significant increase in problems in the area. He said the proposed women's and children's facility would not increase the problems. He said he was going to vote for the proposal. Mr. Manetta asked for further comments. He said that he believed one of the important responsibilities of the Commission was to protect and enhance the character and stability of existing neighborhoods. He said he felt required to protect the City's historic areas. He said he understood that the Rescue Mission did not take down any of the buildings, but he thought the buildings were taken down in expectation of the Rescue Mission expansion. He said he felt untimely removal of houses should be discouraged. He said he would be opposing the request on those grounds. "There being no further discussion, Mr. Manetta asked for a roll call vote on the petition. The request was approved by a vote of 4-2, as follows: Mr. Butler - yes Mr. Campbell - yes Mr. Chrisman - yes Mr. Hill - yes Mr. Manetta- no Mr. Rife - no o Request from The Rescue Mission of Roanoke, Inc., represented by Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, that a portion of Dale Avenue, S.E., lying south of tax parcels 4012210, 4012247, 4012246, 4012248 and a portion of 4012212 and north of tax parcels 4012601,4012628, 4012605 and 4012606 be permanently vacated, discontinued, and closed; and that the following alleys off of Daln Avenue, S.E., and Fourth Street, S.E., be permanently vacated, discontinued and closed: an alley lyinq east of tax parcels 4012201, 4012205, 4012206, 4012207, 4012208, 4012209 and 4012248, and west of tax parcels 4012211 and 4012212 between Tazewell Avenue, S.E., and Dale Avenue, S.E.; an alley lying east or tax parcels 4012628, 4012601,4012602, 4012603, and 4012604 and west of tax City of Roanoke Planning Commission Page 17 Mach 21,2002 parcel 4012605, between Dale Avenue, S.E., and an alley; an alley lyin.q north of tax parcel 4012212 and south of tax parcel 4012211 for a distance of 50.9 feet, more or less, along tax parcel 4012212 from the northwest corner of tax parcel 4012212; and an alley lyin.q south of tax parcels 4012604, 4102605 and part of 4012606 and north of tax parcel 4012611 travelinq east a distance of 167.5 feet from 4th Street, S.E., be permanently vacated, discontinued and closed. Mrs. Goodlatte said she had nothing to add to the petition and said she would be happy to answer any questions. The staff report is attached to these minutes as Attachment 5. Mr. Edward Argabright (602 Dale Avenue, S .E.) again appeared before the Commission and said he wanted to make sure he had access. Mr. Rife pointed out the area to be closed as well as the turnaround. He said that Mr. Argabright would have access. Mr. Argabright said he would withdraw his objection as long as he was provided access. There being no further comments, a roll call vote was taken on the request to close only the four alleys. The request was approved 6-0, as follows: Mr. Butler- yes Mr. Campbell - yes Mr. Chrisman - yes Mr. Hill - yes Mr. Manetta - yes Mr. Rife - yes 4. Request from Cesar Dominquez that a tract of land located at 325 Jefferson Street, N.E., desi.qnated as Official Tax No. 3012801, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, to C-3, Central Business District, such rezonin.q to be subiect to certain conditions proffered by tho petitioner. Mr. Dominguez appeared before the Commission and stated that the building was in a deteriorated state and needed extensive renovations. He said he wanted to renovate it for professional office space. He said the structure was known as the Moses Store and had been used commercially. He said that the fa(;ade of the building would not be changed because of its location in a histodc distdct and he said that any improvements would be made within the Architectural Review Board's guidelines. He noted that he had proffered two conditions, one dealing with no alcohol being allowed. He said the most important reason he felt for rezoning the property to C-3 was that the building faced Jefferson Street, making it more in line for commercial use than residential use. He said that as an investor, it would be more prohibitive for him to develop the property Attachment 1 39 t 6000 Presentation Represent Rescue Mission For almost 30 years, the Rescue Mission has called the Tazewell Avenue/4t~ Street area of Southeast home. By 1973, when the Rescue Mission opened at its present location,, it had already been a part of the fabric of Roanoke life for 25 years. Since 1973, improvements continued to be made. In 1989, the Rescue Mission's family shelter program was moved from homes across Tazewell Avenue into an expanded Rescue Mission building. Additional improvements to the Rescue Mission property were made over the following years. Today, after an invesunent in its home of over 8 million dollars, the Rescue Mission is proud of the service it provides to our community,, the hope and help it provides to those who desperately need it and the hand of friendship and partnership it extends to its neighbors. Many years ago, it became apparent to the Rescue Mission that services to women and children needed to be better delivered. The Mission found that the numbers of women and children needing help were growing sigmficantly. Last year, for example, while the number of male transients at the Rescue Mission decreased by 1%, shelter needs for women increased by 7%. Childrens' needs increased by 57%. This growth in the needs of women and children is not unique to Roanoke, but is a national trend. Unforumately, for women needing help who have children, there is no place to go where their children can remain with them. The Rescue Mission has developed an 18 month, faith-centered, residential recovery, program for these women that includes their children. And the Mission has been talking with their neighbors about the proposed women and children's program for years. Over 3 years ago, I spoke with a SouthEast Action Forum meeting about the Rescue Mission's proposed new building for women and children. Over a year and a half ago, the City recommended that the Mission hire a professional planner to lead a series of workshops open to all those interested in the project. The Rescue Mission hired Hayes, Sea, Mattem & Mattem and those workshops were held. Going through this process, it became clear to the Rescue Mission that, while most (but not all) were supportive of its efforts, it was important for the neighborhood that the boundaries of the Rescue Mission be defined. Even though folks liked how the Mission maintained its property, there was a concern that the Rescue Mission would continue to expand. So, finding a way to reassure its neighbors on this point was important to the Rescue Mission. The Rescue Mission properties consist of those that are the subject of today's public hearing - on the east side of 4t~ Street. The Rescue Mission also owns property at the comer of Bullitt and 4t~ . This single family home was rehabilitated by the Rescue MiSsion the is the home of John and Joy Sylvester4ohnson. Across 4th Street, the Rescue Mission has constructed its new thrift store. On the other side of the Thrift store is 1-58 h The Thrift store is in the path of proposed 1-73. That proposed pathway through the neighborhood was identified as part of the workshop process. So, ifi-73 is built as proposed, the edge of the interstate moves east a block to 4t~ Street - taking the Thrift store and making the main Rescue Mission and the proposed women and children's building the buffer between the rest of the neighborhood and the interstate. All of this was important to take into account during the planning process, because one of the goals of the process was to set the boundaries of the Rescue Mission campus. And we've done that. The women and children's building will be sited on 4t~ Street at the comer of Dale. But, instead of focusing on just that building site, we have included all the Rescue Mission property east of 4t~ Street (except for the single family home which is outside of the campus) into this request. We are asking that all of this property be rezoned to Institutional Planned Unit Development (IN-PUD for short). Right now, this property has mLxed zoning classifications - the bulk of it is commercial - C-2 and some residential - RM-2. The site of the proposed women and children's building is itself part C-2 and part RM-2. The INPUD ordinance places additional demands on an applicant not present when rezoning to other districts. In addition to showing all existing buildings in the district, the petitioner must show all proposed buildings and sites for future buildings. Here, we have shown no future buildings other than the women and children's building and we have added a specific proffer that there will be no other buildings constructed on the site. The women and children's building has been designed in order to blend into the Rescue Mission campus and to provide a residential appearance. We've proffered the elevations, which show an attractive building with brick at the bottom and drivet at the top. Brick is the principal building material of the Rescue Mission campus. The front faqade along 4~ Street is highly articulated to break up the building line and create a sense of smaller residential structures. The building is set back from 4~ Street. Those who live in the women and children's building will use the facilities of the existing building across Dale Avenue for their meals, educational and other programs, chapel, and administrative support. This way, the investments already in place in the existing building are used to support the new one, in a campus-style arrangement. The plans we initially submitted to you called for the closing of a portion of Dale Avenue and the siting of the women and children's building over the vacated street. It became clear, though, that neighbors objected to the closing of Dale and our plans changed to accommodate the desire to keep Dale Avenue open. This new building serves as a good transition from the commercial/light manufacturing districts across 4m street to the residential neighborhoods in the rear. The property is vacant and rises in elevation along 4* Street and to the rear. The design incorporates the rise in elevation along 4th. In addition to proffering what the building will look like, we have proffered the activities to be conducted in that building and the max/mum number of residents. The building will house the Women's Residential Recovery Program. This is the 18 month program I mentioned at the beginning which is designed to help women with substance abuse problems including women with children. This it the new program the Rescue Mission wishes to add. There will be no more than 24 program participants - we've proffered that. The Family Shelter will move from its current location irt the main building to the new building. Right now, female transients are housed within the family shelter. They will be separately acconm~odated in the new building. But, there will be no increase of overall beds in the family shelter and the women's transient program. We have capped the number of beds in the family shelter at 48, and the number of beds in the women's transient program at 10 - exactly the current number. In addition to these beds, there will be an infmuary with no more than 12 beds and rooms for residential staff. The infn'mary will be staffed by volunteer nurses and by a volunteer doctor and will provide care to those residents who are too ill for the general population or too incapacitated (e.g. broken leg and can't walk) but who are not ill enough to be hospitalized. Staffing will be coordinated by a nurse practitioner. The Rescue Mission is working closely with Carilion on this and other healthcare-delivery programs. By moving the family shelter and the female transient unit to the women and children's building, some additional space will be freed in the main building. But none of that space will be used to add to the number of beds for male transients. That space will be used to provide more room to the male residents (space the beds out more), to provide more office and administration space and to provide more space for educational programs. Right now, there are 101 available beds for male transients. By proffer, we have made that number - 101 - an absolute max/mum. Male transients are men who are not enrolled in a program at the Mission. They come to the Mission seeking a meal and a place to sleep. And the Mission provides that, together with an oppormmty for that individual to change his behavior. Criminal behavior is not accepted or tolerated. But, enrollment in a Rescue Mission program, while encouraged, is not a requirement of being fed or housed or clothed. Even though the Rescue Mission has been working with neighbors, the SE Action Forum, other organizations, the police, DRI to vigorously enforce the laws against transients who break the laws, the Rescue Mission hears complaints against male transients. While the vast majority of the male transients at the Mission do not break the law and while area lawbreakers include people who do not stay at the Rescue Mission,, those at the Rescue Mission who do break the law are not protected by the Rescue Mission but are tm-ned over to the authorities. Including the existing Rescue Mission building within this INPUD zoning district gives the Rescue Mission the ability to proffer what it has promised - that no more male transient beds will be added. There have been some questions about the programs in the main building after the Women and Children's building is open. In addition to the male transient beds, the main building will house the male recovery program (which currently has 40 recovery beds and 9 reprieve beds (those waiting for a recovery bed) plus support team beds plus offices plus living quarters for residential staff; educational and programming space; ldtchen and dining room; chapel; laundry, climc space and an art therapy studio (pottery studio). Those are the programs that will remain in the main building. Few will dispute that the Rescue Mission provides essential services to our community - services that would have to be provided by taxpayers if not provided by the Rescue Mission. When we filed our rezoning petition, we provided detailed information about the Rescue Mission programming, including the proposed women's residential recovery program. I am not going to take time this afternoon to review those programs. But, we could speak at length about those programs and the positive impact they have on people's lives. If there are questions or concerns about programs, we're happy to answer them Throughout this process, the Rescue Mission has continued to dialogue with its neighbors about its plans. We are very pleased to have the support of the board of the SE Action Forum and of the SE Christian Partnership. SE Action Forum is the neighborhood organization (member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership), and SE Christian Partnership is an association of SE Churches focusing on issues of concern to SE residents. We know that Historic Belmont does not support our request, and you'll hear fi:om members of that organization and their attorney today. There is one more SE organization, Faithworks, which focuses on matters in SE on which there is consensus and they have taken no position on this matter. Individual citizens, whether living in SE or in other quadrants of the City, stand behind this request. We have just a few here today and I would ask those who support this request to stand at this point. There are also a number of people who can't be here today, but who support this request and have signed petitions. (mention petitions filed before the public hearing - 848 total: 348 signatures from Southeast residents and 500 fi:om City residents in other quadrants). As part of our request, we are asking that certain alleys be vacated. The largest is the alley that runs between the Rescue Mission and the historic City Cemetery. In order to make sure that no homeowner is deprived access to their back alley, the Rescue Mission will dedicate a portion of its property in order to create a new alley segment connecting the alley that runs behind the homes on Dale Avenue to Dale Avenue. The Rescue Mission w/il take the responsibility to gate the vacated alley next to the City Cemetery at night. Right now, that alley is an access point for mischief. Gang activity has been reported in that alley. Dog racing has been reporting in that alley. Right now, a segment of the City's fence has been pulled down - providing access into the cemetery for vandals. The other 2 alleys bisect the proposed location of the Women and Children's Building. One is a paper alley - never opened and never used. This is the segment perpendicular to Dale. The other runs parallel to Dale and the Rescue Mission owns the property surrounding this alley. Nobody will be deprived of access to their property by the closing of these alleys. Staffhas recommended to you that these alleys be closed. However, staffdoes not support our rezoning request. Staffbelieves that adding the women and children's building will adversely affect the residential potential of the neighborhood. We strongly disagree. We think the best foundation for development of this residential neighborhood is a strong, attractive, well-maintained Rescue Mission campus, including the residentially designed women and children's building that will provide a buffer between the LM and commercial districts and the residential neighborhood to the rear. The possibility that 4~ Street will be the boundary between the neighborhood and 1-73 reinforces the buffering role played by the Rescue Mission. We're pleased that the Rescue Mission restored a single-family residential home at the comer of Bullitt and 4th. That's the start of the residential district going up the h/Il. The Rescue Mission is and will continue to be part of the process of encouraging single family development in this area. But that is not likely to occur on the site of the proposed women and ch/ldren's building. Right now, part of that site is zoned commercial - single family homes are not even permitted there. The homes that once stood on another part of that property fell into disrepair, were condemned by the City and were demolished by a pr/or owner before the Rescue Mission acquired the site. We strongly believe that the attractive, residentially designed women and children's building is a good use of the site. Beyond that, it provides a good transition from the existing Rescue Mission building on one side and 4'h Street LM and commercial uses back into the neighborhood. Staff also notes that the Comprehensive Plan encourages that shelters be equitably distributed throughout the City. This request doesn't violate that policy. (map prepared by Rescue Mission a few years ago - shelters shown with a gold seal - that information still current) broken down by quadrant and showing social services throughout the City. Of all quadrants in the City, SE has the fewest! ) SW, especially old SW, clearly has the most. Staff's comment would be valid if we were requesting this use in Old SW, but not in SE. Staff also notes that the ,City and the neighborhood have not finished their neighborhood plan and suggests that the Rescue Mission s rezonmg request is not appropriate to consider until that neighborhood plan is completed. This is not the only neighborhood that hasn't completed its neighborhood plan. In fact, it is my understanding that more are unfinished than finished. While having a neighborhood plan is a good thing, the City's rezoning process does not make the completion of a neighborhood plan a prerequisite. Otherwise, development across the City requiring a change in zoning would come to a standstill. The Rescue Mission wants to help up to 24 women with dependent children deal with substance abuse in a controlled and proven recovery program. They want to do th/s in a quahty fashion that complements their own campus as well as their neighborhood. As part of this request, they are willing to cap the number of male transients (the source of neighbor complaints). Otherwise, the programming is unchanged. Notwithstanding vocal opposition, they have sign/ficant neighborhood support. The Rescue Mission has tried to do everything it could do to accommodate reasonable concerns. We amended our plans when the closing of a portion of Dale was not supported by neighbors; We're using the INPUD ordinance and have included not just the site of the proposed building, but the existing one as well. in order to provide firm lines for the Rescue Mission campus and the neighborhood. We've proffered that no' more buildings will be added and we've proffered the elevations. We've described and proffered and capped the programs in the new building. You have a lot of people who want to address you today - pro and con. With me are Joy Sylvester Johnson of the Rescue Mission and Darcy McGrath of Hayes, Sea, Matter & Mattem. Happy to answer questions now or after public comment. Roanoke City Deparf, menf oi' Planning Building and Development P, oom 16C, !v~unic:,~.QJ Building 215 C;"urcn .z./enue, S.VL I~oa,"cke, V;r~inio 24011 (540) 853-iF30 (::×) 853-1230 E,mo:h plcnning ~Ci.rc =noke.vc.us March 21, 2002 Mr. Robert B. Marietta, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Manetta and Members of the Commission: Subject: Request from The Rescue Mission of Roanoke, Inc. that 3.56 acres, more or less, consisting of twenty-five parcels generally located on Tazewell Avenue, Fourth Street and Dale Avenue, S. E., be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, and C-2, General Commercial District, to INPUD, Institutional Planned Unit Development District, subject to certain proffered conditions. Background: Petition to rezone properties from RM-2 and C-2 to INPUD, subject to certain proffered conditions, was filed on February 7, 2002. Amended petition to rezone was filed on March 15, 2002. The Rescue Mission Thrift Store is not included in the rezoning request. Proffered conditions of the rezoning are as follows: The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the Development Plan prepared by Hayes, Seay, Mattem & Mattern, dated March 15, 2002, a copy of which is attached to this Petition for Rezoning as Exhibit B, subject to any changes required by the City as part of its Comprehensive Development Plan review. The Women's Residential Recovery Program will be housed in the Women and Children's Building and will have a maximum of twenty-four (24) women program participants, who will live in the Women and Children's Building with their children. In addition to the participants in the Women's Residential Recovery Program, the following programs will be housed in the Women and Children's Building: The Family Shelter (12 units/48 beds maximum); the Female Transient Program (1 unit/10 beds maximum); the Infirmary (2 units/12 beds maximum); and Residential staff (2 units). No beds other than for those programs and personnel identified in this paragraph (and subject to the maximum numbers identified in this paragraph) will be added to the Women and Children's Building. The exterior of the Women and Children's Building will be in substantial conformity with the elevations prepared by Hayes, Seay, Mat'tern & Mat-tern dated March 15, 2002, and attached to this Petition for Rezoning as Exhibit B. subject to any changes required by the City as part of its Comprehensive Development Plan review. 4. The number of beds for male transients in the Rescue Mission will not exceed 101. 5. Except for those shown on the Development Plan, no other buildings will be constructed on the property. Purpose of the proposed zoning change is to expand the existing Rescue Mission facilities to include a new building for services to women and children and an infirmar'/. The existing facility currently provides approximately 200 beds allocated to Men's Transient Program (101 beds), Men's Recovery Shelter (39 beds), Women's Transient Program (10 beds) and a Family Shelter (48 beds). Some of the existing programs are proposed to move to the new building. The new facility is proposed to include the following programs: Women's Residential Recovery Program (14 units/24 beds), Female Transient Program (1 unit/10 beds), Family Shelter (12 units/48 beds), Infirmary (2 units/12 beds), and residential staff (2 units). This rezoning request is being considered concurrently with a request to close four alleys in the vicinity of Tazewell Avenue, Dale Avenue and 4th Street, S. E. The existing Rescue Mission facility was established at this location in 1973, after it was relocated from First Street, S.E. Additions to the facility were made in 1989, 1993, and 1998 to accommodate new social services. A new thrift store was constructed in 2000. Documented discussions with city staff and neighborhood leaders regarding a new facility for women and children have occurred since 1997. In 1998, a rezoning of the subject parcels was considered, but was never officially filed. Since 1997, neighborhood concerns have been expressed regarding the existing facility and the possible expansion. Residents and other citizens acknowledge the Rescue Mission's good community work; however, they have expressed concerns for the overall social and physical effects of the programs on the southeast neighborhood (i.e. loitering of transients, disruption of residential quality of life, crime and safety issues, offensive behaviors of clients, littering in alleys, and demolition of residential buildings). In June 2000, the City Manager encouraged greater dialogue between the Rescue Mission and neighborhood interests regarding the future of the Rescue Mission and resolution of neighborhood issues. Institutional zoning that included an adopted master plan was identified as a possible tool for consideration that had worked in other communities. During the summer of 2000, several community walks and meetings were held to review neighborhood conditions and discuss future expansion plans of the Rescue Mission. City planning staff helped to facilitate the community workshops The Rescue Mission's architectural consultant, Hayes Seay Mattem & Mat'tern, discussed 2 three master plan concepts for an expanded Rescue Mission in a campus setting. Based upon comments received, a plan was developed that proposed a new brick building on 4th Street that articulates the residential character of the area and includes landscaping and recreational amenities. Initially, the plan included a proposal to ciose Dale Avenue in order to establish a controlled campus environment; however, the proposal now has been withdrawn. While some agreement with respect to a development plan was reached, there was not a strong consensus regarding future development for the Rescue Mission. Consensus points from the meetings (see notes submitted with petition) indicate that an alternative location was recommended for consideration, as well as options for new housing on the property proposed for expansion. The Institutional Planned Unit Development District (INPUD) was developed and adopted in May 2001 for use by institutions that have a mixture of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The intent of the district is to encourage harmonious development of land uses, to minimize impacts on neighboring uses. and to recognize the special relationships of institutional complexes. Development standards are established and an approved development plan is required that depicts the location and use of buildings, facilities, streets, infrastructure, lighting and open space. Compatibility of structures with the character and appearance of the surrounding neighborhood also is reviewed in terms of height, bulk, and location. Considerations: Zoning of the subject parcels is C-2 (generally Tazewell Avenue to Dale Avenue) and RM-2 (generally Dale Avenue to Bullitt Avenue between 4~h Street to 5t~ Street). The corner of Dale and 4th Street is zoned C-2. The subject area requested for rezoning meets the minimum two acre requirement for an INPUD district. Current land uses on the parcels requested for rezoning include the existing Rescue Mission group care facility (north of Dale Avenue) and vacant land (south of Dale Avenue between 4th and 5th Street). Previously, a commercial building and several single-family residential properties were located on the parcels south of Dale. Group care facilities are permitted in the INPUD district. Additional information has been requested regarding the proposed "infirmary" in order to understand the use and determine the appropriate land use classification. Additional information also has been requested regarding the specific programs and number of allocated beds to be operated in the existing facility, once a new facility is constructed. Utilities for water and sewer are available to serve the proposed new development. Traffic associated with the new development is expected to be minimal and can be sufficiently accommodated. Thirty-fige parking spaces already exist for the facility; new parking lots are proposed off of Dale Avenue (12 spaces) and a future parking area (24 spaces) is proposed off of 4~ Street. It is expected that most residents of the facilities will not have cars. Four alley closures are proposed in conjunction with this development plan. New utility easements are proposed for relocation of alley utilities. A new alley connection also is proposed between Tazewell Avenue and Dale Avenue. Sidewalks are proposed for the new development. Proposed new facility is expected to contain 97,325 sf of space, be three stories in height and be 45 feet high, or less. The building is illustrated on the submitted plan as being constructed of brick and dryvit with a pitched composite shingle roof and projecting front bays of varying dimensions. Landscaping is shown adjacent to the new building and on the street frontages and public alleys. The new building is proposed to be set.back 50 feet from the public alley between 4tn and 5th Streets. Open space comprises 58 percent of the total land area. Lighting and fencing have not been specifically addressed. A comprehensive development plan for the new facility has been submitted and is currently under review. Additional engineering information on grading, utilities, and storm water management is forthcoming. It is expected that, with additional engineering information, the plan could be approved and meet development requirements prior to formal action by City Council. Neighborhood organizations for this area include the Southeast Action Forum (member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership) and Historic Belmont Neighborhood Association. In addition, Faith Works, an inter-denominational church group is active in the community. The proposed rezoning, alley closures, and expansion of the Rescue Mission has created substantial controversy in both the neighborhood and in the larger community. A summary of the comments received by staff to date is included as an attachment to this report. Most neighborhood residents are opposed to the rezoning request and the expansion of the Rescue Mission. They have expressed concerns relating to disruptive transients, public safety, reduced property investment, concentration of social services, negative effects on residential life, and lack of an adopted neighborhood plan. Some support for the proposed request also has been received. Many of these supporters live outside of the neighborhood and express their support for the good work of the Rescue Mission and needed facilities for women and children. Both the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee and the Neighborhood Presidents Council have expressed their opposition to the request. Belmont-Fa/Ion Neighborhood Plan workshops were held in 2001. The neighborhood plan is being drafted, but has not been completed. Based upon the neighborhood workshops held, the priority issues to be addressed include communi;,'3/ appearance and safety, housing revitalization and preservation, gateways and connections, and neighborhood economic development. Problems with vagrancy, Ii:er, and resident safety were specifically cited as issues. Improving the conditions of housing and ensuring that new development fits with existing houses also were identified as priorities. Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan recommends the following policies for new development: Neiqhborhood plans. The City will adopt neighborhood plans for all neighborhoods. The neighborhood plans will address land use, zoning, transportation, infrastructure, neighborhood services, village center, and 4 recognize those neighborhoods with architectural and historic value, among other issues. Neighborhood plans should include indicators for measuring neighborhood health and sustainability. Housina clusters. Development of housing clusters wilt be used to encourace 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 a mixture of residential uses on a large site, located within or adjacent to existing developments of established neighborhoods.) Housinc~ Choice. The City will have a balanced, sustainable range of housinc choices in all price ranges and design options that encourage social and economic diversity throughout the City. Concentration of federally subsidized, assisted or affordable housing will be discouraged. 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. It was recommended that a plan be developed 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. 5. Health and human service aaencies. Roanoke will support a range of health and human services to meet the needs of Roanoke's citizens. The requested rezoning and expansion of the Rescue Mission are not in accordance with the adopted development policies of Vision 2001-2020 and they are not in agreement with the preliminary recommendations of the Be/mont-Faflon Neighborhood Plan. The proposed development will result in increased shelter facilities in the Southeast neighborhood, rather than equitably distributing these types of facilities in the region. The addition of another facility and additional programs would detract from the residential environment of the neighborhood and could contribute to nuisance issues that are already adversely affecting the neighborhood's quality of life. Also, the proposed institutional expansion does not further the housing revitalization goals identified by the neighborhood. The vacant 3.56 acres proposed for the Rescue Mission expansion is now residentially zoned and offers an opportunity for new housing development that could enhance the residential homes located between Dale and Bullitt Avenues, as well as the larger neighborhood. Recommendation: Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the request for rezoning to INPUD for the purpose of expanding the Rescue Mission facility. 5 While the proposed expansion of the Rescue Mission and associated programs may provide needed social services to the larger community, an expansion in this location does not enhance the residential environment of the existing housing in this area, particularly those homes between Dale Avenue and Bullitt Avenue. The Belmont neighborhood already is strained with respect to its capacity to absorb the effects of existing transient, shelter and treatment programs offered by the Rescue Mission. Expansion of additional programs in this neighborhood could adversely affect residential property investment and neighborhood housing rehabilitation. ,An alternative location should be considered for the expanded group care facility. Respectfully submitted, Evelyn S. Lander, AICP, Agent Planning Commission C: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Rolanda Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Steve Talevi, Assistant city Attorney Mary Ellen Goodlatte, Attorney for the Peitioner Mark Petersen, President, SEAF Christine Prof'fitt and Bobby Meadows, Historic Belmont Preservation Association 6 ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACt{MENT 4 Bobby Meadows 410 Bullitt Ave SE Roanoke, VA 24013 March 21, 2002 Planning Commission and Staff I come before you today to oppose the petition to rezone several tracks of land in the Belmont neighborhood. This land use will not be in accordance w/th the Vision 2001/2020 comp. plan. This plan calls for all Roanoke neighborhoods to have a neighborhood plan. The Belmont/fallon plan has not been completed or adopted. This is not just a Belmont issue but also a citywide issue that affects the quality of life for all tax paying law, abiding voting citizens. I have researched with the police department the total number of Dispatched calls for service relating to alcohol violations within 500' of each listed shelter property. Please keep in mind that not all dispatched calls for service result on police action. Police action is dependant upon the arriving officer locating an offense. This information covers the last 6 months. 800 Salem Av SW 6 calls fa 543 Salem Av SW 10 calls _~4. r~'~r,'Part 404 Elm Av SW 19 calls Tr-o ~T'- 23 24th St NW 0 calls '7-~-C._ 824 Campbell Av SW - 23 calls ~-~.~r~ 402 4th St SE 34 calls q'4~_.~c~ These figures are compared to 2 local Bars 829 Tazewell Av SE - 3 calls 601 Marshall Av SW - 12 calls These figures prove the current burden of the neighborhood. Clustering any more facilities will result in the further loss of quality of life for the Belmont neighborhood. The Belmont/Fallon community workshops held in the fall of 2000 identified 4 major topics for improvement within the neighborhood. 1. Community Appearance and Safety 2. Housing revitalization and Preservation 3. Gateways and Connections 4. Economic Development Many residents participated in this process. This is the will of the people that live in the neighborhood. I ask you today to stand behind the Vision 2001 Comprehensive plan that your commission adopted, do not allow further expansion of this facility deeper into our residential neighborhood. Bobby Meadows 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 April 22, 2002 File #514 STEPHAN1E M. MOON Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant Deputy City Clerk Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte P. O. Box 2887 Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2887 Dear Ms. Goodlatte: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 35822-041502 vacating, discontinuing and closing certain public rights-of-way in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, more particularly described as: That certain alley east of Official Tax Nos. 4012201,4012205, 4012206, 4012207, 4012208, 4012209 and 4012248, and west of Official Tax Nos. 4012211 and 4012212 between Tazewell Avenue and Dale Avenue, S. E.; That certain alley east of Official Tax Nos. 4012628, 4012601, 4012602, 4012603, and 4012604, and west of Official Tax No. 4012605 between Dale Avenue, S. E. and alley No. 4; That certain alley north of Official Tax No. 4012212 and south of Official Tax No. 4012211 traveling east a distance of 50.9 feet along Official Tax No. 4012212 from the northwest corner of Official Tax No. 4012212; and That certain alley south of Official Tax Nos. 4012604, 4012605 and part of 4012606, and north of Official Tax No. 4012611, traveling east a distance of 167.5 feet from 4th Street, S. E. H:~Agenda.02~April 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd Maryellen F. Goodlatte April 22, 2002 Page 2 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002, and will be in full force and effect ten days following the date of adoption. Sincerely, Ma~w F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:mh Enclosure pc: Mr. Jesse L. Chisom, Sr., and Ms. Bonnie S. Bishop, 420 Dale Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Mr. and Mrs. Donald L. Graybill, Route 2, Box 31711, Vinton, Virginia 24179 Mr. and Mrs. Edward Dull, 513 Fifth Street, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Mr. Mark Peterson, 1210 Penmar Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Mr. Bobby Meadows, 410 Bullitt Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Ms. Christine Proffit, 424 Bullitt Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Rolanda A. Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development Willard N. Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney J. Thomas Tasselli, Development Review Coordinator H:~Agenda.02XApril 15, 2002 correspondence.wpd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 15th day of April, 2002. No. 35822-041502. AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing certain public rights-of-way in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as more particularly described hereinafter; and dispensing with the second-reading of this ordinance. WHEREAS, the Rescue Mission of Roanoke, Inc., filed an application to the Council of the City of Roanoke, X)irginia, in accordance with law, requesting the Council to permanently vacate, discontinue and close the public rights-of-way described hereinafter; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, after giving proper notice to all concerned as required by {}30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and after having conducted a public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said application by the City Council on April 15, 2002, after due and timely notice thereof as required by §30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which heating all parties in interest and citizens were afforded an opportunity to be heard on said application; and WHEREAS, it appearing from the foregoing that the land proprietors affected by the requested closing of the subject public fights-of-way have been properly notified; and WHEREAS, from all of the foregoing, the Council considers that no inconvenience will result to any individual or to the public from permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing said public rights-of-way. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, that the public rights-of-way situate in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and more particularly described as follows: 1. That certain alley east of tax parcels 4012201,4012205, 4012206, 4012207, 4012208, 4012209 and 4012248, and west of tax parcels 4012211 and 4012212 between Tazewell Avenue, S.E. and Dale Avenue, S.E.; 2. That certain alley east of tax parcels 4012628, 4012601, 4012602, 4012603, and 4012604, and west of tax parcel 4012605 between Dale Avenue, S.E. and alley No. 4; 3. That certain alley north of tax parcel 4012212 and south of tax parcel 4012211 traveling east a distance of ~0.9 feet along tax parcel 4012212 from the northwest comer of tax parcel 4012212; and 4. That certain alley south of tax parcels 4012604, 4012605 and part of 4012606, and north of tax parcel 4012611, traveling east a distance of 167.5 feet from 4th Street be, and is hereby permanently vacated, discontinued and closed, and that all right and interest of the public in and to the same be, and hereby is, released insofar as the Council of the City of Roanoke is empowered so to do with respect to the closed portion of the rights-of-way, reserving however, to the City of Roanoke and any utility company, including, specifically, without limitation, providers to or for the public of cable television, electricity, natural gas or telephone service, an easement for sewer and water mains, television cable, electric wires, gas lines, telephone lines, and related facilities that may now be located in or across said public fights-of, way, together with the fight of ingress and egress for the maintenance or replacement of such lines, mains or utilities, such right to include the fight to remove, without the payment of compensation or damages of any kind to the owner, any landscaping, fences, shrubbery, structure or any other encroachments on or over the easement which 2 impede access for maintenance or replacement purposes at the time such work is undertaken; such easement or easements to terminate upon the later abandonment of use or permanent removal from the above-described public rights-of-way of any such municipal installation or other utility or facility by the owner thereof. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the applicant shall submit to the Subdivision Agent, receive all required approvals of, and record with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke, a subdivision plat, with said plat combining all properties which would otherwise be landlocked by the requested closures, or otherwise disposing of the land within the rights-of-way to be vacated in a manner consistent with law, and retaining appropriate easements, together with the right of ingress and egress over the same, for the installation and maintenance of any and all existing utilities that may be located within the following rights- of-way: 1. That certain alley east oftaxparcels 4012201,4012205, 4012206, 4012207, 4012208, 4012209 and 4012248, and west of tax parcels 4012211 and 4012212 between Tazewell Avenue, S.E. and Dale Avenue, S.E.; 2. That certain alley east of tax parcels 4012628, 4012601, 4012602, 4012603, and 4012604, and west of tax parcel 4012605 between Dale Avenue, S.E. and alley No. 4; 3. That certain alley north of tax parcel 4012212 and south of tax parcel 4012211 traveling east a distance of 50.9 feet along tax parcel 4012212 from the northwest comer of tax parcel 4012212; and 4. That certain alley south of tax parcels 4012604, 4012605 and part of 4012606, and north of tax parcel 4012611, traveling east a distance of 167.5 feet from 4th Street. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the applicant shall dedicate to the City of Roanoke right-of-way as proposed in Exhibit B of the application filed with the Clerk for the City of Roanoke on March 15, 2002, and shall construct such access in accordance with City standards. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the applicant shall, upon meeting all other conditions to the granting of the application, deliver to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, a certified copy of this ordinance for recordation where deeds are recorded in said Clerk's Office, indexing the same in the name of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as Grantor, and in the name of the Petitioner, and the names of any other parties in interest who may so request~ as Grantees, and pay such fees and charges as are required by the Clerk to effect such recordation. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the applicant shall, upon a certified copy of this ordinance being recorded by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, where deeds are recorded in said Clerk's Office, file with the City Engineer for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, the Clerk's receipt, demonstrating that such recordation has occurred. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that if the above conditions have not been met within a period of six (6) months from the date of the adoption of this ordinance, then said ordinance shall be null and void with no further action by City Council being necessary. BE IT FINALLY ORDAINED that pursuant to the provisions of §12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: City Clerk. H:\O RI)[NANCF~-st~Io~P.~so~Mm0~ 150Zv~l 4 HARTERED I~882~ Roanoke City Department of Planning Building and Development Room 166, Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (540) 853-1730 (Fax) 853-1230 Email: planning@ci.roanoke.va.us April 15, 2002 Honorable Ralph K. Smith, Mayor Honorable William H. Carder, Vice Mayor Honorable William D. Bestpitch, Council Member Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Council Member Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Council Member Honorable William White, Sr., Council Member Honorable Linda F. Wyatt, Council Member Dear Mayor Smith and Members of City Council: Subject: Request from the Rescue Mission of Roanoke, Inc., represented by Mary Ellen Goodlatte, Attorney, to permanently vacate, discontinue and close four alleys in the vicinity of Dale Avenue and 4th Street, S.E. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission public hearing was held on March 21,2002. By a vote of 6-0, the Commission recommended approval of the requested alley closures (Messrs. Butler, Campbell, Hill, Chrisman, Rife and Marietta voting in favor and Mr. Dowe absent). There were citizens in opposition and in favor of the proposed closures. Planning staff recommended approval of the alley closures. Background: Petition to close rights-of-way in vicinity of Dale Avenue and 4th Street, S. E. was filed on February 7, 2002. Subject closures were requested to develop Rescue Mission property for a proposed new facility that is the subject of a pending rezoning request. Amended petition to vacate rights-of-way was filed on March 15, 2002. The amended petition requests that four alleys be closed. See Exhibit B submitted with the petition showing the alleys to be closed. Only the two alleys between the existing Rescue Mission facility and the City Cemetery are open to traffic. The other two alleys are not accessible to traffic. In order to prevent the creation of a dead end alley between Tazewell Avenue and Dale Avenue, a new right-of-way is to be dedicated to the City between Tax parcels 4012212 and 4012213 for access to the Dale Avenue. Planning Commission public hearing on the alley closures was held on March 21, 2002. Mrs. Mary Ellen Goodlatte presented the requests for closure in conjunction with the requested rezoning for a proposed new Women's and Children's Facility. Mrs. Rebecca Jewell, corner of Dale Avenue and 5th Street, voiced her opposition to the closing the alleys and giving property to the Rescue Mission. Mr. Edward Argabright, 602 Dale Avenue, advised that he used the alley daily and saw no reason to give public property to a private organization. After some discussion by the Commission, it was explained that no dead end alley would be created and that a new alley connection would be provided to Dale Avenue. Other citizens spoke both in opposition and in favor of the expansion of the Rescue Mission. Considerations: Sanitary sewer is located in the alleys south of Dale between 4th Street and 5th Street. An easement will need to be retained or the sewer will need to be relocated. The petitioner proposes to relocate the sanitary sewer line. American Electric Power advises that they have facilities located in the rights-of-way and easements will need to be retained. There are no telephone or gas facilities located in the rights-of-way, however, Verizon has requested that a 15-foot utility easement be retained to accommodate new development needs. Closure of the subject alleys is expected to have minimal impact on vehicular traffic. Public access for pedestrians or for other modes of transportation could be affected, although it is expected that the inconvenience for any users would be minimal. New alley right-of-way is to be dedicated to between Tazewell Avenue and Dale Avenue to provide connected access to the street. City Council is authorized to sell the vacated rights-of-way, if it so chooses. Section 15.2-2008 of the Virginia Code (1950), as amended, authorizes a City to require an abutting property owner to purchase the vacated rights-of-way as a condition of the vacation. Under such an arrangement, the price may be no greater than the property's fair market value or its contributory value to the abutting property, whichever is greater, or the amount agreed to by the parties. The City's Real Estate Valuation Office has advised that the value of the alleys requested for closure is approximately $18, 300 (Alley 1 - $10,524, Alley 2 - $2,925, Alley 3 - $1,125, and Alley 4 - $3,713). The Rescue Mission has requested that the City transfer any vested ownership of the closed alley next to the City Cemetery to the Rescue Mission. Many residents of the area have expressed opposition to the proposed expansion of the Rescue Mission facility and any closure of public rights-of-way for use by the Rescue Mission. ^ few letters of support and emails have also been received. See attached summary of comments received to date. Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan provides the following policy recommendation: · Transportation system: Roanoke will provide a transportation system that is an integrated, multi-modal network of automobiles, bicycle, pedestrian and transit 2 facilities. Interconnected street systems should be encouraged in new development and be maintained in existing development. It is expected that closure of the requested alleys would not adversely affect a public transportation system in this neighborhood. The alleys are in close proximity to the existing Rescue Mission facility or they are in the middle of property owned by the Mission. Closure of the alleys would be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. The four alleys requested for closure are not necessary for public access and may be more securely controlled by the Rescue Mission if they are not public rights-of-way. Recommendation: By a vote of 6-0, the Commission recommended approval of the request of the Rescue Mission to close the subject alleys subject to the conditions set forth below. The applicant shall submit a subdivision plat to the Agent for the Planning Commission, receive all required approvals, and record the plat with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke. Said plat shall combine all properties which would otherwise dispose of the land within the right of way to be vacated in a manner consistent with law, and retain appropriate easements for the installation and maintenance of any and all existing utilities that may be located within the rights-of-way, including the right of ingress and egress. 2. The applicant shall dedicate new alley right-of-way as proposed in Exhibit B and shall construct new access according to City standards. Upon meeting all other conditions to the granting of the application, the applicant shall deliver a certified copy of this ordinance for recordation to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke, Virginia, indexing the same in the name of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as Grantor, and in the name of the petitioner, and the names of any other parties in interest who may so request, as Grantees. The applicant shall pay such fees and charges as are required by the Clerk to effect such recordation. o Upon recording a certified copy of this ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, the applicant shall file with the Engineer for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, the Clerk's receipt, demonstrating that such recordation has occurred. 3 CC: If the above conditions have not been met within a period of one year from the date of adoption of this ordinance, then said ordinance shall be null and void with no further action by City Council being necessary. Respectfully submitted, Robert B. Manetta, Chairman City of Roanoke Planning Commission Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager Rolanda Johnson, Assistant City Manager for Community Development William M. Hackworth, City Attorney Steve Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Maryellen Goodlatte, Attorney for the Petitioner 4 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE~ VIRGINIA Amended Petition of The Rescue Mission of Roanoke, Incorporated for: Vacation of the following alleys off Dale Avenue, S.E. and 4th Street, S.E.: Alley Number 1: East of tax parcels 4012201, 4012205, 4012206, 4012207, 4012208, 4012209 and 4012248, and west of tax parcels 4012211 and 4012212 between Tazewell Avenue, S.E. and Dale Avenue, S.E.; Alley Number 2: East of tax parcels 4012628, 4012601, 4012602, 4012603, and 4012604, and west of tax parcel 4012605 between Dale Avenue, S.E. and Alley No. 4; Alley Number 3: North of tax parcel 4012212 and south of tax parcel 4012211 traveling east a distance of 50.9 feet along tax parcel 4012212 from the north-west corner of tax parcel 4012212; and Alley Number 4: South of tax parcels 4012604, 4012605 and part of 4012606, and north of tax parcel 4012611, traveling east a distance of 167.5 feet from 4th Street. TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: Petitioner, The Rescue Mission of Roanoke, Incorporated, applies to have the following alleys permanently vacated, discontinued and closed, pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-2006, as amended and § 30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended: Alley Number 1: East of tax parcels 4012201, 4012205, 4012206, 4012207, 4012208, 4012209 and 4012248, and west of tax parcels 4012211 and 4012212 between Tazewell Avenue, S.E. and Dale Avenue, S.E.; Alley Number 2: East of tax parcels 4012628, 4012601, 4012602, 4012603, and 4012604, and west of tax parcel 4012605 between Dale Avenue, S.E. and Alley No. 4; Alley Number 3: North of tax parcel 4012212 and south of tax parcel 4012211 traveling east a distance of 50.9 feet along tax parcel 4012212 from the north-west comer of tax parcel 4012212; Alley Number 4: South of tax parcels 4012604, 4012605 and part of 4012606, and north of tax parcel 4012611, traveling east a distance of 167.5 feet from 4th Street. The alleys are more particularly described on Exhibit A. A plat showing the requested vacations is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A new access to Alley Number 1 would be dedicated to the public by Petitioner, as shown on the attached plat. Except for the property owned by the City of Roanoke (Roanoke City Cemetery), the Petitioner is the owner of property on both sides of said alleys and on both sides of said street. The Petitioner desires to use the property to be vacated, along with its adjacent property, to develop the Rescue Mission property as more fully described in the rezoning petition filed by Petitioner this day seeking INPUD designation for the Rescue Mission properties outlined on the attached plat. WHEREFORE, The Rescue Mission of Roanoke, Incorporated respectfully requests: 1. That the above-described alleys be vacated by the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.2-2006, as amended, and § 30-14, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended; and 2 2. That to the extent title to any of the alley next to the Roanoke City Cemetery (Alley No. I) vests in the City of Roanoke as a consequence of the vacation by operation of law, the City of Roanoke shall execute a subdivision plat, prepared at the expense of the Rescue Mission, transfemng such title to the Rescue Mission. This Amended Petition is respectfully submitted this /5'/7. day of ~ , 2002. THE RESCUE MISSION OF ROANOKE, INCORPORATED Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Esq. Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte P. O. Box 2887 Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2887 (540) 224-8018 - Telephone (540) 224-8050 - Facsimile The Rescue Mission of Roanoke, Incorporated, a Virginia corporation, owner of the property subject to this petition hereby consents to this amended petition to vacate. TI-[E RESCUE MISSION OF KOANOKF... INCORPORATED ~_~ its:, Description of Alleys Alley Number 1, between tax parcels 4012201, 4012205, 4012206, 4012207, 4012208, 4012209 and 4012248 on the westerly side and the Roanoke Cemetery (tax parcel number 4012211) and 4012212 on the easterly side: BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of Tazewell Avenue, said point being approximately 151 feet east of the intersection of Tazewell Avenue with Fourth Street (formerly Wheat Street); thence in a easterly direction approximately 15 feet to a point, being the northwesterly comer of tax parcel 4012211; thence along the westerly line of tax parcels 4012211 and 4012212 approximately 467.71 feet to a point on the northerly side of Dale Avenue; thence in a westerly direction approximately 15 feet to a point; thence in a northerly direction, along the easterly lines of tax parcels number 4012201, 4012205, 4012206, 4012207, 4012208, 4012209 and 4012248 approximately 467.71 feet to a point on the southerly side of Tazewell Avenue, being the PLACE OF BEGINNING. Alley Number 2, between tax parcels 4012601, 4012602, 4012603, and 4012604 on the westerly side and tax parcel 4012605 on the easterly side: BEGINNING at a point on the southerly side of Dale Avenue, said point being the northeasterly comer of tax parcel 4012628, approximately 100 feet from the easterly side of Fourth Street with its intersection with Dale Avenue; thence in an easterly direction with the width of said alley (approximately 5 to 15 feet) to a point at the northwesterly comer of tax parcel 4012605; thence along the westerly side 6f said tax parcel 4012605, in a southerly direction approximately 130 feet to a point on the northerly side of a 15 foot alley; thence in a westerly direction, approximately 5 to 15 feet to a point, being the Southeasterly comer of tax parcel 14012604; thence in a northerly direction approximately 130 feet to a point, being the PLACE OF BEGINNING. Alley Number 3, between tax parcels 4012212 on the southerly side and 4012211 on the northerly side: STARTING at a point on the northerly side of Dale Avenue, said point being the southwesterly comer of tax parcel 4012212; thence in a northerly direction approximately 106.6 feet to a point on the southerly side of a 15 foot alley, the ACTUAL PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence in an easterly direction, approximately 50 feet to a point; thence in a northerly direction, approximately ! 5 feet to a point; thence in a westerly direction, approximately 50 feet to a point; thence in a southerly direction, approximately 15 feet to a point, being the ACTUAL PLACE OF BEGINNING. Alley Number 4, between tax parcels 4012604, 4012605 and part of 4102606. on the northerly side and tax parcel 4012611 on the southerly side: BEGINNING at a point on the easterly side of Fourth Street (formerly Wheat Street), said point being the southwesterly comer of tax parcel 4012604; thence in an easterly direction approximately 165 feet to a point; thence in a southerly direction approximately 15 feet to a point; thence in a westerly direction approximately 165 feet to a point; thence in a northerly direction approximate 15 feet to a point, being the PLACE OF BEGINNING. 4012110 4012201 To ~K COI,,NEY~ TO RESCUE: 4012205 4012206 4012207 4012209 4012211 4012211 4012211 4012211 4012211 SOUTH 4012211 -- 4012211 4012211 4012602 4012603 4012604 401261 1'0 BE 'm i~scu£ 4012675 40126~ 4012617 4012618 4012619 4012620 R.O.W. ~012610 4012 40127 401271. 401271~ ~01271 4012718 Log of' Written Comment Concerning Petition of'Rescue Mission to Close a Portion of'Dale Avenue S.E. and Four Alleys off of.Dale and Fourth S.E. 2/19/02 Historic Belmont Opposed--According to Vision 2001, one of Roanoke's characteristics is its effective street Preservation grid. Street grid should be preserved and new development should tie into existing road Association network. Dale Ave. an important thoroughfare and also school bus route. Narrow streets in Belmont; also Bullitt dead-ends in 2 places & 5th Street is a dead end. Closing Dale would cut off a lar~le part of nei~ihborhood. 2/19/02 Robed & Deborah Inconvenience & possible public safety issue if close alleys and portion of Dale Ave. Jewell (ambulances & fire trucks reaching homes). Opposed to closing any alleys and providing land 502-5th St. SE for the Mission. 2/17/02 John McGonigal Closing off Dale Ave. between 4th & 5th Streets will disrupt access from 9t~ St. to 4t" St. which 706 Montrose connects Tazewell & Elm Ave. 2/20/02 Stephanie Scott Proposed closing of alleyways and especially Dale Ave. shows disregard for wants and 502-5th St. SE needs of neighborhood; if approved, would cut off & limit safe & convenient travel of taxpayers to & from homes. 2/15/02 Michelle Osborne Cannot allow Dale Ave. to be closed off--New homeowner in Belmont with 2 small 522-5th St. SE children, 1 with severe medical problems; use this street everyday; street closure will affect our c~ualit¥ of life & safety. ~ 2/20/02 Mary Boitnott Keep Dale Ave. open; travel this street daily; also community's safety. John Hale Vision 2001 (pg. 4.14-Roadways): Where possible, neighborhood streets should connect 510-5th St. SE with existing neighborhood streets to complete the street grid pattern of the surrounding area. Vision 2001 (pg. 3.39-Infrastructure): Street grid should be preserved and new development should tie into the existin road 2/18/02 Timothy & Closing of Dale Ave. SE and creating a cul-de-sac is a negative impact. Christine There are 5 historic homes remaining in the 300 block of Dale. By proposed closure, Proffitt effectively cutting off the existing housing and its connection to the neighborhood. 424 Bullitt Ave. Vision 2001 states good street design supports multiple modes of transportation & adds value to adjoining properties; is essential to continuing revitalization of downtown, neighborhoods & commercial areas. (pg. 3.39) Effective street grid should be preserved & new development should tie into existing road network, completing street grid where possible. (pg. 3.41) Interconnected street systems should be encouraged in new development & maintained in existing development. (pg. 4.2) Encourage smooth traffic flow & pedestrian use. Proposed 1-73 will take majority of 4th St. SE, closing off entrance of Bullitt, creating another cul-de-sac. Will isolate neighborhood; public safety at risk. Proposed cul-de-sacs affect quality of life; due to several handicapped children, school transportation needs to pick children up in front of homes. 2/21/02 Mark Petersen Vision 2001 identified preserving and restoring the street grid system as a priority to President ensure that citizens have optimal travel choices in the city and to promote pedestrian and SE Action Forum bicycle use. Closing Dale Ave. will limit residents' choices of entrance & egress for the Belmont neighborhood. 2/19/02 Kathy Hill Proposal goes against guidelines set in Comprehensive Plan for neighborhoods. Neighborhood streets should encourage pedestrians and bicycle use. Cul-de-sac streets do not promote friendly use of streets. Neighborhood already divided from downtown area by 581 and Rescue Mission's proposal to cul-de-sac streets and close alleys will put neighborhood in more jeopardy of being cut off for emer~tenc¥ vehicles necessar~ for c~ualit¥ of life and safety. 2/21/02 Carl Cooper, Vacating & closing several alleys & portion of Dale Ave. would damage Belmont's street Chair grid & thus inhibit automobile, pedestrian, & bicycle activity. Neighborhood Vision 2001, pg. 3.42, "One of Roanoke's characteristics in the region is that it is an urban Partnership community with a compact development pattern and effective street grid. The street grid Steering system should be preserved and new development should tie in to the existing road Committee (continued) (continued) (continued) Carl Cooper network, completing the street grid where possible." Vision 2001, pg. 3.42, "Interconnected street systems should be encouraged in new development and be maintained in existing development." Vision 2001, pg. 4.2, "Downtown is not confined to the Central Business District, but extends into Belmont, Gainsboro and Old Southwest neighborhoods. Downtown streets form an interconnected grid..." Vision 2001, pg. 4.2, "Downtown neighborhoods are characterized by small lots, ... two story houses with porches, consistent building setbacks and an interconnected grid of narrow, tree lined streets and alleys." Vision 2001, pg. 3.10, ',Neighborhood streets and streetscapes should encourage pedestrian activity and bicycle use." 2/21/02 Rick Williams Request to close Dale Ave. at its intersection with 4th Street directly in conflict with one of 3725 Sunrise principal transportation elements of Vision 2001, that Roanoke preserve and enhance its street grid. Quotes from same sources as Carl Cooper above: · Vision 2001, page 3.42 (2 sections) · Vision 2001, page 4.2 (2 sections) · Vision 2001, page 3.10 Turning Dale Ave. into a cul-de-sac would degrade Belmont neighborhood's urban street form and be a hardship to residents. Would force auto traffic into detours to get in and out of nei~lhborhood & would discoura~le pedestrian & bicycle activity. 2/15/02 Anthony Stavola Street closing required for this expansion is contrary to recommendations of the 1836 Greenwood Comprehensive Plan. 3/8/02 Edward Dull Opposed to alley closure behind house; drunks are problem in alley. 513 - 5th St. 3/8/02 Dan Doss Concerned about closing alleys and need for emergency access; also concerned about rear 523 - 5th St. . 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 March 26, 2002 File #514 STEPHANIE M. MOON Deputy City Clerk SHEILA N. HARTMAN Assistant Deputy City Clerk Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte P. O. Box 2887 Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2887 Dear Ms. Goodlatte: 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, April 15, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, on the request of The Rescue Mission of Roanoke, Inc., that the following alleys be permanently vacated, discontinued and closed: 1. That certain alley east of Official Tax Nos. 4012201, 4012205, 4012206, 4012207, 4012208, 4012209 and 4012248, and west of Official Tax Nos. 4012211 and 4012212 between Tazewell Avenue and Dale Avenue, S.E.; 2. That certain alley east of Official Tax Nos. 4012628, 4012601, 4012602, 4012603, and 4012604, and west of Official Tax No. 4012605 between Dale Avenue, S. E. and alley No. 4; 3. That certain alley north of Official Tax No. 4012212 and south of Official Tax No. 4012211 traveling east a distance of 50.9 feet along Official Tax No. 4012212 from the northwest corner of Official Tax No. 4012212; and 4. That certain alley south of Official Tax Nos. 4012604, 4012605 and part of 4012606, and north of Official Tax No. 4012611, traveling east a distance of 167.5 feet from 4th Street, S. E. Maryellen F. Goodlatte March 26, 2002 Page 2 For your information, I am enclosing copy of a report of the City planning Commission, a notice of the public hearing and an Ordinance. Please review the documents and if you have questions, you may contact Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney, at 540-853-2431. Questions with regard to the City Planning Commission report should be directed to the Department of Planning, Building and Development at 540-853-1730. It will be necessary for you, or your representative, to be present at the April 15 public hearing. Failure to appear could result in a deferral of the matter until a later date. MFP:mh Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk Enclosure CITY OF ROANOKE Office of the City Clerk Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk April 22, 2002 File #67 Stephanie M. Moon Deputy City Clerk Sheila N. Hartman Assistant City Clerk Darlene L. Burcham City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Burcham: At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Monday, April 15, 2002, Evelyn D. Bethel, Co-Chair, Washington Park Improvements and Memorial Committee, expressed concerns with regard to Booker T. Washington Park. The matter was referred to the City Manager for review and report to Council within 30 days. Council Member Wyatt requested that the comfort station issue be addressed as soon as possible. Sincerely, City Clerk MFP:mh pc: Evelyn D. Bethel, Co-Chair, Washington Park Improvements and Committee, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Frederica Monk, Co-Chair, Washington Park Improvements and Committee, 3343 Pittsfield Circle, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Memorial Memorial H:~Agenda.02X, April l 5, 2002 correspondence.wpd 35 Patton Avenue, NE Historic Gainsboro Roanoke, VA 24016 April 3, 2002 Ms Mary Parker City Clerk, Roanoke 215 Church Ave, SW NC Taylor Municipal Building Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear Ms Parker: We respectfully request that the Washington Park Improvements and Memorial Committee be placed on the City Council agenda on Monday, April 15, 2002 at 7:00 pm for a presentation. Our report to and communication with Council will not exceed ten (10) minutes. Both Councilman Alvin Hudson and Linda Wyatt have agreed to sponsor this petition. Sincerely yours, Co-chairs Copy: Councilman Alvin Hudson Councilman Linda Wyatt