Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/25/2016 - City Council - Minutes - RegularCity Council Meeting MINUTES Monday, July 25, 2016, 7:30 PM Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 1. Call to Order A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia was called to order at 7:30 p.m., there being present the following members to wit: Byron Randolph Foley, Mayor, John C. Givens, Vice-Mayor, Councilmembers: Jane W. Johnson, William D. Jones, and James A. Martin; along with Kevin S. Boggess, City Manager; James E. Taliaferro, II, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Melinda J. Payne, Director of Economic Development; Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance; William L. Simpson, Jr., City Engineer; Mike Stevens, Communications Director; and Stephen M. Yost, City Attorney. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Bid Openings, Awards, Recognitions 4. Consent Agenda A. Minutes Consider acceptance of the minutes from the July 11, 2016 work session and regular meetings of Salem City Council. Received as presented. 5. Old Business A. Vacation of Public Utility Easement Consider ordinance on second reading permanently vacating a public utility easement at the request of Hugh W. Killinger, III, owner of New Lot 3 of Diamond Crest Estates recorded in the City of Salem as Tax Map # 263-2-4. (Passed on first reading at the July 11, 2016 meeting) Jane Johnson motioned to pass the Ordinance on second reading permanently vacating a public utility easement at the request of Hugh W. Killinger, III, owner of New Lot 3 of Diamond Crest Estates recorded in the City of Salem as Tax Map Number 263-2-4. Vice- Mayor John Givens seconded the motion. Ayes: Martin, Jones, Johnson, Givens, Foley B. Chapter 86 City Code Consider ordinance on second reading to amend Chapter 86, Article I of the City Code pertaining to law enforcement officers and the use of bicycles, mopeds, and all-terrain vehicles during the course of duties. (Passed on first reading at June 27, 2016 meeting.) Vice-Mayor Givens motioned to adopt ordinance on second reading to amend Chapter 86, Article I of the City Code pertaining to law enforcement officers and the use of bicycles, mopeds, and all-terrain vehicles during the course of duties. William Jones seconded the motion. Mayor Foley noted that this will allow the police officers to use ATVs, mopeds, and such in the line of duty where they are not normally allowed by the public, i.e. greenways, Civic Center, etc. Ayes: Martin, Jones, Johnson, Givens, Foley 6. New Business A. Conveyance of Property Hold a public hearing to consider the sale of adjacent parcels known as 3 East Main Street, Salem, Virginia, Tax Map #106-8-11, consisting of 0.913 acres and 16 East Clay Street, Salem, Virginia, Tax Map #106-8-3, consisting of 0.149 acres (superjacent airspace only, including but not limited to appurtenant easements). (As advertised in the July 15, 2016, issue of The Roanoke Times.) B. Conveyance of Property Hold public hearing to consider the sale of adjacent parcels known as 100 South Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, Tax Map #122-7-5, consisting of 0.248 acres and 10 West Burwell Street, Tax Map #122-7-3, consisting of 0.497 acres (superjacent air space only, including but not limited to appurtenant easements). (As advertised in the July 15, 2015, issue of The Roanoke Times.) C. Conveyance of Property Hold public hearing to consider the sale of a parcel known as 200 East Clay Street, Salem, Virginia, Tax Map # 106-11-4.1, consisting of 0.227 acres (superjacent airspace only, including but not limited to appurtenant easements). (As advertised in the July 15, 2016, issue of The Roanoke Times.) Mayor Foley asked City Manager Kevin Boggess to explain what the City is doing with these conveyances. Mr. Boggess noted Item A is commonly known as the Salem Farmers Market, Item B is commonly known as the Courthouse parking lot, and Item C is the small parking lot behind the Macado’s Restaurant on East Main Street. He noted that staff is asking Council to hold this public hearing on the idea of developing above those properties that are essentially being used for surface parking lots. It is intended to let developers and others know that the City would be interested in having conversations about development going up instead of outward on these properties. We know that our Downtown Plan encourages higher density use in the downtown area and development of commercial space, parking space, hotel space or residential space as being primary drivers of healthy downtowns. So when the City started talking about reuse and redevelopment in the downtown area, ideas were sparked from other communities both here locally and throughout the state and the nation about using air rights above existing properties or increasing density by going up; so the public hearings are intended for Council to consider this and if these are approved, to hopefully encourage potential developers who are looking at downtown to think vertically as opposed to laterally when it comes to increasing the density and making an investment in our downtown area; he further described some challenges related to developing these properties; there are varying degrees of what could ever be done with the properties, but staff wanted to start the discussion and ask City Council to send a message that we are thinking outside the box when it comes to looking at improving the density, development and investment in our downtown area. Mr. Yost, City Attorney, noted one action the Council could take would be to ask the City administration to entertain any kind of definitive proposal which would then have to be brought back to City Council just like this meeting. Mayor Foley opened up the public hearing. William Robertson of 631 Dogwood Drive, long time resident of Salem, appeared before the Council. He noted that Salem is unique and we have a unique character. He thinks the Farmers Market is part of it, and he noted that he built the box culvert that goes underneath the Market. He feels that what we are talking about is going to change the character of downtown Salem, and we have no idea what some developer will propose and what it will look like. He would like the Council to look hard and long about developing the air space because we do not want to look like the market in Downtown Roanoke. Mayor Foley asked if anyone else would like to speak. There was no response after asking a second time, and the public hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Givens noted that if someone came to the City with a plan over the Farmers Market, they possibly could deny the proposal and say we do not want it; Mr. Robertson noted that he hoped so. James Martin noted that by referencing these properties and prompting this action again, the City is just soliciting ideas for development, and if there are ideas that come forward then City Council will address those in another meeting. It was noted that this is correct. Mr. Yost noted if he is hearing Council correctly, he believes the motion will be to direct City administration to entertain any definitive proposals and to bring any such proposals back to City Council for action. Vice Mayor Givens motioned to direct City administration to entertain any definitive proposals and to bring any such proposals back to City Council for action as related to the following properties: 3 East Main Street, Tax Map #106-8-11, consisting of 0.913 acres; 16 East Clay Street, Tax Map #106-8-3, consisting of 0.149 acres; 100 South Broad Street, Tax Map #122-7-5, consisting of 0.248 acres; 10 West Burwell Street, Tax Map #122-7-3, consisting of 0.497 acres; 200 East Clay Street, Salem, Virginia, Tax Map #106-11-4.1, consisting of 0.227 acres (superjacent air space only, including but not limited to appurtenant easements). William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Martin, Jones, Johnson, Givens, Foley D. Conveyance of Property Hold a public hearing to consider the sale of a parcel known as 2005 Cook Drive, Salem, Virginia, Tax Map #256-1-2, being approximately 0.31 acres of a portion of a 2.56-acre tract. (As advertised in the July 15, 2016, issue of The Roanoke Times.) E. Conveyance of Property Hold a public hearing to consider the sale of a parcel situated in Roanoke County, Virginia, Tax Map #054-.04-01-10.00-0000 known as 4127 West Main Street, Salem, Virginia, being approximately 14.841 acres. (As advertised in the July 15, 2016, issue of The Roanoke Times.) F. Conveyance of Property Hold a public hearing to consider the sale of a parcel known as 1001 Boulevard-Roanoke, Salem, Virginia, Tax Map #57-1-2 up to a maximum of 10 acres of unimproved land situated on the south side of Texas Street and extending in an easterly direction along Texas Street, approximately 1,000 linear feet from the southeast intersection of Boulevard-Roanoke and Texas Street. (As advertised in the July 15, 2016, issue of The Roanoke Times.) Mayor Foley asked City Manager Boggess to discuss Item D, the Cook Drive parcel. Mr. Boggess noted that this parcel is a small portion of floodway property adjacent to Tidy Services, which is a local company that provides port-a-john services. This is an area where we want to run the greenway along the Roanoke River, and in talking with the owners of the business, acquiring the easement for the greenway along the rear of their property required them to move some of their storage area also in the floodway. Melinda Payne had been working with them to try and find some alternate locations for off-site storage. As the City continued to discuss their needs it became clear that the adjoining property, which previously had been used for the Sewer Department, could possibly be utilized for Tidy Services’ storage. There is a sewer easement and sewer main that runs through this area along with some well houses or sewer testing houses on this property. The sewer easement and sewer line are still active, but we do not do monitoring that would require using those buildings any longer. We do not have a need for the majority of the property except a portion that will serve as trailhead parking for the greenway. So the City is proposing to convey 0.31 acres to Tidy Services so they can reallocate how they store equipment on their property and remove the immediate need to move or expand onto a separate site. Further, this is a public hearing so if someone else came in and bid more money, the City could certainly entertain that offer; but the idea is that the City will engage in a purchase contract, which the City Attorney will review, and then would bring it back to Council for approval. Mr. Boggess noted Item E is what is referred to as the old Water Plant property located in Roanoke County, which is a large parcel of approximately 14.8 acres. City Council has had several public hearings over the last 15 or 20 years to sell all or portions of this property, but we have always identified who the purchaser would be. The last time it was Adams Construction that wanted to purchase a portion of the property for an asphalt plant that was conditioned upon a rezoning of the property; that rezoning did not occur, so the property sale never went through. Because the previous requests have been specific to selling it to a particular user, staff felt we needed to ask Council to hold a public hearing more generically. We are interested in selling the entire property with the exception of the separate parcel housing a cellular tower which the City will retain ownership. This will be the public hearing so that if we receive a prospect on the property, then staff would be able to move a little more quickly in negotiations with the prospective buyer as opposed to having to wait for a public hearing. Mr. Boggess noted that Item F is up to a maximum of 10 acres located on the north side of the Civic Center property as has been reported in the media. He noted that we have a developer who has proposed to build a hotel and a restaurant on this property, and this is the public hearing part of this. The proposed project should fall well under the 10-acre maximum, which has been identified for the public hearing tonight. Again, this is public hearing on the sale of the property, not the specifics of the proposed development; but it also means that someone else also could put a proposal in for the property as well. So whatever direction Council gives staff tonight will determine how we move forward with this item. Vice Mayor Givens asked how much area of the Roanoke County property does the cell tower occupy? Mr. Boggess noted that he thought it was one half acre or less. He further noted that we would retain an easement and access for that lot. Mr. Martin asked if there are any known proposals for development of the Water Plant property. Mr. Boggess noted that we have not received any proposals for the development but we have received inquiries from time to time and Ms. Payne can address that if there is something specific. He further noted that staff submits this property as does Roanoke County whenever we receive a request from the State Economic Development department looking for a 15 acre or larger site. Since this property is located in the County, our only opportunity is to make money one time when we sell it as opposed to if it were located in the City we could make money by tax revenue and get back our investment this way. The only way to re-coop investment in this property is to get the highest sale price that we can. Mr. Martin noted that if there is a development opportunity that comes up down the road, this will expedite the process as was mentioned earlier, and Mr. Boggess noted that this was correct. Mayor Foley opened up the public hearing to receive questions or comments. Marlene Beckner, 844 Boulevard-Roanoke, stated her purpose in speaking is to publicly state her objection to the sale of the property known as 1001 Boulevard-Roanoke, corner of Boulevard-Roanoke Street and Texas Street, to Spartan Developers for the purpose of constructing a hotel. Her property is zoned residential and from her front porch she looks out directly across the street to the property proposed for an extended-stay hotel. She noted that she cannot see this being a good fit for this location. She understands that Spartan Developers has already invested considerable time and resources into this proposed acquisition, and she asks that City Council members take an extended period of time to examine this proposal and keep the citizens of Salem informed as this process progresses. She thinks that the City of Salem did an outstanding job garnering public comment for the proposed revitalization of downtown Salem and she realizes that this area is not downtown, but it certainly is the crown jewel of Salem with all the various sporting venues at this complex. So she asks Council to take their time in considering this very important long-term decision. She mentioned she has several points for consideration. It was mentioned in the WSLS news broadcast on July 22 that this hotel would be a real benefit to area businesses, but no mention was made of how it would benefit or otherwise affect private citizens in the area. Three generations of her family have lived in this home on the Boulevard since 1965. They have paid their taxes and been steady supporters of the City of Salem for all these years. Their 100+ year old home will one day be part of their children’s inheritance. With a hotel across the street, she sees the value of that inheritance going down not only from a monetary standpoint but an esthetics standpoint as well. In the short time she has had to research this matter, she has looked at other Staybridge Suites hotels and the ones that she researched were built in areas where there are other hotels, shopping venues, restaurants and multi-unit housing complexes. She is fully aware of the way the Elizabeth Campus has been built up, but this does not take away from the fact that there still remain many single family homes that will be directly impacted by a hotel on this property. So, her first question is how does building a hotel near single family homes affect the residents’ property values? Number 2: is there a plan for storm water runoff? Number 3: with the close proximity of Mount Regis Treatment Center, would Staybridge Suites be looked at as possible step down accommodations after a patient is discharged from Mount Regis? Number 4: has a study been done to assess the projected value of this hotel 20, 30, or 40 years down the road? Our Roanoke neighbors have a number of aging hotels and some are extended stay hotels that are known to house drug users. Number 5: has a traffic study been done to indicate the impact on Texas Street, a two lane highway, when left-hand turns are required to enter or exit the property. Number 6: has there been consideration given to impact on local restaurants and tax revenue when people are taking advantage in the kitchen in their suite and eating in their room instead of frequenting local restaurants? Number 7: part of Salem’s charm for people coming to the Taliaferro Complex is the beauty of the area. Would we lose something that we could never replace if we put a hotel on the last open area of this large complex. Let’s make sure that we keep that sparkle in our eye when people comment on our beautiful City of Salem. These were just a few of the questions that were raised over the weekend while talking with neighbors about the proposed hotel. She asked the Council to take time to consider each of the questions and give citizens adequate time to come up with other questions concerning this proposal. Joseph Balbalian, 2252 Medford Road, appeared and noted he does not live near the proposed project; however, he wondered if there has ever been any consideration and is it even feasible to rent the land instead of selling it. He is talking about the future and we never know what might happen from one day to the other; options should be open. If Salem rents the land and something happens, then the land is still with us and we have options again. He thinks that we should consider this idea. Corey Webster, 900 Boulevard-Roanoke, noted that he lives across the street from the proposed project. He noted in looking over the site plan there is a maximum height of 80 feet, but it is only supposed to be a three story hotel, and an 80’ building right in front of his house is definitely going to kill his view. Other than that he believes the plan looks like a great development for the City and he thinks we need growth. He is just looking for some clarification about how tall and big the building will be if it is built. Mayor Foley noted that a plan has not been submitted for review at this point, but he thought that the 80’ is the maximum height allowed per the City Code. Mr. Webster noted he had seen a drawing from one of the news reports, but he thought a three story building would only be about 35-40’. Mr. Boggess noted that it would probably be 35-40’ in height. Jonnie Webster, 910 East Eighth Street, appeared and noted that her son, Corey, had shared the site drawing of the proposed hotel. She noted that there is a problem now with people who do not yield at the yield sign coming up the hill from Fourth Street. She contacted the Street Department and asked if they could print yield on the road because people do not look at the sign. She noted that the area is already congested and the traffic coming and going to the hotel and restaurant are going to add to the congestion. She just wanted to make sure that Council is aware of the problem with people not yielding at this intersection. Mayor Foley noted that no engineering work has been done for the site and what has been referred to as a site plan is a concept plan for a proposed hotel. Mayor Foley asked if anyone else would like to speak. There was no response after asking, and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Yost noted it seems the consensus of Council is to direct City administration to entertain any definitive proposals and to bring any such proposals back to City Council for action to make a determination as to whether to proceed or not. James Martin motioned to direct City administration to entertain any definitive proposals and to bring any such proposals back to City Council for action as related to the following properties: 2005 Cook Drive, Tax Map #256-1-2, being approximately 0.31 acres of a portion of a 2.56-acre tract; 4127 West Main Street, situated in Roanoke County, Virginia, Tax Map #054-.04-01-10.00-0000, being approximately 14.841 acres; and 1001 Boulevard-Roanoke, Tax Map #57-1-2 up to a maximum of 10 acres of unimproved land situated on the south side of Texas Street and extending in an easterly direction along Texas Street, approximately 1,000 linear feet from the southeast intersection of Boulevard-Roanoke and Texas Street. Jane Johnson seconded the motion. Ayes: Martin, Jones, Johnson, Givens, Foley G. Special Exception Permit Hold a public hearing to consider the request of J. E. Home Solutions, Inc., property owner, for the issuance of a Special Exception Permit to allow a two-family dwelling on the property located at 318 White Street (Tax Map #144-2-22). Advertised in the July 7 and 14 issues of the Salem Times Register. Recommend approval; see page 1 of Planning Commission minutes. Mary Ellen Wines, Zoning Administrator, appeared before Council. She noted that 318 White Street was built as a single family dwelling. It has since been used as an unapproved duplex and has been vacant for more than two years so it has lost any grandfather rights it might have. Mr. Enquist purchased the property hoping to put it back as a duplex, and she was notified by the Electric Department when they applied to add a second electric meter to the structure. The Zoning Department met with Mr. Enquist and told him that it would require a Special Exception permit approval. Justin Enquist, of J E Home Solutions Inc., appeared before Council explaining the Special Exception Permit request. He noted that when he purchased the property it was already set up as a two-family dwelling having two kitchens, two gas meters and two electric meters. In the process of trying to fix up the property to a legal, livable and habitable status, he found out the use had not been approved. His company specializes in fixing up older homes and helping to develop neighborhoods and buying homes that no one else wants to purchase. They enjoy restoring the charm of old homes and bringing them back to a useable state. Mayor Foley asked if anyone else would like to speak. There was no response and the public hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Givens asked if the petitioner would be willing to proffer a condition for the request. Mr. Boggess noted that Council can place a condition but cannot ask the petitioner to proffer. Mr. Givens noted he thought it would be appropriate to have some type of fence along the boundary to keep neighbors out and keep the leasees in on this property. Mr. Enquist noted that there is already a fence on one side of the property and he has agreed with the neighbor next door to put up a fence along the alley to the house. Mr. Givens noted that this was what he wanted to know. William Jones motioned for the approval of the Special Exception Permit on the property located at 318 White Street (Tax Map #144-2-22) to allow a two-family dwelling with the condition that a fence be constructed along the alley up to the house. Vice Mayor Givens seconded the motion. Ayes: Martin, Jones, Johnson, Givens, Foley. H. Amendment of City Code Hold public hearing to consider amending Chapter 106, Article II District Regulations, Section 106-218.2.(B)(5) of the CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA pertaining to Automobile Rental/Leasing in LM Light Manufacturing District. Advertised in the July 7 and 14, 2016, issues of the Salem Times Register. Recommend approval; see page 3 Planning Commission minutes. I. Amendment to City Code Hold public hearing to consider amending Chapter 106, Article II District Regulations, Section 106-220.2.(B)(5) of the CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA pertaining to Automobile Rental/Leasing in HM Heavy Manufacturing District. Advertised in the July 7 and 14, 2016, issues of the Salem Times Register. Recommend approval; see page 3 Planning Commission minutes. J. Amendment to City Code Hold a public hearing to consider amending Chapter 106, Article III Use & Design Standards, Section 106-304.9.(A)(2) of the CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA pertaining to manufactured home parks. Advertised in the July 7 and 14, 2016, issues of the Salem Times Register. Recommend approval; see page 3 Planning Commission minutes. K. Amendment to City Code Hold a public hearing to consider amending Chapter 106, Article IV Development Standards, Section 106-402.3. Table 1 of the CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA pertaining to buffer yards in the Residential Business District and College and University District. Advertised in the July 7 and 14, 2016, issues of the Salem Times Register. Recommend approval; see page 3 Planning Commission minutes. L. Amendment to City Code Hold public hearing to consider amending Chapter 106, Article IV Development Standards, Section 106-402.17.(A)(B) & (D) of the CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA pertaining to maintenance of landscaping. Advertised in the July 7 and 14, 2016, issues of the Salem Times Register. Recommend approval; see page 3 Planning Commission minutes. Mr. Boggess noted he thought they could group all the amendments together in one public hearing, and Mr. Yost noted that the Council could certainly do this. Mrs. Wines noted that staff has had a continuing list of zoning ordinance amendments over the last few years. Every time staff has one that they need to bring before the Council on an immediate basis, a few others are added that have been on the list for a while. As Council may recall, they recently received an application for a Certificate of Public Necessity for Salem Cab on Electric Road and this is how the first two amendments came about. The Cab Company is at 515 Electric Road, and it came to staff’s attention that they are on industrially zoned property. As City staff researched this, they realized that it is possible that this might be a good fit in some cases. Taxi cab dispatch services fall under the Automobile Leasing definition so staff is proposing to add this to the code in the industrial districts by Special Exception Permit. So applicants will have to apply and come before Planning Commission and City Council to request the permit. Mrs. Wines stated Section 106-304.9(A)(2) regarding manufactured home parks was a little unclear and needed to be cleaned up. We are not changing anything but just rewording it so that it makes better sense. It simply means any kind of amendment, change, expansion or new mobile home park would have to come before Council through the zoning process. Mrs. Wines noted that the request to amend Section 106-402.3.Table 1 pertains to buffer yards in the Residential Business and College and University Districts. When we went through the rezoning process for the General Electric property on the Boulevard-Roanoke, staff realized that since we have changed the RB zoning designation to be more residential in nature that we did not in turn change the buffer yard requirements for those districts. So what this amendment does is to require any use that is more commercial that surrounds the RB zoning would now be required to have the standard buffer yards that we have for the other districts as well. She noted that we are removing the footnote for the College and University District as it was a little confusing, and she further discussed how this would be affected. Mrs. Wines explained the changes to Section 106-402.17, the maintenance of landscaping. She noted that over the years as we have enforced the landscaping more thoroughly through the site plan process, etc. it has come to our attention that once it is installed it may not always remain as it was installed due to droughts, under watering, etc. So what we are trying to do with one of the changes is to give us better enforcement in requiring them to keep it maintained and in good health, and also to replace it with similar size if the tree, shrub, etc. dies. We are also asking for sites that are over an acre be required to have some type of automatic irrigation. Currently we just require them to have some type of hookup for watering. Staff feels that if the site is over one acre then usually there is a lot of landscaping, and with the automatic irrigation, it will ensure the maintenance. Mr. Martin asked with regards to the maintenance of landscaping, if something dies and we are requiring that they replace it with plants similar in size, how do we document this? Mrs. Wines noted that if we are not aware of the size, staff can use current tools, like Google Maps, etc. The City does keep an ongoing site plan list of plans that have been approved in the last several years. Staff tries to keep this list up to date and keep an eye on the properties as best as they can. She noted that we are not trying to force someone into necessarily replacing a 4” tree with a 4” tree as this can get rather costly, but we do want to have some kind of enforcement tool to try to get it back as best as we can. Mr. Martin noted he just wanted to make sure that we have some kind of benchmark in place to give someone point of reference when they need to replace something. Mrs. Wines noted that they are able to do this. Mayor Foley opened up the public hearing and explained the ordinance amendments for the audience again. He asked if anyone else would like to speak. There was no response and the public hearing was closed. Vice-Mayor Givens motioned to approve the ordinances on first reading to amend Chapter 106, Article II District Regulations, Section 106-218.2.(B)(5) and Section 106- 220.2(B)(5), Article III Use & Design Standards, Section 106-304.9.(A)(2), Article IV Development Standards, Section 106-402.3.Table 1 and Section 106-402.17.(A)(B) & (D) of the CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA pertaining to Automobile Rental/Leasing in LM Light Manufacturing District and HM Heavy Manufacturing District, manufactured home parks, buffer yards in Residential Business District and College and University District, and maintenance of landscaping. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Martin, Jones, Johnson, Givens, Foley. M. Salem Stadium Concessions Consider contract with the Salem Host Lions Club for concession rights at the Salem Stadium. Mr. Taliaferro noted that the Salem Lions Club has operated the football stadium concession stands for years, and for the Council’s consideration this evening is a five-year contract with them to keep providing those services. He noted that last year the Lions Club donated over $100,000 to local charities, and the majority of those donations were from the concession stands. The major change is in proposed contract from past contracts is that the City has added a lot of events at the football stadium over the years, such as the Music Festivals, etc., and the Civic Center would retain the profits from outside vendors at those festivals but the Lions Club would still operate the concession stands. Mr. Martin asked if the contract is for a five-year term, and Mr. Taliaferro noted this was correct. He noted that it would run through June 30, 2021. Mr. Martin asked if this is a typical term for this kind of agreement, and Mr. Taliaferro noted that this is what has been done in the past so we kept with same term. Vice Mayor Givens noted that the Lions Club has done a fine job with the concessions at the football games, and he is tickled to death that we can work with them again for another five years. Mr. Taliaferro noted that we are working with them to provide even more on the menus and over the course the contract, if approved, we would like to add some fryers, etc. in the concessions so they can have different foods. Mrs. Johnson noted that this sounds like a great partnership to her, and she appreciates all their community service and support. Jane Johnson motioned to approve the contract with the Salem Host Lions Club for concession rights at the Salem Stadium. James Martin seconded the motion. Ayes: Martin, Jones, Johnson, Givens, Foley N. Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority Consider adoption of Resolution 1301 to authorize the City to enter into a Service Agreement and a First Amendment to the Support Agreement with the City of Roanoke, County of Roanoke, Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority and the Virginia Resources Authority. Mr. Boggess noted what the agreement spells out is the relationship between the two cities, Roanoke and Salem, and Roanoke County. As you are aware, the two cities initially made an investment in the Broadband Authority and the infrastructure. Roanoke County is now investing in broadband infrastructure within the county limits as well. What this agreement establishes is who is responsible for what debt service. The two cities shared essentially a $6M debt service for the buildout of their infrastructure. Roanoke County is now investing approximately $3M to buildout the infrastructure within the county. So this agreement states that the two cities are each responsible for their half of the initial investment of $6M and Roanoke County is essentially responsible for their $3M of expansion. So, it really worked out mathematically that each locality has about one third of the debt service. It also spells out that in terms of the operating expenses of the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority we are dividing that cost by thirds now as well whereas before the two cities paid one half as we were the investing partners. Now that Roanoke County is a partner, they will assume one third of the operating expense also. Mr. Yost said that Council should have had received an updated First Amendment and an updated Service Agreement. He noted that there is one slight change, which is very minor. He stated that it merely says the Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts. He noted that this simply means that it relieves us from having to take that one page of signatures and get everyone to sign that same page including those in Richmond with the Resource Authority, our primary lender. Mrs. Johnson asked if Botetourt County decided to join the Authority, then would we just re-work the split at that time. Mr. Boggess noted that this was correct. He noted that Botetourt hopefully will become a financially participating partner but their investment may not equal the others and then we have to determine probably through additional negotiation what percentages they may assume responsibility for both in terms of debt service and operating expenses. Vice Mayor Givens noted he thought it would be the same if Montgomery County or Franklin County wanted to participate. Mr. Boggess noted that they are not currently members of the Broadband Authority but if they were to become members, which is a possibility, then yes this would apply as well. William Jones motioned to adopt Resolution 1301 to authorize the City to enter into a Service Agreement and a First Amendment to the Support Agreement with the City of Roanoke, County of Roanoke, Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority and the Virginia Resources Authority. Vice Mayor Givens seconded the motion. Ayes: Martin, Jones, Johnson, Givens, Foley O. Appropriation of Funds Consider request to accept and appropriate carryover fund balance for Fire Department Kitchen Renovation. Audit – Finance Committee Vice Mayor Givens noted that Audit Finance met earlier today. In March of 2016, $65,000 was appropriated for kitchen renovations at Fire Stations 2 and 3. Renovations at Station #2 have been substantially completed, however, staff was unable to finish Station 3 renovations prior to June 30, 2016, and requests that funds be appropriate from the fund balance so renovations can be completed in fiscal year 2017. The Committee discussed and recommended approval to appropriate $30,000 for the building improvements. Vice Mayor Givens motioned to appropriate $30,000 carryover fund balance for Fire Department Kitchen Renovation. William Jones seconded the motion. Mayor Foley noted he would like to thank the firefighters for the work they have done on this project. They are saving the City money and working to improve their facilities at the same time. All Council members agreed with Mayor Foley. Ayes: Martin, Jones, Johnson, Givens, Foley P. Council Meeting Consider cancellation of the August 8, 2016, Salem City Council work session and regular meeting. Vice Mayor Givens motioned the cancellation of the August 8, 2016, Salem City Council work session and regular meeting. Jane Johnson seconded the motion. Ayes: Martin, Jones, Johnson, Givens, Foley William Jones noted that he would like for everyone to take time to thank our police officers for what they do for our community. There has been a lot of things going on with police in other localities in the past few weeks, and he thinks every opportunity we have that we need to thank them for how we can be secure in our homes, etc. Jane Johnson thanked the citizens who came out to let Council know how they feel about the items on the agenda. It is very important to hear the voices as they are making their decisions. It was noted that these items will come back before Council at some time in the future. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m.