Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/8/2012 - City Council - Minutes - RegularUNAPPROVED MINUTES COUNCIL MEETING October 8, 2012 A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in Council Chambers, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, on October 8, 2012, at 7:30 p.m., there being present all the members of said Council, to wit: Byron Randolph Foley, John C. Givens, Jane W. Johnson, William D. Jones, and Lisa D. Garst; with Byron Randolph Foley, Mayor, presiding; together with Kevin S. Boggess, City Manager; James E. Taliaferro, II, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Frank P. Turk, Director of Finance; Melinda J. Payne, Director of Planning and Economic Development; Charles E. VanAllman, Jr., City Engineer; Mike Stevens, Communications Director; and William Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney, and the following business was transacted: The September 24, 2012, work session minutes and regular meeting minutes were approved as written. Mayor Foley reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider amending Chapter 3, Sections 3.2 and 3.4 of the Charter of the City of Salem, Virginia, pertaining to Elections; notice of such hearing had been published in the September 28, 2012, issue of The Roanoke Times, a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Salem; and WHEREAS, it was noted that a public hearing regarding this matter was also held at the September 24, 2012, meeting; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley reviewed the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, Frank Munley, 425 Roanoke-Boulevard, appeared before the Council to reiterate his comments from the September 24, 2012, meeting; he stated that he has no objection to parties having to match the same signature and deadline requirements as independents; his objection is to the proposed prohibition of party identification on the ballot; he referred to the September 28, 2012, editorial in The Roanoke Times favoring Salem’s proposed change; he then quoted the article: “decisions on zoning changes…are made from the perspective on what is good for Salem. This claim makes sense for zoning changes only when the world is viewed through the lens of the two-party system, but let’s think beyond the two parties. We have seen unnecessary up-zonings in Salem in recent years, the latest being the Oakeys Field parking lot which is zoned beyond what the Planning Commission recommended. Do you really think a Green Party candidate would have the same views on these zonings as a Republican ITEM 1 PUBLIC HEARING HELD REGARDING AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 3.2 AND 3.4 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, PERTAINING TO ELECTIONS 2 candidate who is pro-business and pro-government, perhaps to a fault? I should remind you that there is a Green Party in the State of Virginia and in the Roanoke Valley;” he noted that The Roanoke Times editorial goes on to say, “Lazy voters may turn to party labels as crutches rather than take advantage of ample opportunities to become acquainted with the candidates .” On the one hand, we can all commiserate with H. L. Lincoln’s characterization of the U.S. voter as the species Boobas Americanas; but on the other hand let’s not kid ourselves. It is impossible to be fully informed on all issues, even local ones, and party ID can be more than a crutch in evaluating candidates; he also questions how easy it is to grasp qualifications and beliefs of City Council candidates who aren’t heavily covered in the media; usually Council races are not really heavily covered; again, party ID can help; i.e. in Roanoke County the Roanoke Tea Party has lambasted supervisors for the County’s long-time membership in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI); The Roanoke Times columnist Dan Casey has blasted what he considers to be the unrealistic fear mongering of the Tea Party about ICLEI; he stated that if he were in Roanoke County he would like to know the party affiliations of the two supervisors who caved into the Tea Party demands so that he could better understand the political pressures they might be subject to; he assumes that a Green Party candidate would favor membership in a group that promotes awareness of and solutions for local environmental issues; to summarize, he cannot see how hiding party affiliation from voters makes a level playing field, which is his understanding for the purpose of the proposed amendment; on the contrary, it might shield Independents from the benefits party candidates would obtain from party ID; it works both ways as some voters prefer Independents; there is too much of a connection between national, state, and local policies and politics for party affiliation not to be disclosed; voters deserve information on party ID and it should be included on the ballot despite what appears to him to be an ambiguously worked provision in the state code, that’s Paragraph 24.2-640; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley noted that there seems to be a misunderstanding of what is being proposed; first of all, for those who do not know and Mr. Munley cited one section of code, 24.2-613 and 24.2-640 of the Code of Virginia that states there will be no party affiliation on the ballots in the State of Virginia; therefore, all the City is doing is reiterating State Code; second of all, the only thing the proposed change addresses is procedural; it is being proposed that everyone have equal access to the ballot through the petition process and that is all the proposed amendments address; it is not saying someone cannot be nominated by the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, financed by the parties, etc.; it does not prohibit any of those things; and 3 WHEREAS, Kiersten Croke, 113 Keesling Avenue, Chairman of the Salem Republican Committee; George Newman, 3053 Golf Colony Drive, Vice Chair of the Salem Republican Committee; Maggie Newman, 3041 Golf Colony Drive, Secretary of the Salem Republican Committee; and Bill Bradley, 1938 Kiska Road, Vice Chair of Salem Republican Committee; appeared before the Council and stated that the Salem Republican Executive Committee met last week and voted unanimously to oppose the proposed amendment to the City Charter; they believe that the reasons given by Council are not valid reasons to change the charter; Virginia falls under the Dillon Rule—state law trumps local law— localities are already barred from putting party affiliations on the ballot for local office so it is a moot point; it seems obvious that Salem City Council is grasping for excuses to change its Charter; they believe the timing is suspect as Mayor Foley and Vice Mayor John Givens are up for re-election next year and they believe that Salem City Council’s motivation for changing the Charter is questionable and suspect as well; the Salem Republican Committee respectfully asks Council to vote against the proposed amendment to the City Charter and also respectfully ask Salem City Council to seek permission from the General Assembly to change the dates of the Salem City Council elections from May to the General Election held in November, which would save tax-payers over $30,000 every two years; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley noted that he and Vice Mayor Givens are not up for re-election until 2014; and WHEREAS, Jim Soderberg, 57 Sawyer Drive, appeared before the Council and asked Mayor Foley if Virginia State Code currently prohibits party identification on the local ballot—is that correct; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley noted that the code states that party affiliation is only required for federal, state-wide, and General Assembly elections; it does not prohibit party affiliation, but that is how it is interpreted by lawyers; and WHEREAS, Mr. Soderberg stated that if state law currently prohibits party affiliation on the ballot for local elections, then it makes no sense to change the Charter if it is already prohibited; he then tried to clarify if a reason for the proposed change was due to party affiliation having not been on the ballot previously; it was noted that has not been discussed as being a reason for the proposed amendment and was not a reason for the proposed amendment; he stated that a problem he has is that he feels the amendment violates the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States which basically is the aspect of Freedom of Speech, as well as being connected to the Right of Free Association; he stated that since state law does not prohibit party identification, 4 that if a party wants to be identified by a particular party, they should have the freedom of speech and the right to be able to do so and to prohibit that seems to be a violation of the First Amendment; he stated that he is confused as to why there is a “push” for this to be carried out as if party distinctions are not significant; he then cited a referendum that is to be on the ballot in November concerning eminent domain as an example of how political philosophy can impact the local level, state level, as well as at the federal level; he stated that there is a substantial political philosophy that is expressed even at the local level and not just the state and federal level, and to demand that there be no party affiliation, he feels that it is an attempt to mask what can be seen as a clear distinction in party affiliation; he stated that party affiliation is used to try to get an understanding of where people come from; transparency in government requires it; and WHEREAS, John Soderberg, 57 Sawyer Drive, appeared before the Council and read the First Amendment of the United States and cited a case in New York related to the First Amendment; he stated that his issue with the proposed change is that Council is attempting to limit political free speech; he cited another case in California from 1968 where a gentleman entered a Los Angeles Courthouse with a shirt that basically said “F the draft” and it was upheld as protected, political free speech, but this Council is proposing an amendment to the Charter to then limit political speech via self -identification which then falls under the peacefully assembly clause; he questioned what Council is proposing and he feels the proposed amendment is in direct violation of the First Amendment; he opposes the proposed charter amendment; and WHEREAS, Geri Etheridge, 956 Stonegate Drive, appeared before the Council and stated that she feels that Council understands the platforms of the different political parties; she stated that she is 83 years old and it is important to her that she elects people in her city that share her values; she stated that it helps her to know more about the candidates if their party affiliation is identified; she asked that Council give voters more information, not less information; and WHEREAS, Stuart Bain, 636 Pyrtle Drive, appeared before the Council and thanked Council for a reply to an e-mail he sent earlier in the day; he thanked Councilwoman Garst for pointing out that the proposed amendment is more about how the candidates get placed on the ballot than it is party identification on the ballot, which as Mayor Foley pointed out is state law; he stated that as he went back and reviewed the six points he e-mailed Council about and feels that in some ways they still apply; the points are that the proposed amendment would decrease voter turnout and prevent people who share ideals from 5 working together toward a common goal; Vice Mayor Givens was quoted as saying that the City of Salem has a good history of Independent thinking and he feels that the two are not exclusive of each other; you can still have a partisan member of Council and still embrace independent thinking; he mentioned the laws of Virginia; that the charter currently reads that it goes along with the laws of Virginia so why stray from that; and if Council really wants to get the people of Salem involved, section 3.4 of the City Code provides for Council to do an advisory referendum to send this matter to the citizens of Salem to get their opinion before Council makes a decision without binding Council to the outcome of the referendum; he cited Section 24.2-508 of the State Code; he encouraged Council to reject the proposed amendment, reconsider it, or send it to the citizens of Salem; he then did an experiment to see if the people present at the meeting knew how many Vice Presidential candidates would be on the ballot in November; he again thanked Council for taking the time to address his concerns and for the prompt reply to his e-mail; and WHEREAS, Mark McClain, 907 Greenbrier Court, appeared before the Council and stated that he feels that one of the more tragic things that has happened in our country recently is the polarization along party lines; he thinks it is appropriate for Salem to adopt the proposed amendment and he appreciates Council’s support; and WHEREAS, Alan Trigger, 738 Paragon Avenue, appeared before the Council and stated that after many years of living in Roanoke County, he was blessed and able to move his family to Salem two years ago; he asked for an explanation of the rationale of the proposed change; he feels that it is important for citizens to understand Council’s rationale of the proposed amendment; he stated that he is still neutral on the proposal; he does feel that transparency is important; he asked Council to address his concern in its remarks; and WHEREAS, Sheila Via, 1342 Forest Lawn Drive, appeared before the Council and stated that when she first heard of the proposed amendment she felt that this was another way for rights to be taken away from citizens; she does not understand why Council wants to change the Charter and feels that it helps to know party affiliation of candidates; she stated that she does not understand and questioned what the citizens of Salem have to gain from the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, John Brugh, 1723 Memorial Avenue, Roanoke, a citizen of Roanoke City and Chairman of the Roanoke City Republican Committee, appeared before the Council and stated that by prohibiting primary processes Salem could be placed in the position that one office, could have multiple 6 candidates that are really from the same party instead of allowing them to sort themselves out as to who would be the respective party candidate; he stated that the proposed change is not in keeping with political traditions and urged Council to reconsider the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, Councilman Jones requested that Mayor Foley read the letter from Senator Ralph Smith; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley noted that no matter what is passed at this meeting it will not become code until the General Assembly approves the amendment; he then read a letter from Senator Ralph Smith advising Council of his position on the proposed charter amendment; the letter in summary stated that Senator Smith would support the proposed amendment change, which is similar to action taken by other cities, and would not diminish the Constitutional rights of Salem’s political parties to recruit candidates, endorse candidates, financially support candidates, advocate the election of candidates onto their sample ballots, or partake in other electioneering efforts; it also stated that Senator Smith is not aware of any other locality that has requested that nominations for Constitutional Offices be made non -partisan and will not include any such provision in any legislation he might introduce in 2013; he also noted that Council might want to consider changing its City elections to be held November; and WHEREAS, Councilman Jones stated that Council listens to what its citizens have to say but also looks at a broad vision of what may be ahead in years to come; he stated that what has been heard tonight seems to be what is good for the party, not what is good for the people; he stated that he has always voted for the person, not by partisan affiliation; he stated that the proposed amendment does not take rights away from party affiliation, it just requires all candidates to go through the same petition process; he stated that he is not a Republican or Democrat, etc.; and WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens and Councilwoman Johnson echoed the sentiments of Councilman Jones; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Johnson discussed how she was approached by the Republican Women about running as a Republican candidate for her second term on Council; she stated that the thing she has learned about herself during her time on Council is that she is truly an Independent; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst addressed two points—one by Mr. Trigger and one by the elder Mr. Soderberg; she addressed eminent domain 7 being split along party lines; in the past two to four years there has been increased party activity in local government and she does not want to be in the position that someone assumes they know how she is going to vote because she has a party designation after her name; she likes thinking, using logic, and appreciates the opportunity that people who may assume one thing about her will still approach her because they don’t think she’s close-minded because she has a designation affiliated with her; she stated that she prefers to be open and available to everyone; she stated that the other main reason is that in terms of party affiliation, they are the Salem party; she stated that there are 25,000 Salem citizens and if they divide along party lines, everyone suffers; currently we lose representation in Richmond and Washington every year and she does not want to see that happen to Salem; she does not want Salem divided by neighborhood, by school district, by party lines; her main reason for supporting the amendment is that she does not want to see the values questioned; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley noted that party affiliation has not been designated on a local election ballot for as long as he can remember; he stated that his reasoning for supporting the proposed amendment is about fairness, that every candidate should have to go through the same petition process in order to be placed on the ballot regardless of their party affiliation; and WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to the amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Manager noted that the proposed amendment for Section 3.2 only applies to City Council elections and not Constitutional elections; ON A MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, the proposed amendment to Section 3.2 of the Charter of the City of Salem, Virginia, pertaining to Elections was hereby passed reading – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye. Mayor Foley reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider the request of Zayo Group, LLC, to authorize a Rights- of-Way Use Agreement with the City of Salem; notice of such hearing was published in the September 24, and October 1, 2012, issues of The Roanoke Times, a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Salem; and WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that as companies come in and choose to request from the City permission to attach its utilities to existing ITEM 2 RIGHTS-OF-WAY USE AGREEMENT APPROVED BETWEEN ZAYO GROUP, LLC, AND THE CITY OF SALEM 8 power poles throughout the city; and in addition to granting pole access, the city also has to grant permission to use its right-of-way in order to attach to the utility poles; the City has reached an agreement with Zayo about the pole attachment agreement, which would allow the company to attach its high - speed, high capacity data lines to the city’s power poles; the permission to use city rights-of-way is a Council function, which is what is before Council and is routinely done; he stated that a representative from Zayo Group, LLC, and the Director of the Electric Department are present at the meeting to answer any questions; and WHEREAS, Brad Leatherman with Zayo Group, LLC, appeared before the Council and stated that the license agreements are typically an annual reoccurring fee and is not sure what the fees are; he stated that typically the agreements are for five-year increments; he stated that Zayo Group, LLC, provides connection solutions for enterprise; he stated that there is a current customer that is driving the need to install the lines; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned how the agreements originate; and WHEREAS, Mr. Leatherman stated that typically bids are requested from companies to provide this service and are awarded based on dollars; and WHEREAS, it was noted that this agreement is for improvements to be made to existing poles and no additional poles will be placed; and WHEREAS, Stuart Bane, 636 Pyrtle Drive, appeared before Council and a discussion was held regarding the start date, etc. of the agreement; and WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to this request; ON A MOTION MADE BY COUNCILWOMAN GARST, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN JOHNSON, AND DULY CARRIED, a Rights-of-Way Use Agreement between Zayo Group, LLC, and the City of Salem was hereby approved – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye. Mayor Foley reported that this date and time had been set to hold a public hearing to consider adopting Resolution 1213 authorizing the issuance of up to $5,010,000 in general obligation bonds; notice of such hearing was published in the September 26 and October 1, 2012, issues of The Roanoke ITEM 3 RESOLUTION 1213 ADOPTED AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $5,010,000 IN GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 9 Times, a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Salem; and WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens, Chair of Council’s Audit-Finance Committee, reported that the Committee met regarding the issuance of $5,010,000 in General Obligation Notes; the purpose of the Notes is to provide cash-flow financing for the South Salem Elementary School Project; at this point the City has paid or will pay $2.6 million in construction bills; at a previous work session, it was discussed that long-term financing in increments of $10 million or less would be used to fund the school in what will essentially be private placements; the first $9.5 million will be completed in December 2012; and WHEREAS, the Director of Finance noted that the project is underway and over $2.5 million in bills have been paid from the General Fund revenue, which is not very strong this time of year; the short-term financing will be through the Virginia Municipal League VACo arm; the interest rate is expected to be in the range of 1.5 percent; the money will be borrowed for a short period of time and will be paid back by December 31; and WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned how the revenue from the increased meals tax is coming in; and WHEREAS, the Director of Finance stated that the revenue is coming in as anticipated, which is approximately $100,000 more per month in round numbers and should cover the cost of the construction of the project; and WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to the request; ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, Resolution 1212 authorizing the issuance of up to $5,010,000 in general obligation bonds was hereby adopted – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye. Mayor Foley requested that Council consider an ordinance on first reading amending Chapter 82, Article IV, Sections 82-101, 82-106, 82-110, 82- 111, and 82-113, of the Code of the City of Salem, Virginia, pertaining to Tax on Prepared Food and Beverages; and WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens, Chair of Council’s Audit-Finance Committee, reported that the Committee met to review the ordinance; the city is in transition to a new software package and the PCI Software Systems offers ITEM 4 ORDINANCE PASSED ON FIRST READING AMENDING CHAPTER 82, ARTICLE IV, SECTIONS 82-101, 106, 110, 111 AND 113, OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO TAX ON PREPARED FOOD AND BEVERAGES 10 features for managing food and beverage taxes in conjunction with many of the business and personal property functions; as these functions are overseen by the Commissioner of the Revenue, the responsibility of the prepared food and beverage tax would be shifted from the Director of Finance over to the Commissioner of the Revenue; the Committee recommends approval of the ordinance amending the City Code reflecting this change; and WHEREAS, it was noted that this is not a change in the rate of the food and beverage tax, only a change in the department that will be accountable for the management and collection of the taxes; ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, an ordinance amending Chapter 82, Article V, Sections 82-101, 82-106, 82-110, 82-111, and 82-113, of the Code of the City of Salem, Virginia, pertaining to Tax on Prepared Food and Beverages was hereby passed on first reading – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye. Mayor Foley requested that Council consider an ordinance on first reading amending Chapter 82, Article V, Sections 82-136, 82-137, 82-139, 82- 140, 82-143, 82-144, and 82-146 of The Code of the City of Salem, Virginia, pertaining to Transient Lodging Tax; and WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens, Chair of Council’s Audit-Finance Committee, reported that the Committee met to review the ordinance amending the city code as it relates to the transient lodging tax; there are two distinct reasons for the request to amend this portion of the code; the first is to increase the rate of the tax from seven to eight percent in order to work with Roanoke City and Roanoke County to provide increased and stable funding to the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau; the second reason is to mirror the food and beverage tax amendment by shifting the responsibility from the Finance Department to the Commissioner of the Revenue; and WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the amendment does include a rate increase of one percent, which would be directed back to the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau and noted that Landon Howard from the RVCVB is present to answer any questions; and WHEREAS, Landon Howard with the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau appeared before the Council, along with Dr. Susan Short, ITEM 5 ORDINANCE PASSED ON FIRST READING AMENDING CHAPTER 82, ARTICLE V, SECTIONS 82-136, 137, 139, 140, 143, 144, AND 146 OF THE CITY CODE PERTAINING TO TRANSIENT LODGING TAX 11 Immediate Past Chair, and Bart Wilner, current Chair of the RVCVB, appeared before the Council to discuss the proposed increase of the transient lodging tax; he thanked Council for its continued support; he stated that there is a new brand for the area, Virginia’s Blue Ridge, and it has been very well received; he stated that the goal of the RVCVB is to be competitive and if the localities work together, it helps to achieve this goal; and WHEREAS, Mr. Wilner stated that this is a regional approach and thanked Council for its support; and WHEREAS, Dr. Short stated that travel and tourism is big business to the Commonwealth of Virginia, particularly to southwest Virginia; she also thanked Council for its support, especially over the past 18 to 24 months; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley noted that in order for Roanoke County to be able to increase its transient tax, the General Assembly had to take action; he noted that this has been a long process to get to this point; and WHEREAS, Mr. Howard stated that the General Assembly did support Roanoke County’s request to increase its tax; it took a two-thirds majority vote of both houses in order for Roanoke County to be able to increase its tax; he reiterated that this is a community effort and a joint effort with hotel owners; he discussed the various committees in place and the efforts made with the hotel owners, and localities in order to help make this a total community effort; ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, an ordinance amending Chapter 82, Article V, Sections 82-136, 82-137, 82-139, 82-140, 82-143, 82-144, and 82-146 of the Code of the City of Salem, Virginia, pertaining to Transient Lodging Tax was hereby passed on first reading – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye. Mayor Foley requested that Council consider Resolution 1214 amending fees for various levels of Emergency Medical Services; and WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens, Chair of Council’s Audit-Finance Committee, reported that the Committee met and reviewed Resolution 1214 amending fees for various levels of Emergency Medical Services; the fees have not been updated in several years; the proposed increases reflect current Medicare rates; along with the rate change, this resolution attaches the fees to ITEM 6 RESOLUTION 1214 ADOPTED AMENDING FEES FOR VARIOUS LEVELS OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 12 the Medicare rates in the future; the Committee recommends approval of Resolution 1214 for current and future rate changes; and WHEREAS, the City Manager noted that the proposed changes are recommended by the Fire and EMS Department by Chief Counts’ staff, and after discussion with City Council, the idea to attach the fees to the changing rate for Medicare and Medicaid will prevent this from having to come back before Council, or ignoring this and having to play “catch -up;” he noted that Chief Counts was present to answer any questions; and WHEREAS, it was noted that this change not only keeps the fees in line with Medicare and Medicaid, it also keeps the fees in line with other localities; ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, Resolution 1214 amending fees for various levels of emergency medical services was hereby adopted – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye. Mayor Foley requested that Council consider awarding a contract for the Roanoke River Greenway Phase 3A Pedestrian Bridge project; and WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens, Chair of Council’s Audit-Finance Committee, reported that the Committee reviewed the bids for Phase 3A Pedestrian Bridge of the Roanoke River Greenway; this phase is to complete the two sections of the greenway at 12 O’clock Knob Road at the bluff; the City Engineer’s office previously reviewed the four bids and found that all bids were consistent with plans and specifications; the Engineer’s office also requested an additional 20 percent to cover inspections and testing during construction; the Committee recommends acceptance of the low bid of D. A. Brown, Inc., in the amount of $641,119.50 contingent upon VDOT approval; in addition, the additional 20 percent in the amount of $128,223.80 to cover inspections and testing; total estimated project cost submitted to VDOT will be $769,343 which will be reimbursable to the City under VDOT Enhancement Funds for the Roanoke River Greenway; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer noted that VDOT has received federal approval for the project; ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, a contract for the Roanoke River ITEM 7 CONTRACT AWARDED TO D. A. BROWN, INC. FOR ROANOKE RIVER GREENWAY PHASE 3A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROJECT 13 Greenway – Phase 3A Pedestrian Bridge was hereby awarded to D. A. Brown, Inc. in the amount of $641, 119.50 contingent upon VDOT approval; an additional 20 percent ($128,223.80) to cover inspections and testing during construction was also approved for a total project amount of $769,343 – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye. Mayor Foley requested that Council consider authorizing the purchase of properties designated as Tax Map Numbers 164-1-8 and 164-1-10 located in the City of Salem; and WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the referenced properties are located adjacent to the Salem Water Treatment Plant on Tidewater Street; the City has been given the opportunity to purchase these properties; he stated that the city has entered into a purchase contract, but it is contingent on Council’s approval; it is requested that Council approve the purchase contract in the amount of $145,000 for roughly 2.5 acres of property located adjacent to city- owned property on Tidewater Street; and WHEREAS, Mayor Foley asked that the City Manager clarify the benefit to the city purchasing the properties; and WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that the city has wanted to purchase the two properties are properties for quite some time; they are adjacent to two separate properties on Tidewater Street, one being the larger piece adjacent to the water plant property, which we need in order to relocate the facilities on Spring Street to Tidewater Street; the Spring Street site would then be marketed; he stated that the other parcel is approximately 150 feet away from this piece adjacent to a larger piece of property that the city owns that abuts the Timber Truss property, but is right behind Lowe’s; the properties would be combined ultimately and used for economic development purposes; ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILWOMAN JOHNSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GARST, AND DULY CARRIED, the purchase of properties designated as Tax Map Numbers 164-1-8 and 164-1-10 located in the City of Salem is hereby authorized – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye. ITEM 8 DONATION APPROVED FOR SALEM BAND BOOSTERS EQUAL TO AMOUNT OF ADMISSIONS TAX PAID 14 Mayor Foley requested that Council consider an ordinance on second reading rezoning the properties of Sunday Callegari Ewald, 101 South Bruffey Street (T/M 141-3-1), Larry J. Raborn, 105 South Bruffey Street (T/M 141-3-1), Wanda M. Blevins, 109 South Bruffey Street (T/M141-3-3), Kevin and Milena Quill, 113 South Bruffey Street (T/M 141-3-4), Teresa Ann Sweeney, 117 South Bruffey Street (T/M 141-3-5), and Howard C. Nash, Jr., 121 South Bruffey Street (T/M 141-3-6) from LM Light Manufacturing District to RSF Residential Single Family District; ordinance was passed on first reading at the September 24, 2012, meeting; ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN GARST, AND DULY CARRIED, an ordinance rezoning the properties of Sunday Callegari Ewald, 101 South Bruffey Street (T/M 141 -3-1), Larry J. Raborn, 105 South Bruffey Street (T/M 141-3-1), Wanda M. Blevins, 109 South Bruffey Street (T/M141-3-3), Kevin and Milena Quill, 113 South Bruffey Street (T/M 141-3-4), Teresa Ann Sweeney, 117 South Bruffey Street (T/M 141-3- 5), and Howard C. Nash, Jr., 121 South Bruffey Street (T/M 141 -3-6) from LM Light Manufacturing District to RSF Residential Single Family District was hereby adopted – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye. Mayor Foley requested that Council consider an ordinance on second reading Chapter 106, Article III, Use and Design Standards, Section 106-304.17 of The Code of the City of Salem, Virginia, pertaining to Townhouse; ordinance was passed on first reading at the September 24, 2012, meeting; ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN JONES, SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, AND DULY CARRIED, an ordinance amending Chapter 106, Article III, Use and Design Standards, Section 106-304.17 of The Code of the City of Salem, Virginia, pertaining to Townhouse was hereby adopted – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye. Mayor Foley requested that Council receive report and consider awarding contract for the 2012-2014 street paving program; and WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens, Chair of Council’s Audit-Finance Committee, reported that bids were received on October 3, 2012, for the 2012- 2014 street paving program; the Engineering Department reviewed the two bids received and finds both bids consistent with the bid specifications; the ITEM 10 ORDINANCE ADOPTED AMENDING CHAPTER 106, ARTICLE III, USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS, SECTION 106-304.17 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, PERTAINING TO TOWNHOUSE ITEM 9 ORDINANCE ADOPTED REZONING SIX PROPERTIES ON SOUTH BRUFFEY STREET FROM LM TO RSF ITEM S1 CONTRACT FOR 2012-2014 STREET PAVING PROGRAM AWARDED TO L. H. SAWYER PAVING 15 Committee recommends accepting the low bid of L. H. Sawyer Paving in the amount of $1,182,562.25; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that this is the first time implementing a two-year paving contract versus a one-year contract; the reason for doing this is to be more consistent and that it has to be done only once every two years; there is a notation in the contract that ties the price we pay for asphalt based upon a percentage over the current rate; ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, the contract for the 2012-2014 street paving program was hereby awarded to L. H. Sawyer Paving in the amount of $1,182,562.25 – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye. Mayor Foley requested that Council consider setting bond for physical improvements and erosion and sediment control for the Kesslerwood Townhomes project; and WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens, Chair of Council’s Audit-Finance Committee, reported that the Committee reviewed the estimate for physical improvements and erosion and sediment control for the Kesslerwood Townhomes project and recommends setting bond in the amount of $15,785 with a time limit of twelve (12) months for completion; ON MOTION MADE BY VICE MAYOR GIVENS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, the bond for physical improvements and erosion and sediment control for the Kesslerwood Townhomes project was hereby set at $15,785 with a time limit of twelve (12) months for completion – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – aye. There being no further business to come before the Council, the same on motion adjourned at 8:55 p.m. ITEM S2 BOND AND TIME LIMIT SET FOR KESSLERWOOD TOWNHOMES PROJECT