HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/23/2012 - City Council - Minutes - RegularUNAPPROVED MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
July 23, 2012
A work session of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was held in the City
Manager’s Conference Room, City Hall, 114 North Broad Street, Salem, Virginia, on July 23,
2012, at 6:30 p.m., there being present the following members of said Council, to wit: John C.
Givens, Jane W. Johnson, William D. Jones, and Lisa D. Garst (Byron Randolph Foley – absent);
with John C. Givens, Vice Mayor, presiding; together with Kevin S. Boggess, City Manager;
James E. Taliaferro, II, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Krystal M. Coleman, Deputy
Clerk of Council; and Frank P. Turk, Director of Finance; and the following business was
transacted:
Vice Mayor Givens reported that this date, place, and time had been set in order for the
Council to hold a work session; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding a Charter Amendment; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding scholarships; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding the lodging tax; and
WHEREAS, there were no other topics for discussion.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the work session was
adjourned at 7:17 p.m.
Vice Mayor
Clerk of Council
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
COUNCIL MEETING
July 23, 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 July 23, 2012, at
7:30 p.m., there being present the following members of said Council, to wit:
John C. Givens, Jane W. Johnson, William D. Jones, and Lisa D. Garst (Byron
Randolph Foley – absent); with John C. Givens, Vice 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 Stephen M. Yost,
City Attorney, and the following business was transacted:
The July 9, 2012, work session minutes were approved as written, and
the regular meeting minutes were approved as amended.
Vice Mayor Givens reported that this date and time had been set to hold
a public hearing and consider an ordinance on first reading regarding the request
of Valley Properties, LLC, and L & M Properties, LLC, property owners, for
rezoning a 3.753 acre parcel located at 819 East Main Street (Tax Map #108 -1-
3.1) from RSF Residential Single Family District to LM Light Manufacturing District
with proffered conditions; notice of such hearing was published in the July 4 and
11, 2012, issues of The Roanoke Times, a newspaper having general circulation in
the City of Salem; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its regular meeting held July 11,
2012, recommend approval of said request; and
WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject property consists of one
parcel of approximately 3.753 acres, located along East Main Street, directly east
of Oakey’s Field; it is currently occupied by a parking lot, serving the commercial
building located directly behind it; the parking lot is an existing grandfathered
non-conforming use; this request will bring the zoning into compliance with both
the current and future land use; the applicants have voluntarily proffered the
following conditions: the property shall be used as a parking lot serving only the
adjacent building owned by the owner/applicant and located on parcels having
City of Salem Tax Map Numbers 84-2-12 and 73-3-7; the property may also be
used for occasional parking by those using Oakey’s Field for athletic activities,
subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the City of Salem
and the owner/applicant; and
ITEM 1
ORDINANCE
PASSED ON FIRST
READING
REZONING A 3.753
ACRE PARCEL
LOCATED AT 891
EAST MAIN STREET
(T/M 108-1-3.1)
FROM RSF TO LM
WITH PROFFERED
CONDITIONS
2
WHEREAS, Maryellen Goodlatte of Glenn, Feldmann, et al, representing
the property owners, appeared before the Council in support of the request; she
stated that the property owners seek to correct the zoning on the 3.753 acre
parcel located at the intersection of East Main Street and Brand Avenue so that
the zoning district reflects the existing use; the property has been used as a
parking lot for approximately 21 years; when the current owners purchased the
property in 2005, it was already developed as a parking lot serving the adjacent
warehouse facility; the 3.75 acre parcel had been acquired by Home Shopping
Network in 1991 when HSN expanded the warehouse facility to its current size;
the 3.75 acre parcel provided the required parking for the warehouse facility and
the parking lot was zoned LM Light Manufacturing; the parking lot parcel was
inadvertently rezoned by the City from LM to RSF when the City did its
comprehensive rezoning in 2005; the current owners purchased the property
toward the end of 2005 and were told that the zoning would be corrected; that
correction never occurred; however, and the non-conforming nature of the
zoning was only recognized within the last 12 months or so since GIS and tax
records continue to treat the property as LM; although the City has confirmed
that the use of the parcel as a parking lot is grandfathered, the owners need to
have its zoning match its use in order to avoid future complications stemming
from the non-conforming status of parking lot; no changes to the site are
expected; it will continue to provide parking for the adjoining warehouse facility
as it has done since 1991; the owners have voluntarily proffered two conditions
to the zoning request: (1) that the property will be used only as a parking lot
serving the adjacent warehouse facility and also providing occasional parking for
the patrons of Oakeys Field, which is adjacent to the parking lot; (2) landscaping
will be installed along Brand Avenue as agreed upon by the City Arborist and the
owner; she stated that as Council is aware, proffered conditions are binding on
the property; those conditions can be enforced by the City and can only be
modified by application and approval of City Council after a public hearing before
the Planning Commission and City Council; she noted that the Planning
Commission, after hearing this application and after its public hearing,
unanimously recommended to Council that the request be approved; she noted
that John Lipscomb and David McCray, are also present at the meeting and are
available to answer any questions; and
WHEREAS, Stella Reinhard, 213 North Broad Street, appeared before the
Council and questioned the location of the parcel requesting to be rezoned; and
WHEREAS, it was again noted that the parcel is located on the corner of
East Main Street and Brand Avenue; and
3
WHEREAS, Mrs. Reinhard questioned if the property was inadvertently
rezoned or was it rezoned in an attempt to rezone it for the future in order to
repurchase the property; and
WHEREAS, Council noted that the zoning change was an oversight that
occurred in 2005 when the Comprehensive Plan and new zoning map were
adopted by previous Council; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Reinhard stated that since she moved to Salem in 1994
she has heard numerous requests from citizens that perhaps the City could
repurchase Oakey’s Field; she stated that she would someday like to see the
fields back together again and at the very least, the parking lot buffered along
Main Street better than they are now; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned Mrs. Goodlatte if she had
addressed the proffers being offered by the property owners; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Goodlatte restated the two voluntarily proffered
conditions; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned the City Engineer about
possible issues with VDOT’s plan for East Main Street; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that storm water management
facilities will be located more on the Oakey’s side and landscaping on Brand
Avenue will not affect anything on the East Main Street project; he stated that
landscaping along East Main Street is problematic, but is not an issue along
Brand Avenue; and
WHEREAS, James Dickerson, Crystal Drive, appeared before the Council
and questioned what happened in 2005 that changed the zoning of the property;
and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council stated that there was some confusion on
the zoning maps as to the zoning of the property; color and hash marks did not
match; and the person responsible with Marsh-Witt for the new zoning maps
assumed that the property was residential in nature to go along with Oakey s
Field, which is adjacent to the property; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if the property was zoned for
manufacturing or industrial use prior to 2005; and
4
WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council stated that one of the data bases listed
the property as that, but there was some confusion on the map, which is the
official document; and
WHEREAS, it was noted that the property has been a parking lot for
several years; and
WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to the request.
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN JONES, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN JOHNSON, AND DULY CARRIED, an ordinance to rezone a
3.753 acre parcel located at 891 East Main Street (Tax Map #108 -1-3.1) from RSF
Residential Single Family District to LM Light Manufacturing District was hereby
passed on first reading with voluntarily proffered conditions – the roll call vote:
Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens
– aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – absent.
Vice Mayor Givens reported that this date and time had been set to hold
a public hearing and consider an ordinance on first reading regarding the request
of Claude N. Smith, property owner, and Henmark, Inc., contract purchaser, for
rezoning a 2.16 acre parcel located at 1106 Kesler Mill Road (Tax Map #6 -1-6)
from HBD Highway Business District to RMF Residential Multi-Family District;
notice of such hearing was published in the July 4 and 12, 2012, issues of The
Roanoke Times, a newspaper having general circulation in the City of Salem; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its regular meeting held July 11,
2012, recommended approval of said request; and
WHEREAS, staff noted the following: this parcel contains 2.16 acres and
is currently zoned HBD Highway Business District; the existing site was previously
used as a restaurant and nightclub, and in December 2008, the establishment
was destroyed by fire; currently the site is vacant; the contract purchaser is
proposing to rezone the property to RMF Residential Multiple Family District to
allow for the construction of 14 townhouse units; improvement such as parking,
landscaping, and stormwater management will be provided as required by the
zoning ordinance; in addition, the development will also provide open space
along Mason Creek for the residents of the development; and a p ortion of the
property is within the FEMA designated floodway as well as the 100 year and
500 year flood zones; and
ITEM 2
ORDINANCE
PASSED ON FIRST
READING
REZONING A 2.16
ACRE PARCEL
LOCATED AT 1106
KESLER MILL ROAD
(T/M 6-1-6) FROM
HBD TO RMF
5
WHEREAS, Ben Crewe with Balzer & Associates, Inc., representing the
contract purchaser, appeared before the Council in support of the request; he
noted that Mark Henrickson was also present at the meeting; he stated that a
rezoning is being requested of a 2.16 acre parcel from Highway Business District
to Residential Multi-Family for the construction of 14 townhomes; the site was
previously used as a restaurant and club and has been vacant for a few years and
is under-utilized; he noted that according to the master plan, there will be 14
townhomes with two access points, the primary being from Kesler Mill Road and
the secondary entrance being from Epperly Lane; the townhomes will be
approximately 1,100 to 1,300 square feet, two-story units with a garage on the
first level with driveway access; the units are designed to have offsetting front
facades for architectural character; decorative landscaping will be provided
along Kesler Mill Road and Epperly Lane and additional green space will be
provided between the back of the units and Masons Creek; the mature
vegetation will be maintained and cleaned up in the area for open space for the
residents; the proposed development provides a use that is consistent with the
future land use map as a residential use; he noted that the property is located
within the floodplain and all the units will be developed in accordance with the
floodplain ordinance and located above the minimum benchmark; he stated that
he is available to answer any questions, along with Mr. Henrickson; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned how far the property will have
to be built up in order for the development to be out of the floodplain; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Henrickson stated that the property will have to be built
up approximately three feet; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens questioned how the exterior of the units
would look; and
WHEREAS, Mark Henrickson, 729 Virginia Avenue, contract purchaser,
appeared before the Council and stated that the exterior façade would be some
brick and vinyl siding, similar to the project he completed on Ross Street; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held regarding the design of the proposed
development; etc.; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones questioned the proposed start date of the
project if the request was approved; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Henrickson stated that some site work could be done in
September or October of this year; he stated that there is still a lot of pieces of
6
the project that need to be put together; and
WHEREAS, it was noted that a full site plan review process of the project
still needs to be completed before the project can proceed; and
WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared related to the request;
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILWOMAN GARST, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN JOHNSON, AND DULY CARRIED, an ordinance to rezone a 2.16
acre parcel located at 1106 Kesler Mill Road (Tax Map #6-1-6) from HBD Highway
Business District to RMF Residential Multi-Family District 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 – absent.
Vice Mayor Givens reported that this date and time had been set to hold
a public hearing and consider an ordinance on first reading regarding the request
of Roanoke College Trustees, property owner, for rezoning a portion of the
property located at 232 North Broad Street/247 Red Lane (Tax Map #87 -7-7)
from CUD College and University District to RSF Residential Single Family District;
also consider the request of the City of Salem, property owner, for rezoning a .57
acre parcel located on Dulaneys Alley (Tax Map #104-4-1.1) from RSF Residential
Single Family District to CUD College and University District; notice of such
hearing was published in the July 4 and 11, 2012, issues of The Roanoke Times, a
newspaper having general circulation in the City of Salem; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting
held on July 11, 2012, recommended approval of said request; and
WHEREAS, staff noted the following: the subject properties consist of
two parcels; the first, the western portion of Tax Map #87-7-7, is located along
North Broad Street, above the intersection with Dulaneys Alley; the portion
being rezoned is vacant, and is owned by the Trustees of Roanoke College; it is
currently zoned CUD (College and University District) and is approximately .38
acres; the second parcel, Tax Map #105-4-1.1, is located to the southeast and is
owned by the City of Salem; it is currently zoned RSF (Residential Single Family)
and is approximately .57 acres; a parking lot currently occupies the parcel; this
request is to rezone the portion of 87-7-7 fronting on North Broad Street from
CUD to RSF and all of Tax Map #105-4-1.1 from RSF to CUD; and a portion of
parcel 105-4-1.1 lies within the 100 year FEMA designated flood zone; and
ITEM 3
CONTINUED UNTIL
SEPTEMBER 24,
2012, MEETING
7
WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council appeared before the Council regarding
the request; he noted that Mark Noftsinger with Roanoke College was also
present at the meeting; he noted that the request before Council is a dual
request and somewhat of a package deal; the City of Salem is requesting a
rezoning of a .578 acre parcel along Dulaneys Alley from RSF to CUD; Roanoke
College is requesting a rezoning of a portion, approximately .38 acres, of its
property along North Broad Street from CUD to RSF; he stated that on July 9,
2012, Council approved a swap of land between Roanoke College and the City of
Salem, part of that swap is contingent on the rezoning of both of the properties;
the property along North Broad Street in 2005 was rezoned to CUD, it was an
accident in the computer when the CUD zoning classification was created; with
this proposal the zoning of the property would be corrected, particularly the
portion that fronts on North Broad Street, which would make the zoning of the
property consistent with the surrounding properties; the land swap is
conditional of both properties being rezoned along with the City retaining an
easement across the property the City is to swap with Roanoke College, which is
approximately two-thirds of the .57 acre parcel; the City would retain that for
parking purposes for City Hall; currently all of the parking available in the lot is
not needed for City Hall and Roanoke College has many problems with parking;
therefore, this would help address their needs; he noted that with the swap the
city would lose approximately 15 spaces and Roanoke College would pick up
approximately 15 spaces; there are some students who park along Broad Street
and this would hopefully give them a place to park that is closer to class and not
necessarily be parked on the street; he further noted that as part of the land
swap Council asked that the area adjacent to the Dulaneys Alley lot be
landscaped on the west side, where it is adjacent to a residential property;
Roanoke College has agreed to work with the City and participate to help
landscape the area; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens questioned how the proposed city-owned
portion of the lot would be separated from the college -owned portion of the lot;
and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council stated that it is another portion of the
land swap—the parcel would have to be subdivided prior to the sale/swap; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens stated that he has heard some concerns
regarding students possibly driving over curbs, etc. and questioned how that
would be addressed; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council stated that a barrier would be placed so
that city employees cannot drive onto Roanoke College areas and Roanoke
8
College students cannot drive onto the city areas; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if there would be any
changes to Roanoke College student patterns; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council stated that theoretically students cannot
drive onto the city lot; occasionally the parking blocks do get moved and the city
puts them back; the intention is to not have traffic going from one side to the
other; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if this would allow a new
shortcut to a different street, creating some unforeseen traffic flow problem;
and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council stated that it shouldn’t in theory; an
occasional car does drive from Roanoke College to the City or vice versa but that
is not the intent right now with the parking blocks in place; he stated that better
vegetation is planned for this landscape buffer to try to prevent it with not only
parking blocks, but with ground cover also; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned what the permanent
easement would allow; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council explained that the easement would be
recorded with the Courts, signed by Roanoke College and the City Manager, and
would be a binding, legal document and would be in effect forever; if the City
wanted to dispose of it, it would be treated as if it was a piece of property and
there would have to be a public hearing to dispose of the easement; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens questioned how much of the parking area
is in the flood plain; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council stated a rough guess would be
approximately 20 percent; he referred the question to the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that the flood lines in the area are
“dated” and there are a lot of areas where there is cover and it’s running in
culverts where it’s shown to be in the data model to be open stream; therefore,
the validity of the study is in question; he stated that if there was any major
development in the area, a new study would probably be done to study the
entire reach from City Hall up probably another 400-500 feet; and
9
WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council stated that the answer to the question is
that more of the area is actually in the floodway than shown on the maps—
probably 20, maybe 30 percent, but without a recent study it is not a definite
figure; and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor questioned if a dorm could be placed on the
property; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of Council stated that there would be several
restrictions that would limit where a dorm could go on the property; first of all,
the parking easement—a dorm could not be built on top of that, which is two -
thirds of the property that wouldn’t be eligible to be built on; the floodway
would restrict another portion of the property; and then setbacks from the
adjacent properties would also affect where the dorm could be built; he stated
that in theory one could possibly be built on a small portion of the property, but
in reality, especially with the easement, two-thirds of the lot is unbuildable; and
WHEREAS, Stella Reinhard, 213 North Broad Street, appeared before the
Council; she stated that she lives across the street from the parking lot portion of
the property; she requested that Council immediately delay the motion of the
request until at least September for several reasons; she stated that her reasons
for requesting the delay is that it is the middle of summer and the issue that will
affect several Broad Street residents needs their input; everyone at Roanoke
College who she has tried to contact has been on vacation; she left a message for
Vice President Noftsinger and didn’t hear a response back; President Maxey and
Mac Johnson were gone; several residents tried to get in touch with College
representatives; she thanked the City Manager for calling several of the
residents who live close to the parking lot in order to explain the proposed
“deal;” she noted that the legal advertisement for the sale of the property did
not mention a swap and did not realize it was something that may pertain to her;
she and her family were out of town at the time of the public hearing for the sale
of the property and were not able to come to the meeting and understands that
no one spoke regarding the sale of the property; she stated that the whole
neighborhood has not had a chance to have its input on the proposal; the
neighborhood has not had a meeting with the college and there is no urgent
reason to move forward; she stated that it is a complex deal and she is in favor
of rezoning 232 North Broad Street to RSF but feels the neighborhood needs to
have input on the proposal; she questioned if the alley would be treated like a
street when it comes to setbacks, etc.; she stated that if the zoning ordinances
related to streets don’t apply to alleys, then there would be an issue with the
footprint of anything that is ever proposed to be built on such a lot in the future;
she stated that the existing Roanoke College parking lot was built without the
10
neighborhood’s knowledge because the zoning of the prope rty was switched
when the city’s Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2005 and the residents are
being asked to accept the parking lot now and expand it downward, which
allows a larger parking lot that has access to Red Lane; therefore, there is an
option of building on the parcel; she feels that Council needs to listen to the
residents and give the residents a chance to speak to the College; she further
stated that if the property is rezoned, Council will take away the neighborhood’s
leverage to have discussions with the College and will be left with a rezoned
property that is rezoned to build; she further stated that she has been told by a
lawyer that it is much easier to vacate an easement than it is to rezone a
property; she asked Council to delay the request until September; and
WHEREAS, Michael Bentley, 312 North Broad Street, appeared before the
Council and stated that the lot that became a parking lot for Roanoke College
was the place where his children and the Barker’s grandchildren and several
other children in the neighborhood had their fort, and was concerned when the
College took over the property next door to his house and turned it into a
parking lot; he has watched carefully and has complained to the College about
the fact that a buffer was promised to shield the parking lot; he stated that it
hasn’t been mentioned yet that North Broad Street is elevated above the parking
so anyone who lives on North Broad Street or walks along North Broad Street
looks down upon the parking lot; the lighting in the p arking lot is very bright and
obscures the night sky; filler trees were finally placed in June of this year; he
stated that he does not trust Roanoke College to provide an adequate buffer and
concurs with Mrs. Reinhard’s request to delay the decision and give the citizens
affected by the decisions a chance to discuss the situation with the college so
that a decent buffer can be placed; he also stated that he is also worried about
the green space that is shown horizontally across the parking lot that current ly
separates the two parking lots, that it will be plowed up and become more
asphalt; and
WHEREAS, Steve Moushegian, 220 North Broad Street, appeared before
the Council and stated that during flooding he has seen half of the parking lot
filled, not 20 percent; he stated that the neighbors have not heard from the
President of Roanoke College who used to be in contact with the residents; he
stated that he would like to hear from him first on what the College plans to do
with the property; if only 25 percent of the property can be built on, where can
the property be built on; he does not want to see another multi -story dorm built
close to the road on the property; he also requested that the decision be delayed
until September; he noted that his next door neighbors, the Leesons, are away
and would have liked to be involved in this process also; he does like the idea of
the College moving off Broad Street, but he does not trust the College to do
11
what it says it will do; and
WHEREAS, Barbara Bell, 352 North Broad Street, appeared before the
Council and stated that even though her property is not directly affected by the
proposal, she would like for the decision to wait until September; she considers
the neighborhood an unofficial historic district and wants to protect the
neighborhood; she stated that there needs to be a buffer and protection; she
asked Council to delay the decision until September so that the neighborhood
can have some discussion with Roanoke College representatives; and
WHEREAS, Chris McCart, 316 North Broad Street, appeared before the
Council and stated that she concurs with her neighbors; she is an employee of
Roanoke College and feels that the college is trying to be a good neighbor, but it
seems like the request came up fast; she asked Council for time to discuss
between the neighbors and the College and would appreciate Council delaying
the decision until September; and
WHEREAS, Mark Noftsinger, Vice President of Business Affairs with
Roanoke College, appeared before the Council and apologized that everyone
takes vacation in July, but unfortunately that is the only month available because
classes start in August; he made a request on behalf of Roanoke College that the
request be delayed until September in order for the college to have the
opportunity to address the concerns of the residents; he feels the concerns are
legitimate and the college does not want to do anything that would be thought
to have been done in haste or without appropriate input from those most
directly affected; he stated that he would get with President Maxey upon his
return and would be glad to meet with the neighbors; he apologized for not
getting back with Mrs. Reinhard last week, but he was on vacation and just got
back in the office today; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Garst questioned if there was any urgency on
the City’s part to approve the request and if there was an expiration date on the
part of the College; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager stated that there was no urgency and that
there was no contract encumbered by any date in particular; he noted that the
public hearing was held at this meeting, that landmark has been reached, and
will conclude this evening, but Council does not have to take any action at this
meeting and can delay the action for a month; another public hearing would not
be required in a month, Council could simply vote at a later date; and
12
WHEREAS, the City Attorney recommended that Council set a specific
meeting to continue the item; and
WHEREAS, no other person(s) appeared before Council regarding said
request;
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILWOMAN JOHNSON, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, an ordinance rezoning a portion of
the property located at 232 North Broad Street/247 Red Lane (Tax Map #87 -7-7)
from CUD to RSF; and rezoning a .57 acre parcel located on Dulaneys Alley (Tax
Map #105-4-1.1) from RSF to CUD was hereby continued until the September 24,
2012, meeting – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones – aye,
Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley – absent.
Vice Mayor Givens requested that Council receive a report regarding year
end funds as required by the Government Accounting Standards Board; item was
continued from the July 9, 2012, meeting; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones, Vice Chair of Council’s Audit-Finance
Committee, noted that during fiscal year ending June 30, 1022, the City
implemented GASB 54; GASB 54 redefines how the City categorizes funds
available at June 30; at this time, we have an opportunit y to improve our fund
balance position that will assist in our maintaining our rating with Moody’s; last
December the meals tax was increased two percent (2%) to provide funding for
the debt service on the new South Salem Elementary and other future school
projects; the City had no debt service costs related to the Salem School Division
during fiscal year ending June 30, 2012; as the likelihood that the City will not be
able to significantly improve its position the next few years, this is an
opportunity to increase the Committed/Unassigned Fund Balance; therefore, the
Committee recommends the authorization of the City Manager and Finance
Director to reclassify excess funds generated from the meals tax increase, during
the period February 1 through June 30, 2013, to the Committed/Unassigned
Fund Balance; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Finance stated that this was introduced to
Council at the previous meeting and noted that the only change was using the
words “committed and unassigned” and what is being attempted is to use
monies that will not be used in the immediate future, because they will end up
falling down into Fund Balance and will be required to give it a classification that
will be most advantageous to the City when the time comes to go before
Moody’s for bond ratings or things of that nature; it is recommended that the
ITEM 4
REPORT RECEIVED;
CITY MANAGER
AND FINANCE
DIRECTOR
AUTHORIZED TO
RECLASSIFY EXCESS
FUNDS
13
funds be taken and labeled as committed for future school capital projects; the
funds will remain in the general fund but will be available there to be used for
some future school capital project with the approval of the School Board asking
Council for those particular things and the monies being released for the
purpose requested and approved; it was noted that one project that has been
discussed is replacing the boilers at Andrew Lewis Middle School;
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN JONES, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN GARST, AND DULY CARRIED, the City Manager and Finance
Director are hereby authorized to reclassify excess funds generated from the
meals tax increase during the period February 1, through June 30, 2013, to the
Committed/Unassigned Fund Balance – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye,
William D. Jones – aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron
Randolph Foley – absent.
Vice Mayor Givens requested that Council receive report and consider
awarding contract for the construction of the Mason Creek Greenway, Phase I;
and
WHEREAS, Councilman Jones, Vice Chair of Council’s Audit-Finance
Committee, reported that the Committee reviewed the bids that were received
for the Mason Creek Greenway Phase I project; the four bids submitted were
reviewed by the Director of Finance and the City Engineer; the Committee
recommends the acceptance of the low bid from Thomas Bros., LC, in the
amount of $509,243 and authorizes the proper City officials to execute said
contract; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that Mason Creek Greenway Phase I
will be approximately a little under one mile going south from Lynchburg
Turnpike, down St. John’s property, behind G.E., to the Boule vard; it will
terminate with a parking lot at the Boulevard; it will be an approximate 10’ wide
paved path with 2’ shoulders on either side and will also consist of a pedestrian
bridge that will be 14’ wide; no problems are anticipated with the project;
construction is planned to begin at the end of July/beginning of August 2012;
and
WHEREAS, Vice Mayor Givens questioned where the parking lot will be
located; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer stated that the parking lot will essentially be
the lower parking lot of G.E.; G.E. has given the City an easement to utilize that
ITEM 5
CONTRACT
AWARDED TO
THOMAS BROS., LC,
FOR MASON CREEK
GREENWAY, PHASE I
PROJECT
14
space; and
WHEREAS, it was noted that the funding for this project came from an
earmark in the 2003 or 2004 Transportation Bill from the federal government;
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN JONES, SECONDED BY
COUNCILWOMAN JOHNSON, AND DULY CARRIED, the contract for the Mason
Creek Greenway Phase I project was hereby awarded to Thomas Bro s., LC, in the
amount of $509,243 – the roll call vote: Lisa D. Garst – aye, William D. Jones –
aye, Jane W. Johnson – aye, John C. Givens – aye, and Byron Randolph Foley –
absent;
Mayor Foley requested that Council consider appointments on various
boards and commissions;
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILWOMAN GARST, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMAN JONES, AND DULY CARRIED, Jimmy W. Robertson was hereby
reappointed to the Planning Commission and NPDES Citizens’ Committee for a
four-year term, said term will expire July 26, 2016 – 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 8:30 p.m.
ITEM 6
JIMMY W.
ROBERTSON
REAPPOINTED TO
PLANNING
COMMISSION AND
NPDES CITIZENS’
COMMITTEE