Prayers at Council Meetings

Well this is one issue I did not intend to wade into. Certainly an emotional issue, a hot button issue and valid points on all sides. It is a vitally important issue for all of us. My concern was fairly simple: this is not a Roanoke City Council issue.

This issue involves national politics, constitutional law and many judicial opinions on the issue. These are far outside the control of Roanoke City Council. The issue has been debated for decades and this debate will continue. My opinion is that during governmental proceedings we should not at all appear offensive to people of differing faiths and to our diverse population. I am a big fan and have long been supportive of inviting community clergy of different faiths to give a ecumenical prayer at council meetings. However, I assumed this would be with the awareness of what is allowed and not allowed (again outside of our control). What I proposed in my email to council members that the Roanoke Times reported on today was a TEMPORARY stop to inviting community clergy until we can formulate this policy of what is allowed in governmental prayers OR until council has discussed this issue and decided that we want to fight these judicial rulings. Otherwise, I feel strongly that our inaction and non-comments gives validity to the road we seem to be headed down of ignoring these rulings without any discussion among council members.

We are facing very difficult and tough times in our city and I do not think that allowing Roanoke to enter the national stage with such a tumulteous and emotional issue would be healthy for our city. Indeed it would be a huge distraction to many areas needing strong leadership and attention. I worry how some will feel if non-Christian faiths also give prayers that cross the judicial line. Do we need this division at this time?

Keep in mind: I am a Christian, I enjoy Council Prayers- especially Mr. Lea’s prayers, I respect people of all other faiths, and greatly appreciate our diverse community. This is not a Roanoke City Council issue. All I propose is guidelines within the letter of the law so all faiths can contribute to our Council meetings without being offensive or divisive to others.

What are your thoughts.

Dave

Market Building Renovation: Now is the time!

Well once again decisions that council makes- important ones involving vital amenities used by most citizens- gets caught up in controversy. While I stated it was a tough decision, let me explain how I came to my vote this Monday to proceed to design drawings and true budgets tied to the design.

If I were the only vote on council, I would have voted to head directly to develop construction documents involving plans for this vital building that would include: 8 food vendor areas that can have the fronts individually locked to encourage the opportunity to open for dinner or breakfast and possibly include ABC; a mezzanine that is renovated with outside balconies on the roof on each side for perhaps one larger restaurant; a second floor that is renovated for event use including a full kitchen and appropriate bathrooms (this space should be priced separately as there has been an interest on the part of several businesses to run an event space like this and possibly pay for up-fits as part of their contract); complete HVAC and electrical upgrades; improved restaurant venting; a contained health department approved trash area; appropriate lighting and cosmetic upgrades; increased openings and lighting on the perimeter of the building to show more vitality; improved attractiveness and signage on the Salem Avenue side of the building to encourage visitation from the Hotel Roanoke/ Art Museum area; closing Wall and Market streets with temporary bollards for street seating and usage on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. And perhaps most importantly: management by an outside organization that through leasing structures can encourage more 24 hour usage and higher usage of currently wasted square footage. We would also need to give appropriate consideration to the current vendors who want to stay for their inconvenience (which we should give every effort to make minimal)- perhaps in lower initial leases for larger and improved spaces. All of this is taken from the previous studies, public input sessions, surveys and a tour of the building with construction professionals.

But I am only one vote and it does not sound like the majority of council is in agreement about a design for the building. The biggest reason for this, I believe, is we are missing two vital bits of information: what design can really occur based on a true structural and engineering assessment of the building (never done in any earlier study) and what will be the cost of a particular design that can actually be done (again never done). Given our financial crisis and what I believe is a commitment on the part of council that this renovation is a high priority- having three designs and three budgets will help us make the most informed and fiscally responsible decision in as timely a fashion as possible. As a council member, I have heard many comments for and against each of the two studies presented over the last 3 years or so. None are a slam dunk and one potentially removes the food vendors that are enormously liked by visitors and citizens alike. None included structural analysis and none included a true budget tied to the design. There were a lot of “possible”, “tweaks” and “ifs”. But there were also a lot of fantastic ideas in each study.

The option the majority went with last Monday was NOT at all to pursue another ”consultant study” in my mind. It was the next logical step to finally proceed to renovation: gives us three drawings, based on historic and current public and consultant information we have, each tied to a structural and engineering analysis of the building and each tied to a budget. The next step with this firm would be to pick a design and a budget and develop Construction Documents. The next step would then be to put out an RFP for construction and as they say: get it done.

The other option is to vote this down and re-debate what the process should be and whether this is a project we should do. For the record, our local paper today indicated that several previous councils have declared the Market Building renovation a priority. That is simply not true. Prior to my coming on council the priority was the Market Garage, awnings, clean-up and the Spanish Step/Plaza concept coming off the Hotel Roanoke bridge. That council viewed the Market Building as important but a priority. The council that was seated two and a half years ago returned to the subject and eventually reprioritized that the Market Building should be a high priority (as I have stated the highest priority for capital improvement projects in my mind) and not the Stepped Plaza. This did waste some time but I think we made a decision and got the ball rolling. The first RFP perhaps wasted some time as well- few responses due to specific requirments put in the RFP, how it was written and the one response having some great ideas but missing some details.

So yes it has taken too long in my opinion. The process has been flawed again- but we knew that months ago and set this process out to get to a point as quickly as possible to start renovation. If this is a priority and we are making current food vendors suffer under the inquisition of month to month leases and not knowing the future- we need to keep the ball rolling and get useable information, quickly make the next informed decision and get the building renovated in a cost effective manner but a manner that will bring it well into the future and as soon as possible.

That is why I voted the way I did. Your thoughts are certainly appreciated- looks like we have to take a second vote anyway in two weeks- so give me your ideas!

-Dave