HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 06-17-91 Bowers
(30558)
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ...... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
June 17, 1991
2:00 p.m.
_AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL
C-1
C-2
Call to Order -- Roll Call. Mayor Taylor, Mr. Harvey and
Mr. White were absent.
The invocation will be delivered by The Reverend Dic
Burbage, Worship Leader, Edgewood Christian Church.
Present.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America will be led by Vice-Mayor Howard E. Musser.
CONSENT AGENDA (Approved 4-0)
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED
TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE
MOTION IN THE FORM LISTED BELOW. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DIS-
CUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL
BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
A communication from Vice-Mayor Howard E. Musser requesting
an Executive Session to discuss personnel matters relating to
vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and com-
mittees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)
(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Concur in request for Council to convene in
Executive Session to discuss personnel mat-
ters relating to vacancies on various
authorities, boards, commissions and com-
mittees appointed by Council, pursuant to
Section 2.1-344 (A) (I), Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended.
WITHDRAWN
A communication from Mr. Edward S. Grandis, Attorney,
representing Mr. John P. Cone, Jr., advising of his client's
appeal to the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, in connec-
tion with City Council's denial of a petition to appeal a deci-
sion of the Architectural Review Board regarding an application
for a Certificate of Appropriateness for property located at 526
Mountain Avenue, S. ~.
(1)
C-3
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to the City Attorney for appropriate
action.
A report of the City Manager with regard to concerns
expressed by Council Member David A. Bowers over the volume of
pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the market area.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
REGULAR AGENDA
3. Hearing of Citizens Upon Public Matters:
Request of Mr. Henry H. Craighead to address Council with
regard to a matter relating to the City's Parks and
Recreation Department.
Mr. Craighead advised that only those persons who live and
work in the Roanoke Valley should be allowed to play on
softball teams sponsored by the City of Roanoke Department
of Parks and Recreation and that an individual should be
allowed to play on only one team at a time. The matter was
referred to the City Manager to apprise Council of current
rules and regulations·
4. Petitions and Communications:
a. (1)
A communication from the Honorable W. Alvin Hudson,
Sheriff, recommending appropriation of funds to provide
for continuation of a staffed adult educational program
in the Roanoke City Jail.
Deferred until the next regular meeting of Council on
Monday, June 24, 1991.
(2)
A report of the City Manager concurring in the above
recommendation.
Deferred until the next regular meeting of Council on
Monday, June 24, 1991.
(1)
A communication from the Honorable W. Alvin Hudson,
Sheriff, recommending authorization for the City
Manager to execute a grant agreement with the Virginia
Department of Criminal Justice Services, and a Customer
Incentive Agreement with Abbott Laboratories, in con-
nection with continuation of the Roanoke City Pretrial
Services program; and transfer of funds therefor.
Adopted Resolution No. 30558-61791 and Resolution No.
30559-61791. (4-0) The budget ordinance was deferred
until the next regular meeting of Council on Monday,
June 24, 1991.
(2)
(2) A report of the City Manager concurring in the above
recommendation.
Received and filed.
5. Reports of Officers:
a. City ~anager:
Briefin~L~: None.
Items Recommended for Action:
1. A report with regard to The Hotel Roanoke/Conference
Center Project.
Adopted Resolution No. 30560-61791. (4-0) The budget
ordinance was deferred until the next regular meeting
of Council on Monday, June 24, 1991.
A report recommending transfer of $65,249.00 to provide
funds for payment of existing ~orker's Compensation
medical payments for the remainder of fiscal year
1990-91.
Deferred until the next regular meeting of Council on
Monday, June 24, 1991.
A report recommending renewal of the contract with
Health East, Inc., to provide a billing and collection
service for Emergency Medical Services, for the period
July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1993; and appropriation
of funds therefor.
Adopted Resolution No. 30561-61791. (4-0) The budget
ordinance was deferred until the next regular meeting
of Council on Monday, June 24, 1991.
o
A report recommending execution of an agreement with
the Virginia Department of Emergency Services to par-
ticipate in a Regional Hazardous Materials Response
Team, for a period of one year beginning July 1, 1991.
Adopted Resolution No. 30562-61791. (4-0)
A report recommending that the Clean Valley Council,
Inc., be designated as recipient of funds received from
the Virginia Department of Waste Management, Division
of Litter Control and Recycling, for the year com-
mencing July I, 1991, and ending June 30, 1992.
Adopted Resolution No. 30563-61791. (4-0)
(3)
6. A report recommending appropriation of $375,000.00 in
utility tax revenue to the Roanoke River Flood
Reduction Project account.
Deferred until the next regular meeting of Council on
Monday, June 24, 1991.
7. A report concurring in a report of a bid committee
recommending acceptance of the lowest responsible bids
submitted for providing water and sewage treatment
chemicals, for the period of July 1, 1991, through June
30, 1992.
Adopted Resolution No. 30564-61791. (4-0)
A report concurring in a report of a bid committee
recommending acceptance of the bid submitted by Griffin
Pipe Products Company to supply ductile iron water
pipe, for the period of July 1, 1991, through June 30,
1992.
Adopted Resolution No. 30565-61791. (4-0)
b. Director of Finance:
1. A report with regard to closeout of the Community
Development Block Grant year.
Deferred until the next regular meeting of Council on
Monday, June 24, 1991.
City Attorney:
A report transmitting a measure expressing Council's
concern over and opposition to continuing excessive
federal mandates without funding with regard to the
federally mandated Stormwater Discharge Program.
Adopted Resolution No. 30566-61791. (4-0)
6. Reports of Committees:
a. (1)
A report of the Citizens~ Services Committee submitting
recommendations for funding of qualified agencies for
fiscal year 1991-92; and negotiation of a contract, in
the amount of $22,600.00, with The Salvation Army for
provision of services to citizens under the Homeless
Housing Program and/or Abused Women's Shelter. Mr.
James D. Ritchie, Chairman.
Adopted Resolution No. 30567-61791. (4-0) The budget
ordinance was deferred until the next regular meeting
of Council on Monday, June 24, 1991.
(4)
(2) A report of the City Manager concurring in the above
recommendations.
be
Received and filed.
Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting which was held on
Monday, June 3, 1991. Council Member David A. Bowers,
Chairman.
Received and filed.
A report of the committee appointed to tabulate bids
received for bituminous concrete overlays and pavement pro-
filing of various streets within the City, recommending
award of a contract to Virginia Asphalt Paving Company,
Inc., in the amount of $1,071,723.00; and transfer of
funds therefor. Council Member William ~hite, Sr.,
Chairman.
Deferred until the next regular meeting of Council on
Monday, June 24, 1991.
A report of the committee appointed to tabulate bids
received for roof repairs to various City-owned facilities,
recommending award of contracts to the low bidders for
each of the projects, in the total amount of $46,285.00;
and transfer of funds therefor. Council Member William
White, Sr., Chairman.
Deferred until the next regular meeting of Council on
Monday, June 24, 1991.
A report of the committee appointed to tabulate bids
received for construction of the Crisis Intervention Center
and other related work, recommending award of a contract to
Williams Painting and Remodeling, Inc., in the amount of
$487,234.00; and transfer of funds therefor. Council
Member William White, Sr., Chairman.
Deferred until the next regular meeting of Council on
Monday, June 24, 1991.
Unfinished Business: None.
Introduction and Consideration of Ordinances and Resolutions:
A Resolution recognizing and commending the meritorious
service rendered to this City and its people by The
Honorable Patsy Testerman, Clerk of Circuit Court.
Adopted Resolution No. 30568-61791. ¢4-0)
9. Motions and Miscellaneous Business:
Inquiries and/or comments by the Vice-Mayor and Members
of City Council·
(5)
10.
The Vice-Mayor welcomed participants in
World-News Minority Journalism Workshop.
the Roanoke Times &
commissions and
b. Vacancies on various authorities, boards,
committees appointed by Council.
Other Hearings of Citizens:
Adopted Resolution No. 30569-61791 establishing
1991, as a City holiday for certain employees
year only. (4-0)
Friday, July 5,
for this calendar
(6)
Noel C. 'l~ylor
Mayor
I-~ward E. Musser
Vice-Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
CITY COUNCIL
215 Church A~enue, S.W, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (?03} 981-2541
June 17, 1991
Council Members:
David A. Bowe~
Elizabeth T Bowles
Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.
James G. Harvey, II
William White, Sr.
The Honorable Members
Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
of the
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
This is to request an Executive Session to discuss personnel mat-
ters relating to vacancies on various authorities, boards, com-
missions and corrrnittees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section
2.1-344 (A) (1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Howard E. Musser
Vice-~ayor
HEM:sw
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, V*rgm~a 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Cl:y Clerk
File #249
Hr. Wilburn C. Diblinq,
City Attorney
Roanoke, Virginia
Jr.
Dear Mr. Dibling:
I am attaching copy of a communication from Mr. Edward S.
Grandis, Attorney, representing Hr. John P. Cone, Jr., advising
of his client's appeal to the Circuit Court of the City of
Roanoke, in connection with City Council's denial of a petition
to appeal a decision of the Architectural Review Board regarding
an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for property
located at 526 Mountain Avenue, S. W., which communication was
before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting
held on Monday, June 17, 1991.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the matter was
you for appropriate action.
Sincerely, ~
~4ary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
referred to
MFP:ra
Enc·
pc:
Mr. Edward S. Grandis, Attorney, 1706 R Street, N. W.,
Washington, D. C. 20009
Mr. W. L. Whitwell, Chairman, Architectural Review Board,
1255 Keffield Street, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Ms. Evelyn S. Gunter, Secretary, Architectural Review Board
RECEIVED
LAW OFFICES CITY CLEL~,S GFF]C£
RICHARD HUBER
NW '91 R8 3
WASHINGTON, DC ~OOO9
June 7, 1991
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council:
Please accept the enclosed {Attachment 1} as our notice of
appeal to the City of Roanoke, as required by Rule 2A:2, Rules of
the Supreme Court of VirGinia, of the appeal ko the circuit court
of the City of Roanoke of the Roanoke City Council's formal
denial of my clienS's Petition for Appeal on May 13, 1991,
regarding his application for a Certificate of Appropriateness
for 526 Mountain Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, VirGinia.
With thanks and consideration, I remain.
Yours ErE~ly,
Enclosure
ESG/mpd
cc: John P. Cone, Jr.
Charles H. Osterhoudt, Esq.
VIRG-Nz=..
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK{'~ QFFICE
aJNI1 A8:53
AttachNenq I
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
IN THE MATTER OF
526 Mountain Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
NOTICE OF ~PPEnL
This notice regards the appeal of the above referenced
matter to the circuit courn oX the City of Roanoke from a
decision o[ the Roanoke City Council as provided by Section 36.1-
643 oX the Zoning Ordinance oX the Code of '~he City oX Roanoke
(1979), as amended.
!. Name of the Appellant: Jo~ P. ~o_r~e J_r~. ........ ,
2. Doing business as <if applicable}: N~A ........... ·
Street address of property which is the subjecn of nhis
appeal: 5z6 Mountain ~venue S.W., Roanoke, V~ .
Overlay zoning (H-i, Historical District or H-2,
Neichborhood Preservation Districn) of property or
properties which is the subject of nhis appeal:
Date the hearing before the Roanoke City Council held at
which the decision beinc appealed was made:
Section of the Code of the City of Roanoke under which the
Petition for Appeal was requested fro~ the Roanoke City
Council: § 36.1-6~A{J) ........ ·
7 o
Description of the request for which the Petimion for Appeal
was sought frdm the Roanoke City Council: R~ha~%3~tatio8. of
e_x_~in~ ~tr__u~ture ~ 5~. ~g~8 Av~R~q~ ~..W. ~9~noke,
~i~g~ni~
NOTICE OF APPEAL
IN THE MATTER OF
526 Hountain Avenue,
PaGe 2
Name, ti5le, address and telephone number of person(s) who
will represent the Appellant before the circuit cour5 of the
Cisy of Roanoke:
Edward S. Grandis, Esq. _ Ch__arles_.~:_O%~erhoudt~ ~_~.q~.___
1706_~__S~!~eet, l']..~ .... 1919 Electric Road
Washinqton, DC 20009 Roanoke, VirGinia 24018
202 1~!1.4632 _ (70~)_ 774_-A397 .......
WHEREFORE, Appeilan5 requests that the action of the Roanoke
City Council be reversed and that a building permit be issued for
the elements which were the subject of the Petition for Appeal.
Signature of Owner(s)
(If not Petitioner(s)) :
Signature of Petitioner(s)
or, where appiicable~
representative(s):
(Prin5 or Type)
TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK:
Received by: ~.~_ ~
Date: _ .. ~/L?l~..//~/..~/ ................
REC£1~/ED ,_
'gl JLl't 13 N1
Office of the Cily Manager
Ju~e 17, 1991
The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Subject: Pedestrian Safety in the Market Area
Dear Mayor and Members of City Council:
At a regularly scheduled meeting of City Council on Monday, April 1, 1991,
Councilman David A. Bowers expressed concern over the volume of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic in the Market area, particularly at noon on weekdays.
In response to that concern, I have been furnished with a report dated
May 7, 1991 from the City Traffic Engineer (Attachment I). The City also
received a letter dated May 28, 1991 (Attachment II) from Mr. Franklin D. Kimbrough,
Executive Director, Downtown Roanoke, Ina., which explains the numerous con-
siderations made by their traffic management sub-committee along with their
market area standing committee related to this matter.
Based upon our City Traffic Engineer's recommendations, and in response to
Mr. Kimbrough's letter, the following actions will be taken to enhance
pedestrian safety in the Market area:
1. The easternmost of the four crosswalks will be marked in a manner simi-
lar to the other three.
2. The extension of the second and third crosswalks into the Market Square
will be marked in a manner similar to the existing crosswalks.
Two (2) advance warning signs for pedestrians with the added message
"Next 500 Feet" will be posted on both sides of Campbell Avenue, between
Jefferson Street and the entrance to the Market Square Parking Garage.
(See attachment III for items 1, 2, and 3.)
Police officers in the Market area will be instructed to frequent
this pedestrian crossing area during peak pedestrian and traffic times
when possible and as other duties allow.
Room 364 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, IW. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2330
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
RE: Pedestrian Safety in the Market Area
June 17, 1991
Page 2
These actions are expected to address pedestrian safety needs in the Market
area at this time. Please contact me to discuss any questions that you may have
concerning this information.
Respectfully submitted,
WRH/fm
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration & Public Safety
M. David Hooper, Chief, Police Department
Robert K. Bengtson, P.E., Traffic Engineer
Franklin Do Kimbrough, Director, Downtown Roanoke, Inc.
ATTACHMENT I
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
SUBJECT:
May 7, 1991
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Robert K. Bengtson, P.E., Traffic Engineer~
Charles M. Huffine, P.E., City Engineer~3~'-~
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works ~
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IN THE MARKET AREA
On Monday, April 1, Councilman David Bowers expressed concern over the
volume of pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic in the Market area, par-
ticularly at noon on weekdays.
The Engineering Department has completed its review of this matter. Our
findings are summarized below:
Reported Accidents (from Police Department records) for the intersec-
tions of Campbell Avenue at Wall Street and Campbell Avenue at Market
Street are as follows:
Campbell at Wall (1989) - Four (4) accidents reported with no
injuries, no pedestrians involved, and minor damage to vehicles. Of
these accidents, two involved parking manuevers, one involved a lane
change, and one involved a rear end collision with a vehicle stopped
for pedestrians (this occurred at 4:15 p.m. on a Monday).
Campbell at Market (1989) - Four (4) accidents reported with no
injuries, no pedestrians involved, and minor damage to vehicles. Of
these accidents, two involved parking maneuvers, one involved a lane
change, and one involved a rear end collsion with a vehicle stopped
for pedestrians (this occurred at 5:17 p.m. on a Tuesday).
Campbell at Wall (1990) - Nine (9) accidents reported with two
injuries, of which one was a pedestrian, and minor damage to
vehicles. Of these accidents, four involved parking maneuvers, four
involved rear end collisions with vehicles stopped for either
pedestrians or traffic (these occurred at 3:50 p.m., Friday; 12:35
p.m. Thursday; 10:55 a.m., Friday; 6:50 p.m., Friday) and one
involved a pedestrian at 5:01 p.m., on Wednesday, May 23, 1990,
struck in the Campbell Avenue crosswalk immediately east of Wall
Street. According to the accident report, the pedestrian had been
drinking and was "obviously drunk" at the time of the accident.
Page 2
4. Campbell at Market (1990) - No accidents reported.
Campbell at Wall (1991 - first three months) - Two (2) accidents
reported with no injuries, no pedestrians involved, and minor
damage to vehicles. Both accidents involved rear end collisions
with vehicles stopped for pedestrians and traffic (these occurred
at 12:04 p.m. on Thursday and 4:05 p.m. on Friday).
e
Campbell at Market (1991 - first three months) - Two (2) accidents
reported with one injury (pedestrian), and minor damage to vehicles.
Of these, one accident involved a pedestrian at 11:25 a.m., Tuesday,
January 22, 1991, struck in the Campbell Avenue crosswalk imme-
diately west of Market Street, S.E. According to the accident
report, the motorist, who had been traveling 10-15 m.p.h, prior to
the accident, did not see the pedestrian. The other accident
involved a rear end collision with a vehicle stopped for a
pedestrian (this oeurred at 4:26 p.m. on a Wednesday).
Pedestrian and traffic volumes were recorded on Wednesday, April 17,
1991, between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. A total of 2,241 pedestrians
crossed Campbell Avenue using the four crosswalks in the Market Area
(see attached diagram). It should be noted that the weather conditions
that day (80°F and sunny) were favorable for pedestrian activity. The
1,600 vehicles during this period represented 16% of the 10,000 vehicles
that use this portion of Campbell Avenue every weekday.
Pavement markings at three of the four crosswalks include "Stop for
Pedestrian" messages in both lanes approaching the crosswalks. These
crosswalks are also crosshatched for improved visibility. The eastern-
most of the four crosswalks, which has no markings, will be marked in a
manner similar to the other three.
SiEnaEe to warn motorists of pedestrian crosswalks are not in place in
the Market Area.
On-site observations reveal that the motor vehicles and pedestrians
blend together very well. With a large number of "potential conflicts"
between vehicles and pedestrians having resulting in two (2) reported
pedestrian accidents in the past two (2) years, it can be said that this
compares favorably with other Roanoke City statistics for 1990 wherein
many of the other 58 pedestrian accidents occurred at locations of
lesser pedestrian activity. It could be concluded that there is a
greater awareness of the large pedestrian volumes in the Market Area,
and therefore, greater precaution by motorists.
During the two-hour count on April 17, 1991, several motorists were each
seen at least three times, as they repeatedly circled the block. Many
motorists appeared to enjoy being a part of the activity of the Market
Area despite the regular "stop and go traffic" caused by the
pedestrians. The 145 to 17~ turning traffic either on to or off of Wall
and Market Streets attests to the large number of motorists that are
doing business, shopping or dining in the Market Area. Also, 6~
Page 3
Ge
of the traffic stream was generated by motorists exiting the Market
Square Parking Garage. It should also be noted that the First Street
Bridge was open at the time of the study, and the Second Street grade
crossing was not blocked at any time as this happened to be the day the
Norfolk Southern employees were on strike. Therefore, those two alter-
native routes were available.
Discussion with Mr. Ted Moomaw of World Travel Service, located at
22 Campbell Avenue, S.E., provided additional insight to the matter.
Mr. Moomaw observes Valley Metro buses traveling at speeds that are
unsafe for the Market Area. He suspects that buses that leave Campbell
Court and move through the intersection at Jefferson Street on a green
light maintain a higher rate of speed in an effort to make the green
light that usually awaits them at Wllliamson Road.
Therefore, we have informed Mr. Mancuso, Valley Metro, of these obser-
vations. He will have the bus drivers advised of the need to proceed at
safe speeds in this area.
In conclusion, it appears that the situation is not in need of any major
changes at this time. The pavement marking additions noted in part C
above will be done during this year's remarking program.
Existing markings will be redone as needed.
The addition of advance warning signs for pedestrians, with the added
message "Next 500 Feet" is recommended for both sides of Campbell
Avenue. This will be done by June 30, 1991.
Portable warning signs posted in the middle of the street (similar to
Main Street in the City of Salem) were also considered. However,
municipalities in Virginia are required by State Code Section 46.1-187
to erect traffic signs which conform in size, design and color to the
signs erected by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). The
State uses the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which does not
include any pedestrian crossing signs of the type requested. While we
might simply ignore this limitation, we are reluctant to do so. (Please
note that the City of Salem's signs are "grandfathered", having been
there in excess of forty years.)
Furthermore, we have other concerns as to potential City liability from
such a sign in the middle of the street. If a motorist runs into the
sign, the City might well be liable for damages to the vehicle. More
importantly, the sign may give a false sense of security to pedestrians
and they could be careless in crossing the street and walk into the path
of a moving vehicle.
Finally, future completion of the Second Street/Gainsboro Road and Wells
Avenue projects will offer an alternative route for motorists who pre-
sently chose to not travel on the First Street Bridge or the Second
Street grade crossing.
RKB/fm
ATTACHMENT II
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
WILLIAM $ HUBARD
May 28, 1991
Mr. Robert K. Bengston
City Traffic Engineer
City of BDanoke
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Bob:
As you are aware, our traffic management sub-cc~mittee along
with our market area standing committee have for the last
nine months undertaken an analysis of the current pedestrian
and vehicular situation in the Historic Market Area with
regard to safety. In addition, we have explored possible
changes which might positively impact the perception and the
reality of pedestrian safety when interacting with vehicles
throughout the Historic Market Area. The two committees
after numerous meetings~ inquiries, and discussions both
individually and collectively over the last nine months have
come to some conclusions.
We were requested by several businesses to consider
installing an additional traffic signal or at least a
flashing caution light to alert motorist that there are
numerous pedestrian crossings in the Campbell Avenue section
of Market Square. It was the conclusion of both groups and
the agreement of the Board of Directors for Downtown Roanoke
Incorporated that an additional traffic signal at either Wall
and Campbell or Market and Campbell would be inappropriate,
would contribute clutter, and would cause vehicular backup-
something which already occurs in that area at the peakhours
of the day. In addition, it was the general opinion of the
businesses who contributed to this report that a flashing
light across the street or on a pole on the sidewalk wouldbe
of only marginal benefit in terms of signaling vehicles that
they were entering into a high pedestrianarea. In addition,
it was our opinion that this type of flashing light strung
across the street or stuck on a pole in the sidewalk was
really an inappropriate application to the character and
ambiance of the Historic Market Area. In reality, it maybe
counter-productive to a lot of the streetscape changes that
have been made over the last several years.
DOWNTOWN ROANOKE, INCORPORATED
310 FIRST STREET, S.W. · ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011 · (703) 342-2028
We also addressed the speed of vehicles utilizing Campbell Avenue -
especially around the noon hour and during rush hour in the late afternoon.
With the help of the Roanoke City Police Department, we determined that there
really were no speeding violations occurring on Car~pbell Avenue between
Jefferson Street and Williamson Road. Speeding by motorist is not a problem.
If anyth/ng, because of the multiple traffic signals and the crosswalks,
vehicles are not exceeding the posted speed i/mlts and in many cases are
traveling well below set limits because they are forced to stop at the obstacles
referenced above. Many times this helps keep the motorist more alert than he
would be if it were a straight stretch with no interruptions from traffic
signals or crosswalks.
While we have not done actual traffic counts, it is our feeling that the
traffic has increased somewhat in the Historic Market Area as a result of the
start of contruction on the Dominion Tower. Because of the changes that were
made to Can~bell Avenue and the traffic control signals on Williamson Road,
traffic actually gets out of the downtown smoother and at a quicker pace than
it did prior to the beginning of construction on the Dominion Tower and removal
of the Hunter Viaduct. This concern really seems to be one left over from some
of the newspaper editorials that occurred prior to the traffic changes. Traffic
volumes have increased but are really not a problem in the Historic Market Area.
Many business people had voiced concern about the visibility of and for
traffic entering Campbell Avenue from Wall Street. While this is a potential
problem because of a blind spot extenuated by large trucks using the loading
zone at the corner of Campbell and Wall in front of Patina' s, this particular
concern was reduced substantially by the addition of a handicapped parking space
in place of that corner loading zone. This particular handicapped parking space
does not appear to be used very frequently. AS a result, the space is left
vacant and creates a much broader range of view for the driver trying to enter
his vehicle from Wall Street onto Campbell Avenue.
It was also suggested that some type of portable street level signage be
placed in Campbell Avenue during the peak traffic and pedestrian volume hours
around lunch time and in the early evening. The idea here was to create some
type of street level signage similar to what exists in the Colonial Williamsburg
area to be more compatible and acceptable to the character and design of the
Historic Market Area. It was the feeling of our committees that while this
particular approach may have been more sensitive in terms of design and
cc~patibility, it would require additional labor and cost in terms of
constructing the signage, repairing when struck by automobiles and the labor to
place and remove the signage during peak hours when it may be needed. It was
also the feeling of our committee that because of the high use of Campbell
Avenue with two lanes of traffic and parking, this type of signage would not be
very practical since it would be very likely that numerous vehicles would hit
or scrap it resulting in rm~ltiple claims against the City for damage, etc. As
a result, we do not recommend this type of warning device in this particular
location of Market Square.
We also addressed the issue of adding signage on poles along the sidewalk
in the block of Car~pbell Avenue between Jefferson and Wall alerting the motorist
to the fact that they were entering a heavy pedestrian traffic area and
cautioning thom to be alert. We would be very concerned about the size of
this type of signage as well as the placoment within this block. Many
businesses also questioned whether the addition of this signage would make any
/npact. Our organization and the businesses we represent would welcome the
addition of some type of warning signage on Campbell Avenue so long as it is not
too large, not obtrusive to adjoining or nearby businesses and was compatible
to the character of the market area. We never like to encourage additional sign
clutter; but in this particular instance if the right location, size and message
can be instilled it may be appropriate.
One of the most positive things which occurred during our study period was
the highlighting with reflective tape of three of the four crosswalks on the
south side of the City Market Building crossing Campbell Avenue. As you are
aware, the City did this work shortly before the end of last year and as a
result has enhanced the separation of pedestrian areas from vehicular areas in
the crossings on Campbell Avenue. There still remains one of the four crossings
in this area which also desperately needs to be highlighted with the same
pattern, material, and color of reflective tape. This crosswalk is the one
running between the Blue Muse Restaurant and Book, Strings, and Things just
beyond the east side of the intersection at Campbell and Market Street. Our
committees and ultimately our Board recon~aended that this be enhanced with the
reflective tape like that used in the other market area crosswalks.
It was also the feeling of our cc~nittees that the sidewalks which run
through Market Square between the traditional sidewalk on the south end of
Market Street and the pedestrian crosswalks on Ca~ll Avenue be enhanced using
the same pattern, texture, and color of tape as that found in the crosswalks on
Campbell Avenue. This is needed as many pedestrians have expressed concern for
their safety when entering into Market Square because motorist mistake the
dingy, dirty, grey sidewalks as a continuation of the charcoal grey
pavement/driving area. Many drivers also use these sidewalks for parking spaces
necessitating the pedestrian to further risk their safety by venturing out into
the traditional vehicular areas to cross Market Square. We are requesting
through this letter that the City also place the reflective tape on these
crosswalks as soon as possible to further enhance the safety of pedestrians in
the City Market Area.
We also explored the possibility of having a police officer somewhere near
the intersection of Wall and Campbell Avenue to reinforce to motorists as well
as the pedestrians the need to be alert and to obey established and posted rules
and regulations. Ideally this police officer should function as a crossing
guard in the three crosswalks bordering Wall Street and Campbell Avenue.
Recognizing the budget constrains of the City, we are not requesting that
particular activity at this time. However, we do seek to have sc~ne of the
police officers who work the market beat (either on foot or car) as well as
those who come to the market area during the lunch hour find some way to at
least be visible at this intersection. Specifically, I don't know if this means
having lunch on the bench in front of the Hot Dog King or if it means standing
around just being visible at that intersection. We would just like to create
an enhanced awareness to be cautious when using the public space in those areas
during the high traffic times of each day.
Downtown Roanoke Incorporated welcomes new ways to make pedestrians safer
in the Historic Market Area as long as those ways are compatible and non-
intrusive to the climate and character that we and the City have so carefully
crafted. Several of the suggestions of our two cc~mittees studies were
recommended to the full Board and as such I am forwarding them on to you as
specific recon~nendations frc~ the downtown business con~ma~ity to address the
pedestrian safety issue in the Historic Market Area. Our reconm~ndations have
been refernced above.
Downtown Roanoke Incorporated and its member businesses coca, end the City
for its adherence to our request and its sensitivity to the need for enhanced
pedestrian safety in the Historic Market Area relative to vehicular traffic.
We also understand the constraints and the realities which must be considered
before quickly addressing this issue. On behalf of the downtown business
cor=m/nity, we would very ~ch appreciate your support and action on our above
stated requests. Beyond these items; we have not found any additional measures
which we believe can be realistically and economically undertaken. We would
welcome additional conm~nt and input from your department. Your analysis and
suggestions to date have been most appreciated and very well received by the two
committees studying this issue. Many thanks again for your efforts. I look
forwarding the hearing from you on our requests in the near future.
.. Y'
~ranklin D. Kimbrough
Executive Director
133W1S 99VAA
II
MARY F. PARKER
City Oerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue,S W , Room 456
Roanoke. Virgm~a 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
REVISED
June 25, 1991
SANORA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
File #66-67-33
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
~t the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held
on Monday, June 17, 1991, Mr. Henry H. Craighead appeared before
Council and advised that only those persons who live and work in
the City of Roanoke should be allowed to play on softball teams
sponsored by the City's Department of Parks and Recreation, and
that an individual should be allowed to play on only one team at
a time in the Roanoke Valley.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the matter was referred
you to apprise Council of current rules and regulations.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
to
MFP:ra
pc: Mr. Henry H. Craighead, 1625 Orange Avenue, N. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24017
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
Public Safety
Mr. Gary N. Fenton, Manager, Parks and Recreation/Grounds
Maintenance
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2§41
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
File #121-123
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30559-61791 authorizing
execution of a contract with Abbott Laboratories to provide
reagents, calibrators, calibrations, controls, and miscellaneous
materials as well as maintenance service until July 1, 1992, in
an amount not to exceed $30,566.00, in connection with the
Roanoke City Pretrial Services program. Resolution No.
30559-61791 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
pc: The Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, City Sheriff Mr. Joel M. $chlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management
and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
The 17th Day of June, 1991.
No. ,30559-61791.
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of a contract with
Abbott Laboratories to provide certain materials and services in
connection with the Roanoke City Pretrial Services program upon
certain terms and conditions.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized to execute and
attest respectively in form approved by the City Attorney a
"Customer Incentive Agreement" with Abbott Laboratories to pro-
vide reagents, calibrators, calibrations, controls, and miscella-
neous materials as well as maintenance service until July 1, 1992,
for an amount not to exceed $30,566.00, as more particularly set
forth in the report to this Council dated June 17, 1991.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Aven~e, $ W , Room 456
Roanoke, Virgm*a 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
File #121-123
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution Ho. 30558-61791 authorizing
acceptance of a Drug Testing of Accused Felons Awaiting Trial
Grant made to the City of Roanoke by the Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Criminal Justice Services, in the amount of
$78,322.00, with the City to provide matching funds of
$26,107.00, and authorizing acceptance, execution and filing of
all appropriate documents to obtain such grant. Resolution No.
30558-61791 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 1991.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
pc: The Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, City Sheriff Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management
and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 17th Day of June, 1991.
No. 50558-61791.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a Drug Testing of
Accused Felons Awaiting Trial Grant made to the City of Roanoke
by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Criminal Justice
Services and authorizing the acceptance, execution and filing of
all appropriate documents to obtain such grant.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City of Roanoke hereby accepts the Drug Testing of
Accused Felons Awaiting Trial Grant in the total amount of
$78,322.00 from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of
Criminal Justice Services, and the City shall provide matching
funds of $26,107.00.
2. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager, or his successor in
office is hereby authorized to accept, execute and file on behalf
of the City of Roanoke any and all appropriate documents required
to obtain such grant.
3. The City Manager is further directed to furnish such
additional information as may be required in connection with the
City's acceptance of the aforegoing grant or with such project.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
June 17, 1991
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
SUBJECT: Roanoke City Sheriff's Office
Pretrial Services Grant
Dear Mayor and Members of City Council:
I. Background:
The Appropriations Act approved by the Virqinia General
Assembly during its 1989 reqular session authorized the
Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) to expend
grant funds for pretrial diversion and related services.
In addition, the Director of DCJS was to assure that one
or more of these programs was to include provisions for
drug testing of accused felons awaiting trial,
consistent with state law, Section 19.2-123 of the Code
of Virginia as amended, effective July 1, 1989.
B. The Sheriff's Office and the Courts for Roanoke City
applied for and received fundinq for two separate
proqrams. Both programs were implemented with state
funds through a grant at no cost to the City of Roanoke
(no matching fund requirements for the locality).
The "Substance Abuse Testing of Accused Felons
Awaiting Trial" program began July 1, 1989 and was
administered under the sponsorship of the Roanoke
City Sheriff's Office at a cost of $67,670.00.
The "Roanoke City Courts Pretrial Services" program
began January 1, 1990 and was administered under
the sponsorship of the Court-Community Corrections
Program (CCCP) for the Roanoke City Courts at a
cost of $63,863.00.
Local cash match of 25% will be required effective
Fiscal Year 1991-92 on each of these grants, if they
remain separate or not.
The "Roanoke City Pretrial Services" proqram evolved
from the merging of these two existing, and approved,
DCJS grant-funded programs. Recent discussions between
the directors of the two existing programs resulted in
the identification of opportunities to provide mutually
beneficial support through merging the programs,
including a cost savings, improved supervision of some
offenders, etc.
Members of City Council
The goals of the "Roanoke City Pretrial Services"
program are:
To reduce the demands upon the Roanoke City Jail
resources through the use of volunteer drug
screening program to reduce the number of felony
offenders in jail awaiting trial, placing them
under supervision in the community;
To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
General District Court through the pretrial release
and diversion of non-violent offenders to
alternatives to prosecution and conviction;
To reduce the demands placed upon the
Commonwealth's Attorney and Public Defender through
the release and diversion of select non-violent
offenders, charged with jailable offenses, to
alternatives to prosecution;
To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
Circuit and Family Court through the availability
of alternatives to the conviction on non-violent
offenders.
II. Current Situation:
The Appropriations Act approved by the Virginia General
Assembly during its 1991 regular session authorized DCJS
to continue to provide funding for the "Roanoke City
Pretrial Services" program in the amount of $104,429
with $78,322 funded by DCJS and matching funds of
$26,107 provided by the City of Roanoke.
City Council approved the submission of a grant
application totaling $104~429 for this program to the
DCJS for their review and approval.
Preliminary approval of the program has been given by
the DCJS subject to City Council's concurrence. DCJS
will provide funding in the amount of $78,322 and
matching funds of $26,107 must be provided by the City
of Roanoke. (ATTACHMENT I - per conversation with Ron
Bell, DCJS, the amount of $78,413 noted in his letter
was a mistake and it should be $78,322. The actual grant
award has yet to be received but is to be forth coming
sometime in July 1991.)
2
Members 'of City Council
III. Issues:
Continuation of the "Roanoke City Pretrial Services"
program.
Compliance with the program mandates requires the
continued use of the ADX Abused Drug Analyzer. A
"Customer Incentive Agreement" with Abbott Laboratories
(ATTACHMENT II) to provide all reagents, calibrators,
calibrations, controls, etc. as well as maintenance
service would have to be executed by the City Manager
with approval from City Council to provide for the
continued operation of this analyzer.
Fundinq of the program requires a
by the City of Roanoke $26,107
for Fiscal Year 1991-92.
25% local cash match
of the total $104,429
IV. Alternatives:
City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a
grant agreement with the DCJS not to exceed the amount
of $104,429 and to execute a "Customer Incentive
Agreement" with Abbott Laboratories to provide reagents,
calibrators, calibrations, controls, and miscellaneous
materials as well as maintenance service until July 1,
1992 for an amount not to exceed $30,566. In addition,
City Council authorize the Director of Finance to
transfer $26,107 in local cash match funds from the
Roanoke City Jail's "Reimbursements" account
(001-024-3310-8005) to the "Transfers to Grant Fund"
account (001-004-9310-9535); increase the revenue
estimate for FY 1991-92 by $78,322; and appropriate
$104,429 to accounts to be established by the Director
of Finance in the Grant Fund.
1. Continuation of the "Roanoke City Pretrial
Services" program would be provide for.
Compliance with the grant program mandates for drug
testing of pretrial felons would be accomplished.
3. Funding would be provided with $78,322 in state
funds and $26,107 in local cash match funds.
City Council not authorize the City Manaqer to
grant agreement with the DCJS nor execute a
Incentive Agreement" with Abbott Laboratories.
execute a
"Customer
Continuation of the "Roanoke City Pretrial
Services" program would not be provided for.
Members of City Council
Compliance with the grant program mandates for drug
testing of pretrial felons would not be an issue.
State qrant funds totalling $78,322 would be lost
by the City.
Recommendation:
ae
City Council concur with Alternative "A", thereby
authorizing the City Manager to execute a grant
agreement with the DCJS not to exceed the amount of
$104,429 and to execute a "Customer Incentive Agreement"
with Abbott Laboratories to provide reagents,
calibrators, calibrations, controls, and miscellaneous
materials as well as maintenance service until July 1,
1992 for an amount not to exceed $30,566. In addition,
City Council authorize the Director of Finance to
transfer $26,107 in local cash match funds from the
Roanoke City Jail's "Reimbursements" account
(001-024-3310-8005) to the "Transfers to Grant Fund"
account (001-004-9310-9535); increase the revenue
estimate for FY 1991-92 by $78,322; and appropriate
$104,429 to accounts to be established by the Director
of Finance in the Grant Fund.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Alvin Hudson, Sheriff
City of Roanoke
4
ATTACHMENT I
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES BOARD Department of Criminal Justice Services
805 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219
(8O4) 78r~4ooo
LINE)SAY G DORRIER, JR
Director
May 24, 1991
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Re: Grant Application #92-A7639, Continuation of #91-A7405 Drug Testing of
Accused Felons Awaiting Trial: Pretrial Diversion and Related Services
Dear Mr. Herbert:
The Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) received the above
referenced application for continued funding.
I wanted you to know that the application has been preliminarily reviewed
and that we plan to send out approval and a statement of grant award during
July 1991. $7~3~ a
DCJS intends to award an~t ~ot to exceed $7, C,~13, subject to final
review.
We are notifying you of our intent so that the sheriff may place the
request for continued funding on the City Council's agenda.
Very truly yours,
Ronald L. Bell
Division Director/
Administration
01/evw
RBellLtr/7
cc: The Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Sheriffx/ Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. Anthony C. Casale, DCJS
RECEIVED
CITY CLERKS OFFIgE
'91 ,Ui 12 PI :31
Roanoke, Virginia
June 17, 1991
The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
Subject: Roanoke City Sheriff's Office, Pretrial Services Grant
I concur in the attached report of Sheriff W. Alvin Hudson concerning the
above subject.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/ga
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Chur(.h Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, ¥irgm~a 24011
Telephone: (703)9111-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
DeputyOt¥Clerk
Fi le #258
Mr. W..Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30560-61791 authorizing
execution of contracts with Classic Properties of VA, Inc., and
Perez Architects, Hew Orleans, APC, to provide construction mana-
gement and architectural and engineering services, respectively,
in connection with construction of a publicly-owned conference
center. Resolution No. 30560-61791 was adopted by the Council of
the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17,
1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, C~C/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc .
pc:
Mr. David L. Waltematch, President, Classic Properties of VA,
Inc., 3520 General BeGaulle Drive, Suite 1100, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70114
Mr. Peter Stewart, Perez Architects, 1380 Lawrence Street,
Suite 390, Denver, Colorado 80204
Mr. Mode A. Johnson, Assistant to the Vice President far
Business Affairs, Virginia Tech, 312 Burruss Hall,
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Brian J. Wishneff, Chief of Economic Development
Ur. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 17th Day of June, 1991.
No. 30560-61791.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of contracts with Classic
Properties of VA, Inc. and Perez Architects, New Orleans, APC, to pro-
vide construction management and architectural and engineering services,
respectively, in connection with construction of a publicly-owned con-
ference center.
WHEREAS, Virginia Tech Real Estate Foundation, Inc. ("VTREF") has
issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) in full compliance with the
Virginia Public Procurement Act and the City of Roanoke Procurement
Code for construction management services and architectural and engi-
neering services in connection with construction of a publicly-owned
conference center adjacent to a renovated and redeveloped Hotel
Roanoke;
WHEREAS, after review and evaluation of all proposals pursuant
to the competitive negotiation process, it has been determined that
the joint proposal of Classic Properties of VA, Inc. ("Classic") and
Perez Architects, New Orleans, APC ("Perez"), is the best and most
advantageous proposal to the public;
WHEREAS, after negotiations, Classic has agreed to provide con-
struction management services relating to certain preconstruction
activities for $43,000.00;
WHEREAS, the City and VTREF desire to enter a joint contract with
Classic for such services with the City's financial liability being
capped at $21,500;00;
WHEREAS, after negotiations, Perez has agreed to provide archi-
tectural and engineering services related to schematic design of the
proposed conference center for $67,000.00;
WHEREAS, the City and VTREF desire to enter a joint contract with
Perez for such services with the City's financial liability being cap-
ped at $33,500.00; and
WHEREAS, any future procurement of architectural and engineering
services, construction management services and construction with respect
to the proposed conference center will be carried out by the Hotel
Roanoke Conference Center Commissiom pursuant to the Virginia Public
Procurement Act;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke
as follows:
1. Procurement of Classic and Perez pursuant to the Virginia
Public Procurement Act and the City of Roanoke Procurement Code to
provide construction management and architectural and engineering ser-
vices, respectively, in connection with construction of a publicly-
owned conference center adjacent to a renovated and redeveloped Hotel
Roanoke is hereby ratified.
2. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and City Clerk
are hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the City, to execute and
attest, respectively, a joint contract between the City and VTREF by
which Classic shall provide certain construction management services de-
scribed in the City Manager's report of June 17, 1991, for $43,000.00.
The maximum financial
shall be $21,500.00.
City Attorney.
liability of the City under any such contract
Such contract shall be in form approved by the
3. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the City
Clerk are hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the City, to execute
and attest, respectively, a joint contract between the City and VTREF
by which Perez shall provide certain architectural and engineering
services described in the City Manager's report o£ June 17, 1991, for
$67,000.00. The maximum financial
such contract shall be $33,500.00.
approved by the City Attorney.
4. This resolution shall be
passage.
liability to the City under any
Such contract shall be in form
in full force and effect upon its
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
RECEIVED
CITY CLERKS FF?iCE
'~I JJN 13 P3:57
June 17, 1991
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Council Members:
subject: Hotel Roanoke/Conference Center project
I. Background:
In October, 1990, Virginia Tech Real Estate Foundation issued
a request for proposal (RFP) concerning the Hotel Roanoke and
Conference Center project.
The RFP, as it related to the Conference Center portion of the
project, was reviewed jointly by Virginia Tech and City of
Roanoke officials to ensure that it met Virginia Procurement
requirements. Specifically, the RFP asked the developer to
propose a team that would provide design and construction
management services on the Conference Center. Actual
construction of the Conference Center would be publicly bid in
accordance with the Procurement Act.
Classic Properties was the successful proposer on the Hotel
and Conference Center portions of the project. Their proposal
included Classic Properties as construction manager and Perez
Architects as design architect for the Conference Center.
Classic Properties is working to confirm and/or redefine the
scope of the Hotel/Conference Center project. Specifically,
at their expense, they are looking to determine the number of
hotel rooms that can be justified for the Hotel project, the
makeup of the business that would frequent the Hotel (i.e.
group business, business traveler, tourist), whether or not a
franchise operation is financially justified, cost estimates
for renovation of the Hotel and projected revenues and
expenses. They hope to have their analysis completed within
60-90 days, so that a determination can be made as to what
level of equity and debt can be supported by the project.
They will then be able to go forward with trying to put this
complex financing package together.
Eo
A separate but integral part of the analysis concerns the
Conference Center. It is important that the same level of
information be provided for the Conference Center as is
June 17,
Page 2
1991
provided for the Hotel. The projected level of usage
generated by Virginia Tech and the Roanoke Valley Convention
and Visitors Bureau as well as the new Hotel Roanoke
management will translate into a recommended size for the
Conference Center facility, the kinds of rooms needed, how
many room nights the Conference Center might generate in the
Hotel, and ultimately the projected cost of the Conference Center. It
is also important during the upcoming 60-90 days that as the plans for
the Hotel portion proceed that plans for the Conference Center proceed
concurrently. The physical relationship with the Hotel and potential
sharing of facilities such as kitchens are important in determining cost
information for both parts of the project and are, therefore, important
to the overall analysis.
II. Current Situation:
Three major consulting activities, all related but
independent, must go on concerning the Conference Center
during the next 60-90 days concurrent with the work on the
Hotel. These activities are:
Market feasibility or utilization projections for the
Conference Center. This will include a recon~endation on
the size of the facility, necessary quality, and number
and kinds of rooms. It would also make recommendations
on quality of the facility versus rate the market will
bear. The City of Roanoke cost to obtain its share of
this information is $14,950. The Virginia Tech
Foundation is going to pay for its part of the study at
an additional cost of $14,950. After much review,
Coopers & Lybrand is being recommended to complete this
part of the project.
2e
Schematic design ~hase on the Conference Center. This is
the first 15% of a typical design project. With the
feasibility work done on sizing of the facility, this
phase of design will allow the Conference Center to be
located on the site, identify parking solutions as well
as access solutions and, most importantly, provide a cost
estimate which will be necessary for the overall analysis
of the project. Perez Architects would provide this
initial phase of the design for a cost of $67,000. The
subsequent phases including construction design will
entail a contract between the Hotel Roanoke Commission
and Perez Architects at a future date. That larger
contract will be authorized by the Commission when the
project is determined to be a "go" situation.
Construction management activities. Ultimately, the
construction management team, working on behalf of the
Commission, will be responsible for supervising the
design and construction of the project and providing a
turn key facility on time and within budget to the entity
June 17, 1991
Page 3
hired to manage the facilities. Pre-construction
mahagement activities are crucial at this point so that
the wishes of the design team are blended with what the
utilization report recommends to achieve the most cost
effective proposal on the Conference Center. This
pre-construction phase of the management/construction
contract is estimated to be $65,000. This work would be
performed by Classic Properties. However, Classic has
stated that they will defer $22,000. Classic will
request that if and when the Conference Center Commission
is established and if a construction management contract
is signed with the Hotel Roanoke Commission it be
reimbursed for the $22,000. If the project is never able
to get beyond this first phase, then, that is money
($22,000) that Classic has put at risk.
It is anticipated that the Commission will not be established
until later in the summer. In order not to lose time on this
important phase of the project, the work on the Conference
Center needs to proceed immediately on the same timetable as
the Hotel. Virginia Tech Foundation is willing to be a 50/50
financial partner with the City of Roanoke on each of the
three consulting and planning activities described above for
the Conference Center. This makes the City's share of these
three agreements $69,950.
Co
The Foundation and the City would ask to be reimbursed if and
when the Commission is established and if and when the
Conference Center project becomes a reality and financing for
it is in place.
III. Issues:
A. Timing.
B. Cost.
C. Funding.
D. Progress on the ~ro~ect.
IV. Alternatives:
A. Alternative 1
1)
Recommend that Classic Properties be contracted with by
the City of Roanoke and Virginia Tech Real Estate
Foundation to do the pre-construction phase of
construction management activities on the Conference
Center. The cost of this phase will be $43,000 with
$22,000 to be deferred by Classic. The cost will be
split between Virginia Tech Real Estate Foundation and
the City of Roanoke.
June 17, 1991
Page 4
2)
Recommend that Perez Architects be contracted with to do
th~ schematic design phase on the Conference Center by
the City of Roanoke and the Virginia Tech Foundation.
The cost to be split between the Virginia Tech Foundation
and the City of Roanoke.
3)
Recommend that the City of Roanoke contract with Coopers
& Lybrand to do its share phase of the market
feasibility at a cost of $14,950.
Cost of these three activities to the City is $69,950.
The City and Virginia Tech Real Estate Foundation will
ask the Conference Center Commission if and when it is
established to consider reimbursing us for these expenses
as a part of the overall development cost. Additional
costs to support the development of the Conference
Center, such as mapping or borings may be necessary
during the next 90 days. Therefore, a total of $75,000
for the Conference Center project is being requested.
Timing is crucial because this phase of the project
must proceed simultaneously with the Hotel.
b. Cost is estimated to be $75,000 to the City.
c. Funding is from Contingency Reserve.
Progress on the ~ro~ect will be able to go forward.
All the information generated on the Conference
Center is necessary in order for construction to
eventually occur.
Alternative 2: DO not recommend that Classic Properties, Perez
Architects and Coopers & Lybrand be contracted with by the City of
Roanoke and Virginia Tech Real Estate Foundation to do the
pre-construction management, schematic design or market feasibility
activities on the Conference Center.
Timing of the project is put in jeopardy. If the
Conference Center work goes on after the Hotel
analysis is in, three to four additional crucial
months could be lost.
b. Cost is not an issue.
c. Funding is not an issue.
d. Progress on the project will come to a halt.
V. Recommendation:
It is ~ecommended that Council approve Alternative "A" as follows:
June 17,
Page 5
1991
Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with
Classic°Properties of Virginia, Inc. and Virginia Tech Real
Estate Foundation to do the pre-construction phase of
construction management activities on the Conference Center.
The total cost of this phase will be $43,000. Classic
Properties will make a request to the Conference Center
Commission if and when it is established, that it be
reimbursed for this $22,000 if and when it signs a
construction management contract with the Hotel Roanoke
Commission. The $43,000 cost will be split between Virginia
Tech Real Estate Foundation and the City of Roanoke. Maximum
cost to the City is $21,500.
Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Perez
Architects and Virginia Tech Real Estate Foundation for
$67,000 to do the schematic design phase on the Conference
Center. The cost to be split between the Virginia Tech Real
Estate Foundation and the City of Roanoke. Maximum cost to
the city is $33,500.
Authorize the City Manager to contract with Coopers & Lybrand
to conduct its share of market feasibility work on Conference
Center. Maximum cost to the City is $14,950.
Appropriate $75,000 from Contingency Reserve account number
001-002-9410-2199 to existing Conference Center capital
account 008-002-9653-9055. This total includes an additional
$5,050 for other support costs such as mapping and borings.
WRH/kds
cc:
Assistant City Manager
Director of Finance
City Attorney
Manager, Management and Budget
Director, Public Works
Chief, Economic Development
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
21 $ Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, V~rgmJa 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANORA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~zy Clerk
File #354
· Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear ~r. Herbert:
! am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30561-61791 authorizing
extension of the term of a contract between the City and Health
East, Inc., for provision of Emergency Medical Services billing
and collections services, to extend the period of the contract
from July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1993. Resolution No.
30561-61791 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 1991.
Sincerely, ~~
Mary F. Parker, C~C/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
pc: Mr. George C. Snead, Jr.,
Public Safety
Ms. Wanda B. Reed, Manager,
Director of Administration
Emergency Services
and
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
The 17th Day of June, 1991.
No. 30561-61791.
ROANOKE,
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION authorizing the extension of the term of a
contract between the City and Health East, Inc., for the provision
of Emergency Medical Services billing and collections services.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City Manager or Assistant City Manager, for and on
behalf of the City, is hereby authorized to enter into an amend-
ment to the contract between the City and Health East, Inc., dated
July 1, 1990, for Emergency Medical Services billing and collec-
tions services, to extend the period of the contract from July 1,
1991 through June 30, 1993.
2. Such agreement shall provide for payment for the period
July 1, 1991 through June 30,
month, plus 6.5% of net collections,
1992 through June 30, 1993 of a flat
plus 9% of net collections.
3. Such amendment shall contain other
1992 of a flat
and for
rate of
rate of $6,500.00 per
the period July 1,
$7,800.00 per month,
terms and conditions
deemed appropriate by the City Manager and shall be approved as to
form by the City Attorney.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
RECEIVED
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
91 dLl~12 P1:29 Roanoke, Virginia
--- June 17, 1991
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Emergency Medical Services
Billing and Collection Renewal Contract
I. Background:
ae
July 1, 1990, City Council
billing user fee for citizens
Emergency Medical Service for
to a medical facility.
approved a first-party
who utilize the City's
ambulance transportation
July 1, 1990, City Council authorized the City Manager
to enter into a contract with Health East, Inc. for
provision of a billing and collection service for the
period July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1991. The
contract specifies a flat monthly rate of $5,750 plus
6.5% of net collections, with option to renew for two
additional years at a rate to be negotiated.
C. Revenue estimated for Fiscal Year 1990-91 from this
De
user fee was $402,500.
Revenue estimated for Fiscal Year 1991-92 from this
user fee is $485,000.
Ee
Budgeted cost for billing service for Fiscal Year
1991-92 is $95,000.
II. Current Situation:
A. June 30, 1991, contract with Health East, Inc. expires.
March 29, 1991, proposal received from Health East,
Inc., for contract renewal rates to provide Emergency
Medical Services billing and collections for a two-year
period beginning July 1, 1991 as follows:
Year 1
A flat rate of $6,500 per month plus 6.5%
of net collections
Year 2
A flat rate of $7,800 per month plus 9.0%
of net collections
C. Revenue estimate for Fiscal Year 1991-92 should be
revised to $500,500, based on current fiscal year
collections, for an increase of $15,500.
Emergency Medical Services
Billing and Collection Renewal Contract
Page 2 of 3
Projected cost of billing service for Fiscal Year
1991-92 would be approximately $110,500 based on new
proposal and revised revenue estimate, for an
expenditure increase of $15,500. The revenue estimate
as identified in II. C. above is anticipated to offset
this expenditure.
Adequate funds will be requested in Fiscal Year 1992-93
budget to provide for contractual obligations for
second year of this contract. The projected cost
increase based on a revised revenue estimate of
$500,500 would be an additional $28,145. This increase
will be addressed during the 1992-93 budget preparation
process.
III. Issues:
A. Authority
B. Need
C. Cost to Citizens
IV. Alternatives:
Approve renewal of contract with Health East, Inc. for
Emergency Medical Services billing and collection at a
flat rate of $6,500 plus 6.5% of net collections for
Fiscal Year 1991-92, and at a flat rate of $7,800 per
month and a 9.0% fee of net collections for Fiscal Year
1992-93.
Authority in accordance with contract provi-
sions, City Council authorize City Manager to
renew this billing and collection service agree-
ment with Health East, Inc. for two additional
years.
Need - contract for billing and collection service
is necessary in order to collect user fees total-
ing $500,500 in support of Emergency Medical
Services.
Cost to Citizens will remain unchanged. Ail
insurances will continue to be billed with patient
responsible for portion not paid by insurances.
Emergency Medical Services
Billing and Collection Renewal Contract
Page 3 of 3
Do not authorize City Manager to renew contract with
Health East~ Inc.
1. Authority would not be an issue.
Need - collection of user fees for Emergency
Medical Services could not continue in the most
effective and efficient manner, resulting in a
potential loss of $500,500 in revenue.
3. Cost to Citizens would not be an issue.
IV. Recommendation:
A. City Council concur with Alternative "A" and
Authorize the City Manager to renew the contract
with Health East, Inc. for two additional years to
provide a Billing and Collection Service for
Emergency Medical Services effective July 1, 1991
through June 30, 1993 at the monthly rate of
$6,500 plus 6.5% of net collections for the first
year and at the monthly rate of $7,800 plus 9.0%
of net collections for the second year. This
contract shall be in a form approved by the City
Attorney.
2. City Council increase the 1991-92 revenue esti-
mate by $15,500 to $500,500 for Emergency Medical
Services account.
City Council appropriate $15,500 to Fees for
Professional Services account 001-050-3521-2010,
for payment of billing services.
Respe~tfnl~mitted,
.~Rober~tHerbert~
City Manager
WRH/WBR/cw
pc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director, kdministration and Public Safety
Manager, Emergency Services/EMS
MARY F. PARKER
City C~erk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 ChurchAvemJe, S W,Room456
Roanoke, V~rgm~a 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Cterk
File #188
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30562-61791 authorizing an
agreement between the City and the Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Emergency Services to provide for the creation of a
Regional Hazardous Materials Response Team. Resolution No.
30562-61791 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, C~C/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Eric.
pc: Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director
Public Safety
Ms. Wanda B. Reed, Manager, Emergency
Mr. Rawleigh W. Quarles, Fire Chief
of Administration
Services
and
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 17th Day of June, 1991.
No. 30562-61791.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION authorizing an agreement between the City and the
Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Emergency Services to pro-
vide for the creation of a Regional Hazardous Materials Response
Team.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City Manager or Assistant City Manager is hereby
authorized, for and on behalf of the City, to enter into a written
agreement with the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Emer-
gency Services for a term of one year commencing July 1, 1991.
The agreement shall authorize the City to join with the City of
Salem to develop a Level III Regional Response Team.
2. The agreement shall be substantially as set forth in the
attachment to the City Manager's report to this Council dated June
17, 1991, and the form of the agreement shall be approved by the
City Attorney.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
RECEIVED
CITY CLERF~A OFFICE
T! 3JN12 P1:32
Roanoke, Virginia
June 17, 1991
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
RE: Regional Hazardous Materials Response Team Agreement
Dear Members of Council:
I. BACKGROUND:
mo
June 1988, City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a
three-year agreement with the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of
Emergency Services (VDES) to develop a Level III Regional Hazardous
Materials Response Team and respond to calls, at the request of
VDES, within a designated region of the State. A Level III is
defined as a technical response to spills or releases of any classi-
fication of hazardous materials or extremely hazardous substances
requiring the use of special protective clothing and equipment.
Also, responders must be trained to a Hazardous Materials Technician
level or greater.
Roanoke Valley has been identified by VDES as being at high risk for
accidents involving hazardous materials due to the high volume of
chemicals being transported through the City on the Interstate
system and railroad.
Current Roanoke Valley Regional Hazardous Materials Response Team
consists of firefighters from Roanoke City, Roanoke County and City
of Salem who have been trained to respond to hazardous materials
incidents.
II. CURRENT SITUATION:
A. Regional Hazardous Materials Response Team Agreement expires June
30, 1991.
Virginia Department of Emergency Services has requested that a new
agreement be entered into beginning July 1, 1991 for a one-year
period.
C. Roanoke County has decided not to participate in this Regional
Agreement for the coming year.
City of Roanoke and City of Salem will comprise the regional team
and will respond to all Level III responses within the assigned
territory to include Roanoke County. Roanoke County will provide
their own Level II response. A Level II response is defined as
non-technical involving spills or releases of petroleum products
only.
Regional Hazardous Response Team Agreement
Page 2
The City staff has determined that a Level III response capability
should be maintained due to the identified high risk status for
hazardous materials incidents in the City of Roanoke and that
participation in a Regional Response Team program would be the most
cost effective approach for the City.
City Council approval and authorization to enter into such an
agreement is required if the City wishes to participate in this
"Regional Response Team".
Ho
Terms of the proposed Agreement define City and State responsibi-
lities, response procedures, line of authority, reimbursement
procedures, insurance and legal responsibilities and a termination
clause.
Members of Roanoke City Fire Department will continue to participate
in State-sponsored Level III Hazardous Materials training.
The City Attorney's Office has been involved in the development of
the proposed agreement between the City of Roanoke and the State
Department of Emergency Services.
III. ISSUES:
A. Level of Service
B. Funding
C. Liability
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement
with VDES for a "Regional Hazardous Materials Response Team" for one
year beginning July 1, 1991.
1. Level of Service will be maintained at a Level III response.
2. Funding -
State funding in the amount of $15,000 for proKram main-
tenance and up to $4~000 for required annual physicals for
team members is estimated in the Fiscal Year 1991-92.
Ail salaries, wages and expenses incurred during a VDES
authorized Level III response will be directly reimbursed
to the City. This includes all call back to maintain a
minimum staff for fire suppression.
Regional Hazardous Response Team Agreement
Page 3
Bo
3. Liability -
Commonwealth of Virginia will provide liability insurance
coveraKe for the Regional Response Teem, and will assume
responsibility for any and all foreseeable acts or omis-
sions arising out of or occurring during responses under
this agreement.
City of Roanoke personnel will be deemed to be agents of
the State during all Level III responses.
Co
The Comonwealth of Virginia will provide lesal representa-
tion for the City or its employees at no cost for any
legal matter resulting from a Regional Response Team
activity.
The Co~nonwealth of VirKinia will provide payment for
vehicle damaKe up to $1,000. If a third party is involved
in an accident, and is at fault, collection will be
attempted by City from the third party.
City Council not authorize the City Manager to enter into an agree-
ment with VDES for a "Regional Response Teem" and City provide Level
III only within its boundaries.
Level of Service would suffer as State assistance to maintain
this level would not be available locally and response to Level
III incidents would have to be provided by another Level III
teem which may be several hours away from Roanoke.
2. Fundin~
Level III must be funded entirely by City. Fiscal Year
1991-92 budget does not provide funds to maintain a Level
III response capability.
bo
City would not receive maintenance funding totaling
$15,000, reimbursement for cost of annual teem members
physicals, reimbursement of expenses incurred during
response, cost of medical monitoring for personnel, state
share of Workman's Compensation or training cost.
Liability - The City of Roanoke would not receive liability
insurance protection, legal representation and other advantages
which the Con~nonwealth will provide under the proposed Agreement.
City Council not authorize the City ManaKer to enter into an agree-
ment with VDES for a "Regional Response Teem" and provide Level II
response capability within its own boundaries.
Regional Hazardous Response Teem Agreement
Page 4
Level of Service would suffer as State assistance to maintain
this level would not be available locally and response to Level
III incidents would have to be provided by another Level III
team which may be several hours away from Roanoke.
2. Funding - City of Roanoke would have to fund all costs for
Level II.
Liability - Claims may be filed against the City for problems
arising out of Level III incidents within the City. The City
would not receive the liability insurance, legal representation
and other advantages which the Co~nonwealth will provide under
the proposed Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council concur with Alternative "A" and authorize the City
Manager to enter into an agreement with the Commonwealth of
Virginia, Department of Emergency Services to participate in a
Regional Hazardous Materials Response Teem for a period of one (1)
year beginning July 1, 1991 with the option to terminate upon thirty
(30) days written notice. This agreement shall be in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
WRH/WBR/cw
City Manager
pc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director, Administration and Public Safety
Emergency Services Manager
Fire Chief
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF E~n~KGENCY SERVICES
REGIONAL HAZARDOUS MA'£~KIALS INCIDENT RESPONSE TEAM
LEVEL III
*** MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT ***
LEVEL III HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY RESPONSE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of July 1, 1991,
by and between the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of
Emergency Services, hereinafter referred to as "VDES" and the
City of Roanoke, hereinafter referred to as "CITY".
WHEREAS, there exists within the Commonwealth of Virginia a
potential for serious accidents; and
WHEREAS, the public health, safety, and welfare may be
threatened as a result of these incidents involving hazardous
materials; and
WHEREAS, the Coordinator of the Virginia Department of
Emergency Services is authorized by Virginia Code Section
44-146.36 to enter into agreements with political subdivisions to
provide hazardous materials emergency response within a specific
geographical area of the Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke City has established a Hazardous Materials
Response Team, trained and equipped to safely operate at hazar-
dous materials incidents; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke City and VDES desire to enhance the Common-
wealth's program to protect the environment and the health,
safety, and welfare of the people of the Commonwealth from the
dangers and potential dangers of accidents and incidents involv-
ing hazardous materials by entering into a cost-sharing agreement
for Roanoke City to provide hazardous materials emergency
response a part of the Roanoke Valley Regional Response Team
- 1 -
within Roanoke City and selected
wealth of Virginia.
FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the
and agreements hereinafter set forth,
jurisdictions within the Common-
mutual promises, covenants
and pursuant to the Code of
Virginia, Section 44-146.36, VDES and CITY, with the intent to be
legally bound, enter into a Mutual Aid Agreement for CITY to
establish a REGIONAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT RESPONSE TEAM
in support of the Virginia Hazardous Materials Response Program.
This team will provide a Level III response to incidents
involving all hazards classes and containment/transportation
vehicles.
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT, the terms set forth below
shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly
requires otherwise:
I. DEFINITIONS:
A. Level III Response - Response to an incident
involving hazardous materials by CITY's Hazardous
Materials Team at the request of VDES or by
notification from CITY to VDES of a team response
to such an incident. Such response begins when
either VDES or CITY makes the required notification,
and terminates after cleanup is completed.
Level III Training - Training in hazardous materials
emergency response including, but not limited to,
chemistry of hazardous materials, technical decon-
tamination, operation of detection and monitoring
equipment, personnel protection and safety, leak
- 2 -
II.
intervention, radiological response, and team
organizations and functions. A consolidated course
of instruction entitled Hazardous Materials Techni-
cian may be substituted for the individual courses.
C. Hazardous Materials - Hazardous materials as defined
in Virginia Code Section 44-146.34.
Roanoke Regional Response Team - CITY's Fire Depart-
ment Hazardous Materials Response Team.
E. VDES HMO Haz Mat Officer representing interest of
Virginia Department of Emergency Services on re-
gional responses.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY:
A. CITY agrees to 'maintain Level III training profi-
ciency for all team members by having them take
refresher courses and participate in annual drills
or exercises developed or sponsored by VDES.
B. Roanoke City agrees to provide:
1. A group of 24 persons with Level III training.
2. Necessary response vehicles and equipment with
adequate garaging, storage, and maintenance
thereof, in accordance with reasonable safety
and operating standards.
3. Response to Level III haz mat incidents, at the
request of VDES, 24-hours per day, seven days
a week, within an assigned response area, with-
in 45 minutes of notification. See APPENDIX A
for response procedures.
- 3 -
4. Access to team equipment and to team training
records by the VDES Regional Hazardous Materials
Officer (HMO) during normal business hours, by
appointment only.
5. Records to VDES for previously conducted base-
line medical examinations for all team members
and leaders.
6. The cost of initial base line medical examina-
tions for all new regional team members.
7. To VDES within ten working days following the
close of an incident, an itemized written
statement of the expenses incurred for a Level
III response, including:
a. Salaries, wages, fringe benefit costs of
response expenses
personnel, and other
incurred during a response. Portal to portal
time, plus three hours per responder for
equipment cleanup are authorized. Wages and
fringe benefits for salaried personnel will
be paid at the following rates: firefighters
$14.00 per hour, officers $18.00 per hour.
Rates will be renegotiated when this
agreement term is concluded.
All salaries and wages associated with call
back personnel at the rate specified in 7.a.
above.
-4-
III.
De
c. Cost to repair and/or replace supplies and
equipment consumed or damaged during a
response, excludinq vehicles.
d. Total charges for hazardous materials response
vehicles. See APPENDIX B for equipment
rates.
CITY will maintain, with VDES financial assistance,
a minimum Level III
per CITY standards
guide.
CITY aqrees to comply
Virginia, Department of
response equipment inventory as
using APPENDIX C as a reference
with the Commonwealth of
Labor and Industry, requla-
tions for occupational safety and health as found in
Code of Federal Regulations 1910.120, Hazardous
Waste Operations and Emergency Response.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF VDES:
A. VDES shall request Level III response team assis-
tance in accordance with the procedures set forth in
APPENDIX A.
B. Provide funds required to complete and maintain the
minimum Level III inventory as specified by VDES in
APPENDIX B.
C. Reimburse directly to CITY Emergency Services all
eligible expenses incurred during a VDES authorized
Level III response, within 60 days following receipt
of an itemized statement of expenses. See APPENDIX D.
- 5 -
E.
F.
G.
Provide all required Level III training. If train-
ing is held outside Roanoke City, cost of travel and
per diem for each member will be paid.
Provide Workers' Compensation coverage for response
team members injured or who become ill during or as
a result of a Level III response in accordance with
the Workers' Compensation Act.
Provide a VDES HMO on scene at Level III responses
whether within or outside Roanoke City who will
provide technical advice and equipment and act as
liaison to the local agency requesting assistance if
outside Roanoke City.
Pay the cost of annual medical monitoring of team
personnel and all costs associated with examination
and treatment including, but not limited to,
hospital costs for illness or injury suspected or
being caused or actually caused by exposure to
hazardous materials as a result of Level III response
activities, following receipt of an itemized state-
ment of costs in accordance with the Workers'
Compensation Act.
Pay Roanoke City actual cost of damage, up to
$1,000, for each vehicle that is damaged as a result
of a VDES authorized response. This is the maximum
VDES will pay for any one vehicle, regardless of the
amount of damage. If a third party is involved in
an accident and is at fault, then collection will be
- 6 -
IV.
Ve
attempted by CITY from the third party before VDES
will reimburse.
VDES will accept an itemized bill, verified by the
VDES HMO, from the Level III jurisdiction and will
provide direct reimbursement. Internal VDES proce-
dures are established to insure that the verifica-
tion process is assured. The jurisdiction receiving
the Level III support (except if the incident
occurred within the regional team jurisdiction
reimbursement for response team members only) will
not receive any direct reimbursement for their
efforts. Approved costs will be included in the
financial recovery process authorized by the Code of
Virginia. The Level III costs will also be included
in the recovery process.
USE OF VDES FUNDS: All funds reimbursed to or passed
through CITY from VDES pursuant to this agreement shall
be used only to provide for hazardous materials response
program expenses, and shall not be used to supplant or
replace funds for any other program or activity.
REFUSAL TO RESPOND: CITY reserves the right to refuse to
respond to a VDES request for Level III response if
CITY's team is already committed to other emergency
activities, and/or if any one of the valley vehicles are
mat
of
out-of-service. CITY will notify VDES HMO if haz
vehicle will be out-of-service for extended periods
time.
-7-
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
RESPONSE AREA:
TERMINATION:
party upon
party.
AMENDMENTS:
Outlined in APPENDIX E.
This agreement may be terminated by either
30-days written notice thereof to the other
This agreement may be amended in writing and
by mutual agreement of all parties.
OWNERSHIP OF EQUIPMENT PURCHASED:
thing to the contrary contained
Notwithstanding any-
in this agreement,
equipment purchased during this agreement shall become
the property of CITY after this agreement terminates.
MUTUAL AID: This
existing mutual aid
effect by CITY.
LINE OF AUTHORITY:
this agreement, the
agreement shall not pre-exempt any
agreement (written or verbal) now in
If, at any time during the term of
Code of Virginia is changed in any
way to diminish or alter the authority of the local fire
chief at any hazardous materials incident, this agreement
shall be terminated.
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION: This agreement is subject to
annual appropriations by the City Council of CITY. In
addition, this agreement is subject to appropriations and
budget constraints authorized by the Virginia General
Assembly.
COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED: This contract will
allow VDES to pay CITY the sum of fifteen thousand
dollars ($15,000) on or before August 1, 1991. These
-8-
XIV.
XV.
XVII.
funds may be used for vehicle, equipment, supplies or
remaining expenses, as determined by CITY. In addition,
VDES agrees to pay CITY minimum of four thousand dollars
($4,000) for annual
bill from CITY.
LIABILITY INSURANCE:
physicals after receipt of itemized
The Commonwealth of Virginia shall
provide coverage for the Regional Response Team, for any
and all foreseeable acts or omissions arising from
responses under this agreement. There shall be no
recourse against CITY, the Roanoke City Fire Department
or any CITY employee.
VEHICLE DAMAGE COMPENSATION: In the event of a vehicle
accident involving CITY response vehicle(s), a total
amount up to $1,000 shall be charged to VDES as a part of
the response expense, if
insurance. This cost will be
authorized response regardless
occurs.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION: VDES agrees
such not covered by third party
accessed on all VDES
of where the accident
to pay all payments
necessary to bring response team members within the plan
created under Virginia Code Section 2.1-526.8 for
protection against liability for damages and the
provision of legal defense against claims for such
damages.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTB~K PARTIES: It is not intended by any
of the provisions of any part of this agreement to confer
a benefit upon any other person, or entity not a party to
XVIII.
this agreement or to authorize any person or entity not a
party to this agreement to maintain a suit pursuant to
the terms or provisions of this agreement, including,
without limitation, any
injuries, wrongful death,
profits or expenses.
DURATION OF CO~T~ACT:
beginning July 1, 1991,
claim or suit for personal
property damage, or loss of
This contract is to be in effect
and will expire June 30, 1992.
- 10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be
executed by the following duly authorized persons:
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF E~n~KGENCY SERVICES
BY:
TITLE: State Coordinator
DATE:
ROANOKE CITY
BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
- 11
APPENDIX A
~ESPONSE PROCEDURES
There are two basic scenarios for a Level III response requiring
a regional team: an incident outside the jurisdictions of a
regional response team, and an incident within their jurisdic-
tions. With these two possibilities, certain ground rules must
be applied before a state Level III response is authorized and,
subsequently, a regional response team dispatched and reimburse-
ment authorized. Response procedures are:
1. VDES is notified of the incident.
2. VDES HMO for the jurisdiction involved is contacted
and, in turn, contacts the calling party.
3. The VDES HMO, in coordination affected
jurisdiction, declares a Level III
with the
response.
4. VDES HMO responds along with the regional Level III
team.
For a Level III incident within a response team's home jurisdic-
tion, the notification process is the same as above. VDES will
respond with the team and treat the incident as a Level III
response.
I. LINE OF AU'r~ORITY:
A. When the Roanoke Valley Regional Response Team is
activated, the team will report to the local fire chief
or the chief's designee having jurisdiction.
The Roanoke Valley Regional Response Team Leader shall
maintain authority and control over the team members.
If, in the event there is a conflict in management
decisions between the local authority, or the VDES HMO
and the regional hazardous materials supervisor or the
local authority, or the VDES HMO initiates or fails to
initiate any action or decision that would jeopardize
the safety of the regional hazardous materials person-
nel or equipment, the regional team leader shall have
the authority to terminate the regional response and
return to their locality. There shall be no recourse
against the regional hazardous materials team leader,
II.
the regional hazardous materials
CITY.
STAGES OF P. ESPONSE:
team personnel, or to
Roanoke Regional Response Team Leader, along with VDES
HMO shall determine level of response.
III. ROANOKE VALLEY HAZ MAT REGIONAL RESPONSE (PLAN "A"):
A. The two teams comprising the Roanoke Valley Haz Mat
Response Team (City of Roanoke and City of Salem) will
respond personnel and equipment upon request from VDES.
B. CITY will respond five (5) responders, one (1) equip-
ment truck, and Command 4 or a haz mat team leader.
C. Salem City will respond five (5) responders, one (1)
equipment truck and Car 3 or a haz mat team leader.
D. This level of response is for the purpose of Level III
mitigation and assessment with a maximum level of
personnel. VDES Regional HMO will screen the call and
advise the Roanoke Valley Haz Mat Officer.
IV.
ROANOKE VALLEY HAZ MAT REGIONAL RESPONSE (PLAN "B" ):
A. The two teams comprising the Roanoke Valley
Haz Mat
Response Team will respond personnel and equipment upon
request from VDES.
B. CITY will respond the equipment van (5 breathing
apparatus with spares) with 5 persons and Command 4
(staff car) with 1 person.
C. Salem City will respond Car 3 (van) with 5 persons plus
team leader and HM1 (equipment vehicle).
BASIC CRITEKIA FOR THEPLAN "B" RESPONSE:
A. This level of response is for the purpose of assessment
and reconnaissance with a minimum of personnel. The
VDES HMO will screen the call and determine the appro-
priate level of response needed. The plan "B" response
can be upgraded to a plan "A" response. Plan "B"
response will be predetermined by the following situa-
Note:
tions:
1. Petroleum spills
2. Illegal disposal/unknown drums
3.
Plan "B"
Plan "B"
persons.
Assist state agency/agencies with investigations.
response is not limited to listings above.
response is limited to a maximum of twelve
A representative from the Roanoke Valley Team will be
available, upon request, to access a situation in the
absence of a Regional HMO.
APPRENDIX B
EQUIPMENT RATES
HAZ MAT TRUCK
$100 per day (minimum
charge per response)
PUMPER
$100 per day (minimum
charge per response
AUTOMOBILES,
PICKUPS, CRASH
TRUCKS, UTILITY, VEHICLES,
AMBULANCES, ETC.
$20 each per day plus
cost of fuel.
APPENDIX C
MINIMUM EQUIPM~ITT LIST FOR HAZAI~DOUS MA'rF_~/ALS RESPONSE
LEVEL II-E AND LEVEL III 'rm2~HS
REFF_/~ENCE
CHRIS Manual
Merck Index, llth Edition
Emergency Action Guides, Association of American
Railroads
Emergency Handling of Hazardous Materials in Surface
Transportation, Association of American Railroads, 1989
Fire Protection Guide on Hazardous Materials, NFPA,
10th Edition
MSDS's, (i.e. Genium Corporation)
DOT Emergency Response Guidebook, 1990
Farm Chemicals Handbook, Meister Publishing
Agricultural Chemical Series, Volume 1-4, Thomson,
Current Editions
NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards, 1987
Rapid Guide to Hazardous Chemicals in the Work Place,
Sax and Lewis, 3rd Edition
GATX Tank Car Manual, GATX, 5th Edition
Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary, Sax & Lewis,
llth Edition
Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and
Carcinogens, Sittig, 2nd Edition
Hazardous Chemical Desk Reference, Sax & Lewis, llth
Edition
TLV Guidebook, ACGIH, Current Edition
Guidelines for Selection of Chemical Protective
Clothing, ACGIH, 3rd Edition
Quick Selection Guide to Chemical Protective Clothing,
Forsberg
Matheson Gas Data Book, Matheson
Hazardous Materials Injuries, Stutz, 2nd Edition
Emergency Care for Hazardous Materials Exposure,
Bronstein, 1988
Effects of Exposure to Toxic Gases, First Aid,
Matheson, 2nd Edition
Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, Williams &
Wilkens, 5th Edition
Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, Williams &
Wilkens, 5th Edition
Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, Sax, 7th
Edition
- 1 -
Combustible Gas/O2/Toxic Gas Meter, 1 each
Combustible Gas Indicator (aspiration bulb type), 1
each
Colormetric Indicating Tube Kit with appropriate tubes
for identification of unknown compounds, 1 each, plus
the following tubes (1 box each)
ammonia, chlorine, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde,
hydrazine, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen sulfide,
methyl ethyl ketone, perchloroethylene, phosgene,
sulfuric acid, toluene, trichloroethylene, water
vapor, and any additional tubes deemed necessary
for your response area.
Photo-ionization detector (OPTIONAL)
pH paper, 2 each
Water Finding Test Pager, 2 each
Radiation Monitoring Equipment
- CDr-715 (gamma) Survey Meter, 1 each
- CDV-700 (beta/gamma) Survey Meter, 1 each
- Ludlum 14C (alpha/beta/gamma) Survey Meter, 1 each
- CDV-138 Pocket Dosimeter (0-200 mR), 8 each
- CDV-742 Pocket Dosimeter (0-200 R), 8 each
- CDV-750 Pocket Dosimeter Charger, 1 each
Pesticide Screening Kit, 1 each
PCB Test Kits:
- Clor-N-Soil, 2 each
- Clor-N-Oil 50, 2 each
- Clor-D-Tect 1000, 2 each
Leak Detectors (Soap Solution, Ammonium Hydroxide,
etc.)
SAMPLING EQUIPMENT:
Drum Thieves, 6 each
Coliwassa Tubes, 6 each
Scoops, 6 each
Trowels, 6 each
Sample Jars:
- 6 ounce wide mouth, with lids, 1 case
- 8 ounce wide mouth, with lids, 1 case
Glass pipettes with aspiration bulb, 6 each
Plastic pipettes, 6 each
Syringes, 10cc, 6 each
Tweezers, Plastic, 6 each
Squirt Bottle, small, 2 each
Squirt Bottle, large, 2 each
Distilled Water, 1 quart
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT:
SCBA, 60 minute, 8 each
SCBA spare cylinders, 8 each
Turnout gear, 8 complete sets
Butyl Encapsulating Suits, 4 each (OPTIONAL ELVEL II-E)
Viton Encapsulating Suits, 4 each (OPTIONAL LEVEL II-E)
Saranex Full Coverage Suits, 12 each
PVC Coveralls with hood, 12 each
Butyl Splash Suit, 4 each (OPTIONAL)
Saranex Coveralls with hood and booties, 12 each
Polyethylene Coated Tyvek Coveralls with hood and
booties, 12 each
Standard Tyvek Coveralls with hood and booties, 12 each
Viton Gloves, Heavyweight, 12 pair
Butyl Gloves, Heavyweight, 12 pair
Nitrile Gloves, Heavyweight, 12 pair
PVC Gloves, Heavyweight, 12 pair
Neoprene Gloves, Heavyweight, 12 pair
Natural Rubber Gloves, Heavyweight, 12 pair
Latex Gloves, Heavyweight, 12 pair
PVA Gloves, 6 pair
North Silver Shield Gloves, 1 pack
Latex Underglove, 1 box, 100 per box
Thermal Protective Gloves, 4 pair
Leather Work Gloves, 12 pair
PVC Boots, 12 pair
PVC/Nitrile Boots, 6 pair
Butyl Overboots, 8 pair
Latex Overboots, 12 pair
Vinyl Overboots, 12 pair
Saranex Overbooties, 24 pair
Splash Goggles, 6 pair
Shovels, round point, 2 each
Shovels, square point, 2 each
Shovels, scoop, non-sparking, 2 each
Pike pole, 8', 1 each
Pick-head Axe, t each
Flat-head Axe, 1 each
Haligan bar, 1 each
Street Brooms, 2 each
Plumber Wrench Chain Type, 1 each
Bolt Cutters, 36", 1 each
Bung Wrench, non-sparking, 1 each
Bung Wrench, standard, 1 each
Drum Upender, 1 each
Drum Truck, 1 each
Drum Sling, 1 each
Rotary Transfer Pump, petroleum t!rpe, 1 each
Drum pump, Acid Compatible, 1 each
Tool kit, standard, 1 each
Tool kit, non-sparking, 1 each
Wrecking Bar, 24", 1 each
Knife, common, 3 1/8" blade, 1 each
- 3 -
Knife, putty, 2" x 4", 1 each
Mallet, 4 pound, 1 each
Sledge harsher, 1 each
Floor squeegees, 2 each
Air Drill, 1 each
Hole Saws, 4", 3 each
Air Regulator for SCBA Cylinder,
Air Hose, 50', with connectors
Pipe Wrenches:
36", 1 each
24", 1 each
8" , 1 each
1 each
LEAK AND SPILL CON'r~OL E~UIPMENT:
Chlorine A Kit, 1 each
Chlorine B Kit, 1 each
Chlorine C Kit, 1 each,
Edwards/Cromwell repair
equipment
Edwards/Cromwell repair
equipment
Edwards/Cromwell repair
equipment
Edwards/Cromwell repair
equipment
(OPTIONAL LEVEL II-E)
kit, "A" - or equal assorted
kit, "B" - or equal assorted
kit, "C" - or equal assorted
kit, "D" - or equal assorted
Assorted Expoxy and Latex Sealants
Assorted Clamps, Plugs, and Patch items
Taper plugs, wooden, sizes 1" - 6", 1 each
Dome Clamps, 6 each
Filter Fence Components:
- Wire Screen (chicken wire), 3 rolls
- Fence Posts, 6', 18 each
- Utility Wire, 1 roll
Materials for underflow dams:
- PVC pipe, 4" x 3', 6 each
- PVC pipe, 6" x 3', 6 each
Absorbent Booms, 5 bales, 4 booms/bale
Absorbent Pads, 5 bales, 100 pads/bale
Particulate Absorbent, 10 bags
Clay type absorbent, 15 bags
Other absorbents as needed
Soda ash, 100 pounds
Plug 'n Dike, 5 gallon container, dry type,
equivalent
Lead wool
or
DECONTAMINATION EQUIPMENT:
Decon Shower
Traffic Cones, 10 each
Brushes, short handle, 6 each
Brushes, long handle, 6 each
5/8" Garden hose, 50' sections, 4
Polyethylene sheeting, 20' x 100',
each
1 roll
Garden hose nozzles, 4 each
Containment Pools, 12 each
5-gallon buckets, 5 each
32-gallon plastic bags, 24 each
1 1/2" NSFT female to 5/8" garden hose adaptor, 2 each
5/8" Pipe Thread Manifold, 1 each
5/8" Gated Wye, 2 each
20 lbs. TSP
20 lbs. Detergent
10 lbs. Sodium Bicarb
Additional Cleaning Solutions/Neutralizers as necessary
Hand Operated Diaphragm pump (i.e. Guzzler Pump) 1 each
SAFETY EQUIPMENT:
Trauma-type first aid kit, 1 each
Emergency eye wash, 1 each
Fire blankets, 2 each
Timer or Stopwatch, 1 each
Safety harness with retrieval ropes, 1 each
20 lb. ABC fire extinguisher, 1 each
Class "D" fire extinguisher, 1 each
Megaphone, 1 each
Handlights, explosive proof, 12 each
Portable lights, explosive proof, 4 each
Banner tape, 4 rolls
Copper grounding rods, 3/4" x 4' (minimum length) 3
each
Grounding Cables, point-type clamp one end, alligator
clamp one end, 1/8" stainless steel (uninsulated), 50'
minimum, 2 each
Bonding Cable, point-type clamps on both ends, 1/8"
stainless steel (uninsulated), 50' minimum, 1 each
Grounding and bonding cables for drums, 3 each
Okm Meter, with R x 1 setting
MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT:
Overpack Drums, quad pack, (85 gallon, 55 gallon,
gallon, 8 gallon), 2 sets
Poly Overpack Drums, 2 each
Plastic buckets, 5 gallon, with lids, 4 each
Assorted bung caps
Electric Cord Reels, 12/3 wire, 200'
Weather Kit:
Thermometer, 1 each
Anemometer, 1 each
Hygrometer, 1 each
Binoculars, 2 each
Camera, 35mm with flash, telephoto lens
Command vests, 8 each
Office supply kit (notepads, pencils, etc.)
30
CO~M~ICATIOI~ EQUIPM~T:
Multi-channel portables with chargers,
Vehicle mounted radios, as required
In-suit communication devices, 4 each,
II-E)
8 each
(OPTIONAL LEVEL
- 6
APPENDIX D
P~EIMBI/RSEMENT PROCEDURES
These procedures apply regardless of where the incident occurs in
Virginia. Level III jurisdictions will not be penalized if a
Level III response is required within their jurisdiction and,
therefore, will be reimbursed for the response.
Reimbursement procedures for regional Level III teams are:
1. Payment of salary and wages, expenses (meals, lodging, etc.)
for hazardous materials officers and technicians responding
from the Level III jurisdiction. Portal to portal time will
apply. A total of up to three hours per responder in-house
equipment cleanup time will be allowed for technicians
involved in the response and also costs associated with call
back personnel.
2. Payment for or resupply of expendable materials used during
the incident.
3. Payment for or replacement of nonexpendable items (suits,
air packs, etc.) damaged beyond economical repair. A
statement from CITY will be required documenting extent of
damage, to include length of time in use, and condition of
item at time of damage, which will indicate if item needs to
be repaired or replaced. This is not intended for proration
of equipment.
4. Payment for repair of nonexpendable items.
5. Payment of workers' compensation claims.
6. Payment for vehicle damage (up to $1,000) if the vehicle is
involved in an accident on a Level III response. If a third
party is involved in an accident and is at fault, then
collection will be attempted by CITY from the third
party before VDES will reimburse.
VDES will accept an itemized statement, with all responding
personnel listed, by name and hourly rate, plus all
equipment and vehicles used, verified by the VDES HMO, from
the Level III jurisdiction and will provide direct
reimbursement to the individual jurisdictions. Payment will
be made within 60-days after receipt of the verified bill at
the VDES Richmond office.
Internal VDES procedures are established to insure that the
verification process is assured. The jurisdiction receiving
Level III support (except if the incident occurred within
the regional team jurisdiction - reimbursement for response
team members only), will not receive any direct reimburse-
ment for their efforts.
the financial recovery
Virginia. The Level III
recovery process.
Approved costs will be included in
process authorized by the Code of
costs will also be included in the
For a Level III incident within a response team jurisdic-
tion, reimbursement procedures as listed above would apply,
along with the financial recovery process.
- 2 -
APPENDIX E
RESPONSE AREA FOR
ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL RESPONSE TEAM
Roanoke County
Roanoke City
Salem City
Franklin County
Alleghany County
Bath County
Henry County (West of Route 220)
Floyd County
Rockbridge County (South of 1-64/I-81 interchange)
Botetourt County
Campbell County
Bedford County
Bedford City
Patrick County
Craig County
Appomattox County
Vinton Town
Martinsville City
Covington City
Clifton Forge City
Lynchburg City
Buena Vista City
Montgomery County (East of 460 W to Blacksburg, East of
Route 8)
1-81 and
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue,$ W,Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy CiTy Clerk
File #265
Ms. Ellen Aiken
Clean Valley Council
P. O. Box 3320
Roanoke, Virginia 24015-1320
Dear Ms. Aiken:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30563-61791 designating the
Clean Valley Council, Inc., to develop a coordinated litter
control program for the entire Roanoke Valley and authorizing
such Council to apply for certain grant funds from the
Commonwealth of Virginia for operation of such program.
Resolution No. 30563-61791 was adopted by the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17,
1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP : ra
Enc .
pc:
Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, Roanoke County Administrator, P. O. Box
29800, Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
Mr. Randolph M. Smith, City Manager, City of Salem, P. O. Box
869, Salem, Virginia 24153
Mr. John B. Williamson, III, Botetourt County Administrator,
P. O. Box 279, Fincastle, Virginia 24090
Mr. George W. Nester, Town .Manager, Town of Vinton, 311 South
Pollard Street, Vinton, Virginia 24153
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
Ihe 17th 0ay 0f Ju,e, 1991.
No~ 30563-61791.
A RESOLUTION designating the Clean Valley Council, Inc., to
develop a coordinated litter control program for the entire
Roanoke Valley and authorizing such Council to apply for certain
grant funds from the Commonwealth for operation of such program.
WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke recognizes the existence of a
litter problem within the boundaries of this City;
WHEREAS, the Virginia Litter Control Act of 1976 provides,
through the Department of Waste Management, Division of Litter
Control and Recycling, for the allocation of public funds in the
form of grants for the purpose of enhancing local litter control
programs; and
WHEREAS, having reviewed and considered the regulations and
the application covering administration and use of said funds;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that:
1. The City Council endorses and supports such a program for
the City of Roanoke.
2. The City Council expresses its intent to combine with the
City of Salem, Town of Vinton, and Roanoke and Botetourt Counties
in a mutually agreed upon cooperative program contingent on appro-
val of the application by the Department of Waste Management,
Division of Litter Control and Recycling, and contingent upon
the receipt of funds.
3. Clean Valle½ Council, Inc., is authorized to plan and
budget for a cooperative litter control program, which shall
represent said program for all localities named in this resolu-
tion.
4. Such Council is authorized to apply on behalf of all of
the above-named localities for a grant and be responsible for the
administration, implementation and completion of the program.
5. This City accepts responsibility jointly with the Clean
Valley Council, Inc., and the City of Salem, Town of Vinton, and
Roanoke and Botetourt Counties for all phases of the program in
accordance with applicable regulations and the application.
6. This City accepts responsibility for its pro rata share
of any grant funds not properly used or accounted for pursuant to
the regulations and the application.
7. Said grant funds, when received, shall be transferred
immediately to Clean Valley Council, Inc., and all funds will be
used in the Cooperative Program to which Council gives its endor-
sement and support.
8. The Department of Waste Management, Division of Litter
Control and Recycling, is requested to consider and approve the
application and program, said program being in accord with regu-
lations governing use and expenditure of said funds.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
RECEIVED
CITY CLI[£'~$ OFFICE
dUN 12 P1:30
Roanoke, Virginia
June 17, 1991
Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
Subject:
Designation of the Clean Valley Council, Inc.,
as Recipient of Division of Litter Control and
Recycling Funds for the Year Beginning
July 1, 1991
I. Background:
Clean Valley Council~ Inc., was originated by the
governments in the Roanoke Valley to coordinate a
valley-wide litter control program.
State Krants are received by each locality and then
transferred to the Council.
Total of all five grants:
City of Roanoke
Roanoke County
City of Salem
Town of Vinton
Botetourt County
$ 7,291.00
6,331.00
2,734.00
1,472.00
3,547.00
Total $21,375.00
II. Current Situation:
Clean Valley Council~ Inc.~ generally submits a cooperative
grant application for the five localities.
Department of Waste Management, Division of Litter Control
and Recycling (Com~nonwealth of Virginia), requires a
resolution from each locality designating Clean Valley
Council, Inc., as recipient of the funds for the year
beginning July 1, 1991.
III. Issues:
A. Timing.
B. Income.
Mayor and Members of Council
Page 2
IV. Alternatives:
Ao
Adopt the attached resolution designating the Clean Valley
Council, Inc., as recipient of the Division of Litter
Control and Recycling grant for the City of Roanoke for the
year beginning July 1, 1991.
Timin~ will coincide with resolution from other area
localities.
2o
Incom~ to Clean Valley Council, Inc., from the City of
Roanoke grant will be $7,291.
Do not adopt the attached resolution designating the Clean
Valley Council, Inc., as recipient of the Division of Litter
Control and Recycling grant for the year beginning July i,
1991.
TiminK will be drastically affected, forcing a
restructuring of the Clean Valley Council, Inc., grant
application.
o
Income to Clean Valley Council, Inc., will not be an
issue.
V. Recommendation:
Roanoke City Council concur with Alternative "A" designating the
Clean Valley Council, Inc., as recipient of the Division of
Litter Control and Recycling Grant for the year beginning
July 1, 1991.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:WFC:pr
Attachment
CC:
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Ms. Ellen Aiken, Clean Valley Council, P.O. Box 3320,
Roanoke, Virginia 24015-1320
COMMONYYHALTH VIRQINIA
DEPARTMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
11th Floor, Monroe Building
101 N. 14th Street
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 225-2667
TDD (804) 371-8737
May 20, 1991
F Y25 91
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGERS, COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS,
TOWN MANAGERS/MAYORS, AUTHORITY AND P.D.C. DIRECTORS,
LITTER CONTROL MANAGERS, RECYCLING MANAGERS
R. Allan Lassiter, Jr., Director ~
Division of Litter Control and Recycling
1991-92 Grant Procedures; Related Items and Services
I am pleased to enclose a copy of t.h.e G~idelines for Litter
~ontro~ ~nd Recvclina Grants and t~e Application and Contract for
~ Viralnla Litter cOntrol and Recvclina G~ant for the upcom%ng
fiscal year. These annual, non-competitive, and non-matching
grants are available to every Virginia locality from revenue
derived from Virginia's litter taxes.
Numerous changes have been made to the ~ and
APplication and Contract. The enclosed~Shouldguide
applicants through the revised procedures.
Also included is a copy of the Fund Allocation under the
Virainia Waste Manaaement Act, which indicates the amount of funds
available to your locality. As was also the case last year, due
to budget cuts, the grant amounts reflect a 10% across-the-board
reduction from previous grant amounts.
There are several other grant-related notes:
1)
Your ~erformance and Accountino Report (DLCR-3 - copy
enclosed) for the current grant (1990-91) must be
completed and returned to us on or Before July 20. 1991.
We cannot process your newgrant until we receive your
completed report. This report may be submitted earlier
if all grant work is completed.
Page Two
2)
Applications will be accepted from May 31 to October 31;
none will be accepted after October 31. The sooner you
submit an application, the sooner funds will be sent to
you.
3)
The application must include a line item budget,
following the format given in the ~. Also
needed is a Resolution adopted by the local governing
body approving the application and specifying the
locality official to sign the Application. Failure to
include these items will significantly delay the receipt
of funds.
4)
This year, the Clean Virginia Awards will be based on the
information in the Performance and Accountin~ Report, so
no separate Application (usually due on July 31) will be
needed. The award process will remain the same.
If you have any questions concerning these grant procedures,
please contact Walter Gust, our Environmental Program Manager, at
(804) 786-8679.
Other Litter Control and Recvclin~ Matters
1. Solid Waste Plans
These comprehensive plans, including activities to reach the
mandated recycling levels (10% this year, 15% in 1993, and 25% by
1995), are due on July 1. 199]. Questions concerning the plan
submission should be addressed to Janice Carter Love-joy at (804)
225-3019.
2. Great American Trash-Off Day
June 1 has been designated Trash-Off Day to focus attention
on the need to clean the environment of litter. Governor Wilder
has issued a Proclamation recognizing the importance of this event
in which 42 other states are participating. The event coordinator,
the Virginia Department of Transportation, sent details in an April
8 memorandum to you. Those people already participating are
encouraged to clean up their Adopt-a-Highway or Adopt-a-Spot
locations that day, while new volunteers will be solicited for new
"Spots" or "Highways." Clean the Bay Day, Inc., will also sponsor
a Bay/Ocean/River cleanup on June 1. For more information on
litter activities, call your local litter control manager or the
Department of Waste Management 1-800-KEEP-ITT.
Page Three
3. Material Order Forms
The Department of Waste Management (DWM) has developed the
enclosed order forms for both our publicity materials (items 100
to 626) and our planning and support materials (items 700 to 817).
To order, the forms need only be completed and mailed to our
Richmond address.
4. Draft ComDostina and Recvclina Tax Exemption Re~ul&tions
DWM is developing regulations for yard waste composting
facilities and locality tax exemption for recycling equipment.
Public Hearings on the tax credits will be held on June 17 in
Hampton, June 19 in Manassas, July 22 in Chesterfield, and July 24
&~ Virginia T~; compost Public Hearings will be held concurren~
with the two July hearings. Since both topics involve locality
powers and duties, I recommend that you get a copy of the draft
regulations and participate in the public meetings or provide
written comments. Call us at (804) 371-0044 for more details.
5. Recvclin~ Markets
If your program needs new or better markets for your collected
recyclables, or if you want to add new items, DWM's markets data
base may be very helpful. The data base contains over 430
companies or brokerages which currently accept materials in bulk
quantities. Listed are both in-state and out-of-state firms
currently serving one or more Virginia localities. Call DWM at
(804) 371-0044 for information from the data base.
6. Upcomin~ Conferences
Localities should note a conference to be held in Richmond on
July 17-18 at the Radisson Hotel. The Virginia Innovation Group
(VIG), which provides several services to Virginia localities, is
sponsoring a seminar entitled "Innovative Recycling Trends." Call
VIG at (804) 780-4526 for conference information.
A new organization, the Virginia Recycling Association (VRA),
plans to hold an autumn or winter meeting. Members will be
notified.
7. DWM Annual Coordinator's Conference
Due to continued state budget shortfalls, this annual
conference will not be held this year. DWM plans to include both
recycling and litter control sessions in the annual Virginia Waste
Management Conference, held each April in Richmond. We encourage
participation in these alternate events.
Page Four
8. ADOPT Litter Control Proarams
Public involvement in these programs grows each day. To make
the Adopt-a-Spot program more versatile, we have developed Adopt-
a-Street signs which should be useful to cities and towns not
served by VDOT's Adopt-a-Highway program. For more information on
adopting streets or spots, call DWM at (804) 786-8679.
If you have questions on any of these programs, please call
us. Good luck with your litter control and recycling efforts.
RAL/jw
Enclosures
DEPARTMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
Summary of Chanaes for 1991-92
Litter Control and Recvclina Grants
A. Guidelines for Litter Control and Recvclin~ Grants
This document replaces our previous Regulations entitled
Reaulations Governin~ ADDlication For and Use of Grant Funds to
Localities Under the Virainia Waste Management Act. While the
format has changed significantly, the "guidance" remains basically
the same.
Please note the following:
*Section 1 - The grant must involve at least two elements of
a litter control program and may include recycling, source
reduction, reuse, and procurement of recycled goods.
*Section 2 - Applications must be submitted by October 31.
*Sections 4 and 5 - The sections on authorized and
unauthorized uses of grant funds are more specific. Note
changes in out-of-state travel and award events.
B. Application and Contract for a Virginia Litter Control and
Recvclin~ Grant
Please note the following:
*Article 2 Each Applicant needs to specify both a litter
control program manager and a recycling program manager. Of
course, these can be the same person, and they don't have to
be locality employees, as is often the case with litter
control managers.
*Article 4 - The proposed program description has been
changed, after initial fill-in-the-blanks, to a check list of
activities to be undertaken. Any activities not specifically
listed should be specified under "Other" at the end of each
section.
*Article 6 - A budget format is provided.
Annual Performance and Accounting Report and Clean Virginia
Awards
As usual, this report will be due by July 20. In addition,
the information provided will be used as the basis of judging the
Clean Virginia Awards; that is, no separate aDplicatio~ for these
awards is needed. Localities not wishing to participate may
indicate so on the P & A Report, Section 9.
DWM 5/15/91
Page 1 of 6
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
GUIDELINES FOR LITTER CONTROL AND RECYCLING GRANTS
The 1976 General Assembly enacted the Virginia Litter Control
Act which provided litter control taxes for a state-developed plan
of education, control, prevention, and elimination of litter.
By legislation, revenues generated by these taxes were used
to create the Division of Litter Control with the requirement that
at least 50 percent of these funds be allocated to Virginia local
governments each year for litter control grants. In 1987, the
Division's responsibilities, as well as the use of the grant funds,
were expanded to include recycling. In 1989, the General Assembly
made recycling mandatory for all Virginia localities by 1991.
These funds are available as non-competitive formula grants
based on population and road miles. Grant Applications (Form DLCR-
1) may be submitted between May 31 and October 31 of each year.
These grants are provided by funds generated by taxes enacted
under Section 58.1-1700 to 58.1-1710 of the o V' ' ' and
through authority granted to the Department of Waste Management
under Section 10.1-1422 of the C d V' ' ' . These guidelines
supersede all previous regulations and guidelines relating to these
grant funds.
Virginia Department of Waste Management
llth Floor, Monroe Building
101 North Fourteenth Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 786-8679
TDD 804 371-8737
April 30, 1991
Page 2 of 6
Section 1.
Elioibility
a. Ail cities, counties, or incorporated towns in Virginia
are eligible.
An eligible program must involve at least two elements of
a comprehensive program. The elements of a comprehensive
program are: 1) planning and organization, 2) public
communications, 3) classroom education,
4) litter cleanups, 5) law enforcement, and 6) recycling.
Cw
An eligible program may involve any of the non-disposal
elements of waste management (source reduction, reuse, and
recycling) in the locality's Solid Waste Management Plan,
submitted by the locality in accordance with the
Reaulations for Development of Solid Waste Plans VR 672
50-01. Procurement of recycled goods may also be
included.
Section 2. Grant ADDlication Procedures
ApplicatiOns must be completed and submitted to the
Department of Waste Management (hereinafter "Department")
postmarked not later than October 31 of each year.
Localities may apply singly or as a- participant in a
Cooperative Program. A Cooperative Program consists of
two or more localities joining together and combining
grant funds to implement one program. One Application is
submitted for the Cooperative Program by one of the
participating localities or any public or private agency
designated to serve as the Cooperative Coordinating
Agency. Each participating locality shall provide a
resolution supporting the program and authorizing the
Coordinating Agency to act on its behalf.
c. Single LocalityApplicants. The Application must include
the following:
1) Application form DLCR-1.
2) Line item budget (as outlined in the
Application).
3) Resolution by the governing body supporting the
program and requesting the grant (see attached
sample).
(4) Signature of the County Administrator, City
Manager, or Town Official designated in the
resolution.
Page 3 of 6
de
Section 3.
a.
Cooperative Program Applicants.
include the following:
The Application must
(1) Application form DLCR-1A for a Cooperative
Program.
(2) Line item budget for the full Grant amount of
the Cooperative Program (as outlined in the
Application).
(3) Concurring resolutions adopted by the governing
bodies of each participating locality.
Each resolution shall include the following
terms (see attached sample):
(a)
State the locality's intent to enter into
a cooperative program with other named
localities.
(b)
Name and authorize one participating
locality, Planning District .Commission,
or other organization, referred to as the
"Coordinating Agency," to submit the
Application to the Department and to
accept the responsibility for the
administration, implementation, and
completion of the program.
(c)
Agree that all Grant funds received by the
locality will be delivered immediately
upon receipt to the Coordinating Agency.
If coordinated by a Planning District
Commission, the Department will send funds
directly to the Commission.
(d)
Accept responsibility jointly with other
localities and the Coordinating Agency for
all phases of the program in accordance
with these Guidelines and the Application
and Contract.
(4)
Signature of the City Manager, County
Administrator, Town official, or Executive
Director of the Coordinating Agency.
Fundina Procedures
The Applicant will be notified by a written Notice of
Approval or Disapproval within 30 days of receipt by the
Department. If an Application is not approved, the
Applicant will be notified as to the reason(s) for
disapproval and allowed 45 days starting from the date of
Notice of Disapproval to revise the Application and re-
submit it to the Department. No Applications will be
accepted after October 31 of each year.
Page 4 of 6
The amount of the Grant shall be stated on the Notice of
Approval form DLCR-2 sent directly to each locality (or
to a Planning District Commission if it serves as the
Coordinating Agency). Funds should be received within
three weeks after receipt of the Notice. Funds will be
disbursed as follows:
(1) Single locality applicants receive funds directly.
(2)
For Cooperative Program participants, funds are sent
to the individual localities; except when a Planning
District Commission is the Coordinating Agency, the
funds are sent directly to the Commission.
The Grant Period runs from July 1 to June 30 of the
following year.
Any unexpended funds at the end of the Grant Period will
be handled as follows:
(1)
Provided the locality applies for a subsequent Grant
and the Department approves the Grant application,
the unexpended funds will be netted against the
amount of the new Grant. In other words, the
locality may keep the unexpended balance, but that
balance will be deducted from the new Grant
allocation.
(2)
If the locality does not apply for a Grant for the
following Grant Period, unexpended funds will be
returned to the Department.
Section 4.
Authorized Uses of Funds
ae
Funds shall be used for litter control and recycling
program implementation, continuation, and/or expansion.
However, the funds shall not be used to replace local
funds currently budgeted, or replace funds being used to
maintain and operate a local litter control or recycling
program.
b. Authorized uses of the Grant funds include:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Salaries, wages, or other personnel costs.
office supplies, postage, telephone.
Print and program materials.
Travel expenses within Program area and for
Department, sponsored functions; no out-of-state
travel shall be charged to this Grant.
Locally conducted meetings, workshops, and awards.
Audiovisual material on litter or recycling.
Page 5 of 6
(7)
(9)
(10)
Equipment such as: educational, litter receptacles,
recycling, source reduction and reuse equipment,
photometric index as developed by KAB, audiovisual,
safety, and the renting of such equipment.
Award materials.
Cleanup supplies.
Annual dues for solid waste related associations.
Section 5.
Unauthorized Uses of Grant Funds
Grant funds shall not be used for the following:
ao
Meals associated with award events. Applicants are
encouraged to use other sources of funds for such
purposes.
b. Purchase of mass media time or space.
c. Promoting or enforcing legislation or ordinances targeted
to specific litter items or recyclable items.
d. Professional production of films or other audiovisual
materials.
e. For any project, promotional program or item not directly
related to litter control or recycling, including:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Beautification projects, landscaping, purchase of
trees or shrubs, or lawn services.
Purchase of equipment for lawn maintenance, or for
collection, transportation, and disposal of solid
waste.
Office space, furniture, equipment, decoration
and/or renovation.
f. Consultant fees.
g. Any expenditure not related to litter prevention or
elimination, or recycling.
Section 6.
General Accountability
The Applicant shall keep accounting records for the Grant
funds. A Performance and Accounting Report form DLCR-3
shall be sent to the Department by July 20 of each year.
The report shall include:
(1
(2
(3
(4
An accounting of Grant expenditures by line item.
Copies of receipts for equipment purchases,
including model and serial numbers.
Summary of progress in achieving goals and
objectives stated in the Application.
Any other information necessary to explain program
accomplishments.
Page 6 of 6
Each single locality Applicant shall be responsible for
submitting Performance and Accounting reports for their
program, whereas the Coordinating Agency shall be
responsible for such reports on behalf of the localities
in a Cooperative Program.
Subsequent Grants shall not be approved until the
Performance and Accounting Reports for the current program
year are received by the Department.
~ection 7.
E~uiDment Accountability
Equipment specified in Section 4.b.(7), which is purchased in
whole or in part with Grant funds, shall be used only for the
purpose stated in the Application.
Section 8.
Return of Grant Funds
Funds not used or accounted for in compliance with these
Guidelines and the Application shall be returned by the Applicant
to the Department. A locality participating in a Cooperative
Program shall be liable for its ~ share of the total
liability.
Section 9. Ouestions
Questions concerning any of these Guidelines, the Application,
and the Performance and Accounting Reports must be submitted to the
Director, Division of Litter Control and Recycling in writing.
DLCR-1
Page 1 of 7
(This cover page for all except Cooperative Programs)
APPLICATION AND CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR A
VIRGINIA LITTER CONTROL AND RECYCLING GRANT
BETWEEN
CITY
THE COUNTY OF
TOWN
Article 1.
Article 2.
AND
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
This Application for Grant funds and Grant contract
(hereinafter referred to as the "Application") is
made and entered into by mutual agreement between:
THE LOCALITY OF
(hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") and the
DEPARTMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT, (hereinafter
referred to as the "Department'''.
The Applicant's address
Telephone Number
Identify each of the following positions in
Applicant's program: (If the same person occupies
both positions, write "SAME" in second space. If
one of the positions is not occupied, write "NONE"
in that space.)
Litter Control Program Manager
Name and Title
Recycling Program Manager
Name and Title
DLCR-1A
THE LOCALITIES
Page
(This cover page for CQoDerative Proarams only)
APPLICATION AND CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR A
VIRGINIA LITTER CONTROL AND RECYCLING GRANT
BETWEEN
OF
1 of 7
THE COORDINATING AGENCY
AND
Article 1.
AND
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
The Application for Grant funds and Grant contract,
(hereinafter referred to as the "Application") is
made and entered into by mutual agreement between
THE LOCALITIES OF:
and THE COORDINATING AGENCY
Article 2.
(hereinafter referred to as "Applicant") and the
Department of Waste Management (hereinafter referred
to as the "Department").
The Coordinating Agency's address is
Telephone Number
Identify each of the following positions in
Applicant's program: (If the same person occupies
both positions, write "SAME" in second space. If
one of the positions is not occupied, write "NONE"
in that space.)
Litter Control Program Manager
Name and Title
Recycling Program Manager
Name and Title
Article 3.
Article 4.
Page 2 of 7
It is agreed that:
ae
Grant funds (hereinafter referred to as "Grant") will be
used in accordance with the Guidelines for Litter Control
and Recycling Grants, Department of Waste Management,
April 30, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "Guidelines").
Be
A copy of a resolution approving this Application, made
by the governing body of the Applicant, and a line item
budget for the Applicant's proposed Litter Control and
Recycling Program are attached and become part of this
Application.
The Grant amount and other conditions will be stated on
the Notice of Approval form DLCR-2. A check for the
Grant amount should be received within 30 days of the
date of Notice of Approval.
The Grant period during which this Grant is in effect
will be from July 1 through June 30.
The Department reserves the right to withdraw or require
a refund for all, or part, of the Grant pending
satisfactory completion of the Program and all
administrative requirements as stated in the Guidelines
and in the Application. Failure to commence Program
activities within 90 days of Notice of Approval may
result in cancellation of the Grant by the Department.
The Department and/or the Auditor of Public Accounts
reserve the right to conduct an on-site inspection and/or
audit of Applicant's records of the Program during and/or
after its completion.
The information under this Article represents the Applicant's
plan for the expenditure of the Grant for a litter control
and/or recycling program (hereinafter referred to as
"Program").
A. Description of the Program
B. Objectives of the Program
Implementation Plan and how
measured
Page 3 of 7
Accomplishments will ~be
Program elements to be undertaken in this Program include
(check all that apply):
Yes No
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Planning and Organization
Public Communications
Classroom Education
Cleanup
Law Enforcement
Recycling
If yes on recycling (#6), is this element consistent
with, or a part of, the plan submitted by the locality
under ReGulations for Development of Solid Waste Plans
VR 672 50-017 Yes No If yes, provide the date
submitted to Department
If no, Grant funds cannot be used for this element.
Program Specifics
1. PlanninQ and OrGanization
Program activities will include (check all that apply):
~es
No
( )
(
(
Use of the Virainia Plan - A Model
p~oaram to Prevent LitterinQ
KAB,s Program Manual for organizing a
program.
Other (Specify)
None
Committees and Subcommittees (check the
type):
Executive
Public Communications
Classroom Education
Cleanup
Law Enforcement
Recycling
Other (specify)
Page 4 of 7
Community litter and/or opinion survey
Other (specify)
2. Public Communications
Program activities will include
Yes No
(
(check all that apply):
Printed materials furnished by the
Department
Printed materials developed with the Grant
Print media (donated space or paid by
other sources)
Electronic media (donated space or paid
by other sources)
Group presentations
Exhibits
Other (specify)
3. Classroom Education
Program activities will include (check all that apply):
Yes No
Using Operation Waste Watch (OWW) in
elementary schools
Using the New 3Rs in secondary schools
Using Litter Is A Monster in Driver
Education classes
Ecology Clubs
Other (specify)
Page 5 of 7
4. Cleanups
Program activities will include (check all
Yes
that apply):
No
Adopt-a-Spot through Department,
Applicant must serve as program manager
Adopt-a-Street through Department,
Applicant must serve as program manager
Adopt-a-Highway, coordinated with VDOT
Resident Engineer
Neighborhood cleanups
Purchase of trash receptacles
Indiscriminate dumps cleaned up
Removal of inoperative vehicles
Waterway cleanups (lakes, rivers, etc.)
Other (specify)
Does your locality provide street sweeping or
cleaning services (even though funded from other
sources)? __yes __no
Program activities will include
Yes
(
(
(check all that
apply):
Report-a-Vehicle cards distributed
Police enforcement (warnings, citations,
convictions)
Enact or amend litter control or recycling
ordinances
Other (specify)
Page 6 of 7
will include (check all that
Recvclinc
Program activities
apply):
Yes No
( ) ( ) Buying and using recycled paper
( ) (
) Buying other goods with recycled content
If yes, specify
( ) ( ) Private collection centers
( ) ( ) Public collection centers
( ) ( ) Residential curbside collection
( ) ( ) Services for commercial and industrial
(i.e., all non-residential solid waste
generators)
( ) Other(specify)
Article 5.
The Applicant understands that this Grant is dependent upon
the availability of funds under Chapter 14, Title 10.1.
Section 10.1-1422, Paragraph 9. In the event that these Grant
funds are diminished by administrative or legislative action,
the Applicant understands that the Department will adjust said
funds in accordance with such action.
Article 6.
Applicant shall provide a line item budget; see Page 7 of this
Application.
I certify that the enclosed information is correct and agree to the terms and
conditions container herein.
Applicant's Signature
Name and Title
Date
(In Cooperative Programs, the Coordinating Agency shall sign for itself and
on behalf of all participating localities.)
LITTER CONTROL AND RECYCLING
GRANT BUDGET*
Item
Salary & Wages $
Fringe Benefits $
Office Supplies $
Postage $
Telephone $
Program Materials (Specify):
Amount
Page 7 of 7
Program Functions & Travel (Specify):
Equipment (Specify Type and Purpose):
Other (Specify)
$
TOTAL $
* NOTE: Once approved, funds may be shifted among line items, burl
new line items cannot be added without prior approval by the
Department.
SAMPLE RESOLUTION
(For all except cooperative programs)
Whereas the Virginia Waste Management Act provides for the
allocation of public funds for the purpose of enhancing litter
control and recycling activities; and
Whereas these funds are provided through the Virginia
Department of Waste Management to virginia localities by annual
grants; and
Whereas having reviewed and accepted the Guidelines (Form
DLCR-1) for use of said funds;
Be it resolved that the (governing body)
indicated in the attached Application (Form DLCR-2); and
as
Hereby authorizes (chief executive officer or other official]
to plan, budget, and apply for a grant.
Adopted on:
(Date)
(Signature
(Title)
SAMPLE RESOLUTION
(For cooperative programs only)
Whereas the Virginia Waste Management Act provides for the
allocation of public funds for the purpose of enhancing litter
control and recycling activities; and
Whereas these funds are provided through the Virginia
Department of Waste Management to Virginia localities by annual
grants; and
Whereas having reviewed and accepted the Guidelines (Form
DLCR-1) for use of said funds;
Be it resolved that the
(aovernina bodv%
Hereby endorses such a program for
and
[localitv] ;
Hereby expresses the intent to combine with
~names of other localities~ in a mutually agreed upon
Cooperative Program; and
Hereby authorizes (coordinatina oraanization~
to apply on behalf of the above named Locality for a grant, and to
be responsible for the administration and implementation of the
Program as described in the attached Application (Form DLCR-2); and
That said funds, when received, will be transfered immediately
to the Coordinating Organization; or if coordinated by a Planning
District Commission, funds will be sent directly to said Commission
by the Department.
Adopted on:
(Date)
(Signature)
(Title)
DLCR-3 Page 1 of 8
DEPARTMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTING REPORTS FOR
CITY:
or
COUNTY:
or
TOWN:
COVERING THE LITTER CONTROL AND RECYCLING PROGRAM COMPLETED
UNDER A GRANT AUTHORIZED UNDER
CHAPTER 14, TITLE 10.1, SECTION 10.1-1422(9) CODE OF VIRGINIA
FOR PROGRAM YEAR JULY 1, 19__
THROUGH JUNE 30, 19__
GENERAL
This form was developed to assist the locality and the
Department to compile, report, and assimilate litter control and
recycling program accomplishments. (For more information on
performance and accounting reports, see Sections 6. and 7. of the
Guidelines governing these grants.)
Report performance and accounting for this July 1 to June 30
program year only.
If the exact performance data requested is not available, give
your best estimate. A primary intent of this report is to
evaluate the grants program and to provide the basis for
annual awards presentations. Local programs are considered
either93~_q~ or ~. Eligible programs contain
at least two program elements and comprehensive programs
contain five or more program elements. (See Section 1. b. of
the Guidelines for explanation of program elements.)
The Performance Report is divided into eight sections.
Complete only those sections which apply to your program. If
a question does not pertain to your program, leave it blank.
(1) PERFORMANCE AND (2) ACCOUNTING REPORTS are reauired of
each locality which receives a grant. For those localities
in cooperative programs, the coordinating organization must
complete and submit the report for all participating
localities. (See Section 2. d. of the Guidelines.)
Please read instructions for accounting report (page 7) before
filling out the accounting report.
Call the Environmental Program Coordinator responsible for
grants at 804-786-8679, if you have any questions.
DLCR-3
(1) PERFORMANCE REPORT
Page 2 of 8
Section I.
Hours Spent and SUPPort Given the Litter Control and
Recvclina Proaram
ae
Give best estimate of number of hours worked by paid
personnel, paid with grant funds or other funds, and
volunteers. Remember to include time spent by coordinator,
other paid personnel, and volunteers in planning,
organization, development, meetings, cleanup, writing, talking
to contacts, presentations, law enforcement, and other
activities. (Include "adopt" program participants under B.
2. Cleanup.)
Individuals who volunteer services for a group (organization),
even though that group receives money for services, are
considered "volunteers." Individuals who receive payment for
services are "paid personnel."
Total Hours
Coordinator 2.
Other Paid Personnel 3.
Volunteer
Please provide an estimated breakdown of the above total hours
by the categories listed below: (Total of 1. & 2. above should
equal total of first column. Total of 3. above should equal
total of second column.)
COORDINATOR &
OTHER PAID PERSONNEL
VOLUNTEER
1. ADMINISTRATION
2. COMMUNICATIONS
3. EDUCATION
(Children & Youth)
4. CLEANUPS
5. LAW ENFORCEMENT
6. RECYCLING
7. OTHER (list)
C. Total Number of Volunteers (Best Estimate% Assisting. Please
give the grand total number of volunteers assisting your program
in planning and organizing, cleanup, communications, education, law
enforcement, recycling and any other areas (include adults,
children, and youth; as well as commission and committee members).
1. Litter Control ~. Recycling
DLCR-3 Page 3 of 8
D. Total Estimated Dollar Value of Other SUDDOrt for the Litter
Control and Recvclina Proaram. Please give your best estimate of
the total value of other support given by the local government and
the private sector. Include in-kind services and/or contributions
as well as cash donations. DO NOT REPORT REGULARLY BUDGETED STREET
CLEANING AND SIMILAR ACTIVITIES.
1. $. Litter Control 2. $ Recycling
Section II. Public communications
Report accomplishments in communications and
information or public relations activities only.
include school activities.)
public
(Do not
Total Number
informational brochures, pamphlets, newsletters, or
other printed materials distributed.
news releases to local newspapers.
articles in newspapers covering or resulting from
your program.
column inches of newspapers articles.
photos in newspapers.
Public Service Announcements your program delivered
or sent to radio stations (include those produced
by you, DLC&R, and others.)
PSAs your program delivered or sent to television
stations (Include those produced by you, DLC&R, and
others.)
Hr.
Min.
(estimate) of radio PSA usage (PSAs generated,
distributed, or promoted by your program, and
interview air time.)
Min.
(estimate) of TV PSA usage (PSAs generated,
distributed, or promoted by your program, and
interview air time.)
group presentations made (Do not include school
activities.)
10.
persons in attendance for 10. above (Do not include
school activities.)
11.
person(s) viewing
participating in
event(s).
program exhibits, booths and/or
program activity at community
DLCR-3
Section III. Classroom Education
Page 4 of 8
Please report only the accomplishments related to the
children and youth education Droaram on litter control
and recycling. School projects involving cleanups and
recvclina activities should be reported in sections I,
II and VI of this report.
Children and youth who received printed or audio-visual
information from coordinator or volunteer(s).
a. litter control b.
In-person presentations given for children
coordinator or volunteer(s).
a. litter control b.
3. Children and youth receiving presentations
a.
4.
recycling
and youth by
recycling
in number 2.
recycling
youth involved in:
litter control b.
total number of children or
(Total of a. through f. should equal total of #4.)
Cleanup Campus Contest(s)
Litter Control Essay Contest(s) or Program(s)
Litter Control Poster Contest(s) or Program(s)
Recycling Essay Contest(s)
Recycling Poster Contest(s)
Other(s) (List)
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
schools in jurisdiction.
schools which have Operation Waste Watch.
schools which have DLC&R Drivers' Ed.
schools which have DLC&R New 3 Rs.
ecology clubs.
Adopt-a-Spot groups affiliated with schools.
DLCR-3
section
Total Number
1.
NOTE:
Be
6e
10.
11.
12.
Page 5 of 8
Cleanups
Report only those accomplishments which are related
to cleanup activities as a result of your program.
(Do not report regularly budgeted street and
roadside cleanup.)
cubic yards of litter removed in all cleanup
activities.
Six (6) thirty (30) gallon garbage bags contain
approximately one (1) cubic yard of litter. One (1)
eight (8) foot pickup bed, filled to the top of the
body only, contains approximately 2 1/2 cubic yards
of litter.
miles of roads, highways, streets, beach, and trails
cleaned.
vacant lots or special areas cleaned.
school yards and campuses cleaned.
indiscriminate dumps cleaned or eliminated.
trash receptacles purchased.
abandoned or inoperative vehicles removed.
waterway cleanups (lakes, rivers, streams, bay)
Adopt-a-Spot program groups.
Adopt-a-Street program groups.
Adopt-a-Highway program groups.
Other (Specify)
Section V.
w o c e (For litter control)
The following agencies are involved in local litter
control law enforcement:
DLCR-3 Page 6 of 8
written or verbal warnings given.
citations written.
court convictions.
Report-a-Vehicle cards distributed.
Section VI.
1o
2.
3.
4.
5.
Recvclina
Report all materials (best estimate)
a result of your local program.
of projects 6.
of schools involved 7.
pounds of aluminum 8.
pounds of other metals 9.
pounds of glass
collected as
pounds of paper
pounds of cardboard
pounds of plastic
pounds of other, list
~ Other Accomplishments
Add a separate page identified as Section VII to list other program
accomplishments not covered by this report and/or to elaborate on
previous sections.
State the extent to which program objectives, as stated in Article
4, Section B of your grant application, were met by estimating a
percentage rate of success %.
Should this Performance Report also be
application for the "Clean Virginia Awards?"
considered as your
Yes No
DLCR-3 Page 7 of 8
(2) ACCOUNTING REPORT INSTRUCTIONS
1. Type in name of city, county, or town.
Account for all grant funds only. (See Section 6. and 7. of
the Guidelines).
Under LINE ITEM list those submitted with your original grant
application.
Under AS BUDGETED IN GRANT use original line item estimated
budget figures. Please place total in the appropriate space
at the bottom of column.
Under AMOUNT SPENT
item. Please place
bottom of column.
indicate actual dollars spent per line
total in the appropriate space at the
6. RECEIPTS ARE REQUIRED FOR NON-EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT ONLY:
We do not need copies of checks, receipts for trash bags, etc.
Your finance department should maintain all receipts and other
pertinent data for possible audit.
The Chief Government Administrator (i.e. county administrator,
city manager, town manager, or clerk) authorized to do so must
sign the report, with title and date.
This accounting report combined with the performance report
is due in the Department by July 20.
PLEASE ATTACH AN EXTRA SHEET OR PAPER to explain or comment
on hours and wages of coordinator or other items. (Do not
write comments or explanations or accounting report.)
10. Call Environmental Proaram Coordinator AT 804-786-8679. if you
have any auestions.
This is your accounting report. Ail items should be listed
with dollar amounts estimated and spent and totals put in
proper places. We request that you total these two columns.
If it becomes necessary for us to return your accounting
report, approval of your grant request for the next year may
be delayed. Your cooperation is appreciated.
DLCR-3 Page 8 of 8
FOR LITTER CONTROL AND RECYCLING FUNDS SPENT IN ACCOUNTING REPORT
FOR COVERING THE
(Locality name)
LITTER CONTROL AND RECYCLING PROGRAM COMPLETED UNDER A GRANT
AUTHORIZED UNDER CHAPTER 14, TITLE 10.1 SECTION 10.1-1422 CODE OF
VIRGINIA FOR THE PROGRAM YEAR JULY l, 19__ THROUGH JUNE 30,
19
REPORT GRANT FUNDS ONLY:
Am~
Spent
PLEASE TOTAL:
(Amount Received)
(Amount Spent)
SIGNED (Chief Governmental Admin.)
DATE:
TITLE
Please return thisREQUI~RDREPORT with ~eceiDtsfor non-expendable
~j~: Department of Waste Management, Division of Litter
Control & Recycling; llth Floor, Monroe Building; 101 N. 14th
Street; Richmond, Virginia 23219.
DLCR-A
VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT LITTER
RECYCLING QUANTITY MATERIALS ORDER FORM
CONTROL
AND
SHIP TO:
ORGANIZATION:
ADDRESS:
CITY/ZIP:
Requested by:
Date:
DATE SHIPPED
Item No. Description
100 GENERAL BROCHIIRES AND BOOKLRTS
101 Litter Control Program brochure
106 Recycling Directory
119 Office Paper Recycling brochure
120 Citizens Recycling brochure
130 Report-a-Vehicle brochure
131 Report-a-Vehicle cards
200 POSTERS AND AD SLICKS
201 New York Barge (recycling)
202 Do You Know the Solution (litter)
203 Face the Music (litter)
206 Practice Makes Perfect (litter)
210 Nobody Likes a Litterbug
211 Clean Water poster (litter)
230 Rubbish (recycling)
231 Retailer Battery (recycling)
240 Practice Makes Perfect ad slick
241 Litter, get tough ad slicks (4)
242 Recycling ad slick
243 Recycling Month ad slick
300 SPECIALTY ITEMS
315 Can It decal
316 Business Door decal, litter
317 International Do Not Litter decal
321 Car litterbag
326 Pencils
329 This Kid Fights Litter decal
331 This Kid Recycles decal
333 stop Littering bumper sticker
334 Recycle bumper sticker
Quantity
Ordered Shipped
Partial
Status*
400
401 Adopt-a-Spot brochures
402 Adopt-a-Spot posters
403 Adopt-a-Spot trash bags
404 Adopt-a-Spot safety vests
405 Adopt-a-Spot ad slicks
500 OPERATION WASTE WATCH/EDUCATION
501 OWW brochure
503 OWW Recycling brochure
504 Activity Sampler OWW
505 New Three R's Secondary
506 Driver Ed. (Litter Monster)
506 Driver Ed. poster
507 Driver Ed. key chain
510-a Level K poster
510-b Level K Coloring book
511-a Level 1 poster
511-b Level 1 Coloring book
512-a Level 2 poster
512-b Level 2 Comic book
513-a Level 3 poster
513-b Level 3 Comic book
514-a Level 4 poster
514-b Level 4 Comic book
515-a Level 5 poster
515-b Level 5 Comic book
516-a Level 6 poster
516-b Level 6 Comic book
600 ECOLOGY CLUBS OF VIRGINIA (AECVA)
610 Brochure
611 Charter
612 Membership certificate
614 Membership Materials order form
615 Litter Survey pad
616 Ecology Club canvas banner
617 Membership card
619 Certificate of Recognition
620 Logo sheet
624 Membership roster
625 Membership pins
626 Awards application
*Reasons for incomplete orders:
a. on order, will ship on arrival.
b. being revised, re-order in
c. order reduced/limited supply.
d. discontinued.
For more information on availability of materials, call DWM at 804/
225-2485
DLCR-B
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT LITTER CONTROL AND
RECYCLING PLANNING AND SUPPORT MATERIALS
SHIP TO:
ORGANIZATION:
ADDRESS:
CITY/ZIP:
Requested by:
Date:
DATE SHIPPED
Item
7O0
701
702
703
704
No. Description
LITTER CONTROL
The Virginia Plan
Adopt-a-Spot Guidelines
Adopt-a-Highway Guidelines
Abandoned Vehicle Reimbursement,
Call DMV at 804/ 367-6846
800
801
802
803
804
8O5
806
RECYCLING
Virginia Local Government Sponsored
Recycling Programs
Virginia Recycling Activities by
Locality
Comprehensive Municipal Recycling:
A Collection Program Planning Guide
($5.50)*
Virginia Yardwaste Management
Manual ($12.00)*
House Document No. 34, 1990
The Feasibility of a Statewide
Yardwaste ComDostina in VA
Regulations for the Development of
Solid Waste Management Plans
(VR 672-05-01, May 15, 1990)
Quantity
Ordered
Shipped
807 Yardwaste Composting Regulations
(VR 672-20-31, Sept. 10, 1990)
808 Model Ordinances for Virginia
Localities
809 Local Government Report: Solid
Waste Reduction Form (Report form
for 1991 recycling effort)
810 Form DWM 50-11 Recycling Equipment
Certification (10% tax credit)
811 Recyclable Materials Market Study
($6.00)*
812 Recyclable Materials Update
(quarterly newsletter)
813 Recyclable Material Market Database
814 Citizens Guide to Recycling in VA
815 Trashing of Virginia (4 news articles)
816 Workbook for Planning Assistance
817 State Agency Guidelines for Recycling
A. August 10, 1990 Guidance
B. January, 1991 Guidance for
Capitol Complex Agencies
House Document No. 25, 1991
The Commonwealth of Virainia
Recycled Newsprint Advisorv Task Force
House Document No. 33, 1991
Promotina the Procurement and Use of
Recycled Product bv Aaencies of the Commonwealth
Above House Documents available from Department of Legislative
Services 804/ 786-6350
For more information on availability of materials, call DWM at 804/
371-0044.
*No charge to Virginia local government agencies.
DE.'ARTMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
Fund Allocation Under the virginia Waste
Management Act
(Chapter 14, Title 10.1 Code of Virginia)
90% of
TOTAL TOTAL
PDC 5
ALLEGHANY COUNTY 3,000 2,700
IRON GATE 350 315
TOTAL 3,350 3,015
BOTETOURT COUNTY 3,941 3,547
BUCHANAN 525 473
FINCASTLE 300 270
TROUTVILLE 350 315
TOTAL 5,116 4,605
CRAIG COUNTY 3,000 2,700
NEW CASTLE 300 270
TOTAL 3,300 2,970
ROANOKE COUNTY 7,034 6,331
VINTON 1,635 1,472
TOTAL 8,669 7,802
CLIFTON FORGE
3,000 2,700
COVINGTON 3,000 2,700
ROANOKE CITY 8,101 7,291
SALEM 3,038 2,734
PDC TOTAL 37,574 33,817
MARY F. PARKER
City (:lark
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W,Room456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
June 19, i991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Oty Clerk
File #468B-27
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30564-61791 accepting the
bids of Prillaman Chemical Corporation for supplying standard
ground alum and sodium silico flouride; Jones Chemicals, Inc.,
for supplying liquid chlorine and sulfur dioxide; and General
Chemical Corporation for supplying liquid alum for fiscal year
1991-1992 to be used for water and sewage treatment. Resolution
No. 30564-61791 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
~4FP : ra
Eric.
pc: Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
~r. M. Craig Sluss, Manager, Water Department
Hr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of ~dministration
Public Safety
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, ~anager, General Services
and
MARY F. PARKER
Crty Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, V~rg~ma 24011
Tetepi~one: (703)981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
DeputyC~tyCler~
File #468B-27
Mr. Kenneth Brown
Division Sales Manager
Worth Chemical Corporation
P. 0. Box 20725
Greensboro, North Carolina
27420
Dear Mr, Brown:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30564-61791 accepting the
bids of General Chemical Corporation for 450,000 gallons of
liquid alum, in the amount of $.350271 per gallon; and Prillaman
Chemical Corporation for standard ground alum, in the amount of
$234.40 per ton, and sodium silico flouride, in 100 pound multi-
wall bags and in lots of 5,000 and 10,000 pounds per shipment,
as requested, in the amount of $25.80 per cwt, for the Sewage
Treatment Plant, for a period of one year commencing July 1,
1991, and ending June 30, 1992. Resolution No. 30564-61791 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on ~onday, June 17, 1991.
On behalf of the Mayor and ~embers of City Council, I would like
to express appreciation for submitting your bids on the above-
described chemicals.
Sincerely,
~Iary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Eric.
MARY E. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROAN(.
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~:y Clerk
File #468B-27
Mr. R. M. Romeis
Regional Sales Manager
Jones Chemicals, Inc.
P. O. Box 30516
Charlotte, North Carolina
28230
Dear Mr. Romeis:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30564-61791 accepting the
bids of Jones Chemicals Inc., for sulfur dioxide, in the amount
of $390.00 per ton and 150 pound cylinders of liquid chlorine, in
the amount of $17.66 per cwt and 2,000 pound cylinders, in the
amount of $5.702 per cwt, for the Sewage Treatment Plant, for a
period of one year co~encinq July 1. 1991, and ending June 30,
1992. Resolution No. 30564-61791 was adopted by She Council of
the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17,
1991.
Sincerely,
~4ary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP : ra
Enc,
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~y Clerk
File #468B-27
Mr. Anthony W. Besthoff
President
Faesy & Besthoff, Inc.
143 River Road
Edgewater, New Jersey 07020
Dear Mr. Besthoff:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30564-61791 accepting the
bid of Prillaman Chemical Corporation for sodium silico flouride
in 100 pound multi-wall bags and in lots of 5,000 and 10,000
pounds per shipment, as requested, in the amount of $25.80 per
cwt, for the Sewage Treatment Plant, for a period of one year
co~encing July 1, 1991, and ending June 30, 1992. Resolution
No. 30564-61791 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 1991.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like
to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the above-
described chemicals.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP : ra
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue. S W, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2.4011
Telephone; (703)981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
File #468B-27
Mr. John D. Hulsey
Branch Manager
Van Waters & Rogers, Inc.
3600 West Wendover Avenue
Greensboro, North Carolina
27407
Dear Mr. Hulsey:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30564-61791 accepting the
bids of Prillaman Chemical Corporation for sodium silico
flouride in 100 pound multi-wall bags and in lots of 5,000 and
10,000 pounds per shipment, as requested, in the amount of
$25.80 per cwt; Jones Chemicals, Inc., for sulfur dioxide, in the
amount of $390.00 per ton and 150 pound cylinders of liquid
chlorine, in the amount of $17.66 per cwt and 2,000 pound cylin-
ders, in the amount of $5.702 per cwt, for the Sewage Treatment
Plant, for a period of one year commencing July 1, 1991, and
ending June 30, 1992. Resolution No. 30564-61791 was adopted by
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
~onday, June 17, 1991.
On behalf of the Mayor and ~embers of City Council, I would like
to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the above-
described chemicals.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, $ W, Room 456
Ruanoke, Virglma 24011
Telephone; (703)981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C,:y Clerk
File #468B-27
Mr. Peter A. Bertasi
Sales and Marketing Manager
Peridot Chemicals
P. 0. Box 15487
Augusta, Georgia 30919-1487
Dear Mr. Bertasi:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30564-61791 accepting the
bid of General Chemical Corporation for 450,000 gallons of liquid
alum, in the amount of $.350271 per gallon, for the Sewage
Treatment Plant, for a period of one year commencing July i,
1991, and ending June 30, 1992. Resolution No. 30564-61791 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, June 17, 1991.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I a~uld like
to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the above-
described chemicals.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP : r a
Eno.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke. Virg*ma 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C*ty Clerk
File #468B-27
Mr. Kenneth H. Donahue
Customer Quotation Specialist
General Chemical Corporation
P. O. Box 395
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054-0395
Dear Mr. Oonahue:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30564-61791 accepting the
bids of General Chemical Corporation for 450,000 gallons of
liquid alum, in the amount of $.350271 per gallon; and Prillaman
Chemical Corporation for standard ground alum, in the amount of
$234.40 per ton, for the Sewage Treatment Plant, for a period of
one year commencing July 1, 1991, and ending June 30, 1992.
Resolution No. 30564-61791 was adopted by the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17,
1991.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like
to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the above-
described chemicals.
~ ~ ~'Sincerely' p~.,~..~...
Mary F. Parker, O!4C/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
Oty Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H, EAKIN
Deputy CiTy Clerk
File #468B-27
Mr. John D. Besson
President
Delta Chemical Corporation
2601 Cannery Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21226
Dear Mr. Besson:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30564-61791 accepting the
bids of General Chemical Corporation for 450,000 gallons of
liquid alum, in the amount of $.350271 per gallon; Prillaman
Chemical Corporation for standard ground alum, in the amount of
$234.40 per ton; and Jones Chemicals Inc., for 150 pound cylin-
ders of liquid chlorine, in the amount of $17.66 per cwt and
2,000 pound cylinders, in the amount of $5.702 per cwt, for the
Sewage Treatment Plant, for a period of one year commencing July
1, 1991, and ending June 30, 1992. Resolution No. 30564-61791
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, June 17, 1991.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council,
to express appreciation
described chemicals.
I would like
for submitting your bid on the above-
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP : ra
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roa0oke, Virginia 24011
Telephone; (703) 981-25Zll
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
File #468B-27
~r. Charles J. ~arshall
Branch Manager
P. B. & S. Chemical Company, Inc.
P. 0. Box 1843
St. Albans, West Virginia 25177
Dear ~Wr. Marshall:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30564-61791 accepting the
bids of General Chemical Corporation for 450,000 gallons of
liquid alum, in the amount of $.350271 per gallon; and Prillaman
Chemical Corporation for standard ground alum, in the amount of
$234.40 per ton, and sodium silico flouride in 100 pound multi-
wall bags and in lots of 5,000 and 10,000 pounds per shipment, as
requested, in the amount of $25.80 per cwt; Jones Chemicals Inc.,
for sulfur dioxide, in the amount of $390.00 per ton and 150
pound cylinders of liquid chlorine, in the amount of $17.66 per
cwt and 2,000 pound cylinders, in the amount of $5.702 per cwt,
for the Sewage Treatment Plant, for a period of one year com-
mencing July 1, 1991, and ending June 30, 1992. Resolution No.
30564-61791 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 1991.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like
to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the above-
described chemicals.
Sincerely, 20.~,~_'
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
C;t¥ Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215ChurchAvenue, S W,Room456
Roanoke, V~rg~ma 240I 1
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
File #468B-27
Mr. Randall Andrews
President
Alchem, Inc.
8135 Red Road
Rockwell, North Carolina
28138
Dear Mr. Andrews:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30564-61791 accepting the
bid of General Chemical Corporation for 450,000 gallons of liquid
alum, in the amount of $.350271 per gallon, for the Sewage
Treatment Plant, for a period of one year commencing July 1,
1991, and ending June 30, 1992. Resolution No. 30564-61791 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, June 17, 1991.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like
to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the above-
described chemicals.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, C~C/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
MARY F, PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, $ W, Room 456
Roanoke, Virgm~a 24011
Teteplqone: (703)981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
File #468B-27
Mr. Norman Shelton
Sales Representative
Prillaman Chemical Corporation
P. O. Box 1606
Suffolk, Virginia 23434-1606
Dear Mr. Shelton:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30564-61791 accepting the
bids of General Chemical Corporation for 450,000 gallons of
liquid alum, in the amount of $.350271 per gallon; Prillaman
Chemical Corporation for standard ground alum, in the amount of
$234.40 per ton, and sodium silico flouride in 100 pound multi-
wall bags and in lots of 5,000 and 10,000 pounds per shipment, as
requested, in the amount of $25.80 per cwt; Jones Chemicals Inc.,
for sulfur dioxide, in the amount of $390.00 per ton and 150
pound cylinders of liquid chlorine, in the amount of $17.66 per
cwt and 2,000 pound cylinders, in the amount of $5.702 per cwt,
for the Sewage Treatment Plant for a period of one year com-
mencing July 1, 1991, and ending June 30, 1992. Resolution No.
30564-61791 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 1991.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like
to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the above-
described chemicals.
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP : ra
Enc.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th Day of June, 1991.
No. 30564-61791.
A RESOLUTION accepting the bids of various bidders to the City
for furnishing and delivering water and sewage treatment chemi-
cals and rejecting all other bids made to the City.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The following bids made to the City offering to supply
the identified water and sewage treatment chemicals for fiscal
year '91-'92 meeting all of the City's specifications and
requirements therefor, at the identified bid prices, which bids
are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and as more par-
ticularly set forth in a report to this Council dated June 17,
1991, are hereby accepted as follows:
Chemical Bidder
1. Standard Ground Prillaman Chemical
Alum Corporation
2. Liquid Chlorine Jones Chemicals, Inc.
Bid Price
Sodium Silico
Fluoride
Liquid Alum
Sulfur Dioxide
Prillaman Chemical
Corporation
General Chemical
Corporation
Jones Chemicals, Inc.
$ 234.40 per ton
17.66 per cwt
for 150 lb. cylinders
5.702 per cwt
for 2000 lb. cylinders
$ 25.80 per cwt
$ ·350271 per gallon
$ 390.00 per ton
2. The City's Manager of General Services is hereby
authorized and directed to issue the requisite purchase order
therefor, incorporat£ng into said order the City's specifica-
tions, the terms of said bidder's proposal and the terms and pro-
visions of this resolution.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the afore-
said procurement are hereby REJECTED, and the City Clerk is
directed to notify each such bidder and to express to each the
City's appreciation for such bid.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
RECEIVED
CITY CLEP~S OFF)CE
· gl JDNll P3:tO
Roanoke, Virginia
June 17, 1991
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
SUBJECT:
Bids for Water and
Sewage Treatment
Chemicals for
FY '91-'92
I concur in the Bid Committee's recommendation for the
purchase of water and sewage treatment chemicals.
Respectfully Submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
June 17, 1991
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council;
SUBJECT:
I. Backoround
A.
II.
Bids for Water and
Sewage Treatment
Chemicals for
FY '91-~92
Funds are desiqnated in FY '91-'92 operating
budget accounts for Water and Sewage
Departments for the purchase of the treatment
chemicals identified herein.
Bid Request with specifications were sent
specifically to twenty-eight (28) firms
currently listed on the City's bid list. A
public advertisement was also published in
the Roanoke Times and World News on May 24,
1991.
Bids were received after due and proper
advertisement and were publicly opened and
read at 2:00 p.m., on June 3, 1991 in the
Office of the Manager of General Services.
The chemicals being bid are necessary for
water and sewage treatment requirements for
the period July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992.
Current Situation
Bid tabulations of those bids received are
attached.
All bids were evaluated by representatives of
the following departments:
General Services
Water Department
Sewage Treatment
C. Bid evaluation results are as follows:
Chemicals
Page 2
III.
IV.
Standard Ground Alum - The lowest bid
Prillaman Chemical Corporation, meets
all required specifications. Price is
quoted firm for one (1) year.
Liquid Chlorine - The lowest total bid
combining 150 lb. cylinders and 2,000
lb. cylinders, as submitted by Jones
Chemicals, Inc. meets all required
specifications and is firm for the one
(1) year period.
Sodium Silico Fluoride - The lowest bid
submitted by Prillaman Chemical
Corporation meets all required
specifications and the price is firm for
the one (1) year period.
Liquid Alum - The lowest bid submitted
by General Chemical Corporation meets
all required specifications and is firm
for the one (1) year period.
Sulfur Dioxide - The lowest bid
including cylinder deposit submitted by
Jones Chemical, Inc., meets all required
specifications and is firm for the one
(1) year period.
Ieeuee
A. Need
B. Compliance with Specifications
C. Fund availability
Alternatives
Accept the lowest responsible bids for
supplying to the City of Roanoke the annual
requirements for water and sewage treatment
chemicals for the period July 1, 1991 to June
$0, 1992, as follows:
ChemXcals
Page
Standard Ground Alum - The lowest
responsible bid as submitted by
Prillaman Chemical Corporation, in the
amount of $234.40 ton, price Firm for
one (1) year.
Liquid Chlorine - The total lowest bid
as submitted by Jones Chemicals, Inc. in
the amount of $17.66 cwt for 150 lb.
cylinders and $5.702 cwt for 2,000 lb.
cylinders, price firm for one (1) year.
Sodium Silico Fluoride - The lowest
responsible bid as submitted by
Prillaman Chemical Corporation, in the
amount of $25.80 cwt, price firm for one
(1) year.
Liquid Alum - The lowest responsible bid
as submitted by General Chemical
Corporation, in the amount of .350271
per qallon, price firm for one (1) year.
Sulfur Dioxide - The lowest responsible
bid, including consideration for
cylinder deposits is submitted by Jones
Chemical, Inc., in the amount of $390.00
per ton, price firm for one (1) year.
a)
Need - Requested chemicals are
necessary for the proper treatment
of water and sewage.
b)
Compliance with specifications -
The bids recommended by this
alternative meets all required
specifications·
c)
Fund availability - Sufficient
funds are budgeted in Water and
Sewage Funds for FY '91-'92 to
provide for the purchase of
necessary treatment chemicals.
Chemicals
Page 4
B. Reject all bids
Need - The necessary treatment of Water
and Sewage would not be accomplished
with this alternative.
Compliance with specifications would not
be a factor in this alternative.
Fund availability - budgeted funds would
not be expended.
Recommendation
Council concur with Alternative "A" - accept
the lowest responsible bids meeting
specifications and authorize issuance of
purchase orders for water and sewage
treatment chemicals for the period July 1,
1991 to June 30, 1992, as follows:
Standard Ground Alum - to Prillaman
Chemical Corporation for $234.40 per
ton.
Liquid Chlorine - to Jones Chemicals,
Inc. for $17.66 per cwt for 150 lb.
cylinders and $5.702 per cwt for 2,000
lb. cylinders.
Sodium Silico Fluoride - to Prillaman
Chemical Corporation, for $25.80 per
cwt.
Liquid Alum - to General Chemical
Corporation, for $.350271 per gallon.
5. Sulfur Dioxide - to Jones Chemical, Inc.
for $390.00 per ton.
Chemicals
Page 5
B. Reject all other bids
Respectfully Submitted,
Committee:
Kit B. Kiser
D. Darwin Roupe
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
0
0
0
L
H
MARY F. PARKER
CiTy Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church ~venue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, V~rgm~a 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
File #468B
Mr. Michael H. Bamber
Inside Sales Coordinator
Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
3535 Brandon Avenue, S. ~.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Mr. Bamber:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30565-61791 acceptinq the
unit price bid of Griffin Pipe Products Company, Inc., to supply
Ductile Iron Water Pipe to the City of Roanoke for the period of
July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1992, in the total amount of
$257,801.00, based on estimated quantities. Resolution No.
30565-61791 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 1991.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like
to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the above-
described water pipe.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP : ra
Enc.
MARY E, PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, Vlrgmla 24011
Telephone: (703) 98]-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
File #468B
Mr. Francis B. Tone
~anager, Customer Services
Atlantic States Cast Iron
Pipe Company
183 Sitgreaves Street
Phillipsburg, New Jersey 08865
Dear Mr. Tone:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30565-61791 accepting the
unit price bid of Griffin Pipe Products Company, Inc., to supply
Ductile Iron Water Pipe to the City of Roanoke for the period of
July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1992, in the total amount of
$257,801.00, based on estimated quantities. Resolution No.
30565-61791 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 1991.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like
to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the above-
described water pipe.
Sincerely, PO~.~_
.~ary ~. ~ur r, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
~FP:ra
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215ChurchAvenue, S W,Room456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
DeputyC~yCler~
Fi le #4688
Mr. David D. Burns, Jr.
Vice-President
Virginia ~hter & Waste Supply
Company, Inc.
2820 Mary Linda Avenue, N. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Dear Mr. Burns:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30565-61791 accepting the
unit price bid of Griffin Pipe Products Company, Inc., to supply
Ductile Iron Water Pipe to the City of Roanoke for the period of
July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1992, in the total amount of
$257,801.00, based on estimated quantities. Resolution No.
30565-61791 was adopted by the Council of the Cit'y of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on ~onday, June 17, 1991.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like
to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the above-
described water pipe.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP : ra
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, V~rgmla 24011
Telephone: (703) 9B1-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. I[AKIN
DepuTy C~cy Clerk
File #468B
Mr. B. L. Driskill, Jr.
Regional Sales ,~anager
Griffin Pipe Products Company
P. 0. Box 740
Lynchburg, Virginia 24505
Dear Mr. Driskill:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30565-61791 accepting the
unit price bid of Griffin Pipe Products Company, Inc., to supply
Ductile Iron Water Pipe to the City of Roanoke for the period of
July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1992, in the total amount of
$257,801.00, based on estimated quantities. Resolution No.
30565-61791 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP : r a
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
275 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, V~rglnla 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
June 19, 1991
File #468B
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~y C~erk
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. ~erbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30565-61791 accepting the
unit price bid of Griffin Pipe Products Company, Inc., to supply
Ductile Iron Water Pipe to the City of Roanoke for the period of
July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1992, in the total amount of
$257,801.00, based on estimated quantities. Resolution No.
30565-61791 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 1991.
Sincerely,_
,Wary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP : ra
Enc.
pc:
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. M. Craig Sluss, Manager, Water Production
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration
Public Safety
Mr. D. Oarwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
and
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
File #468B
Mr. Richard C. ~atthews
Assistant Secretary
U. S. Pipe & Foundry Company
East Pearl Street
Burlington, New Jersey 08016
Dear Hr. Matthews:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30565-61791 accepting the
unit price bid of Griffin Pipe Products Company, Inc., to supply
Ductile Iron Water Pipe to the City of Roanoke for the period of
July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1992, in the total amount of
$257,801.00, based on estimated quantities. Resolution No.
30565-61791 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 1991.
On behalf of the Mayor and ~embers of City Council, I would like
to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the above-
described ~ater pipe.
Sincerely,
Nary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP : ra
Enc.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
Ihe 17th Day of dune, 1991.
No., 30565-61791.
VIRGINIA
A RESOLUTION accepting the bid of Griffin Pipe Products
Company, Inc. made to the City for furnishing and delivering
Ductile Iron Water Pipe; and rejecting all other bids made to the
City.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The unit price bid of Griffin Pipe Products Company,
Inc., made to the City, offering to supply Ductile Iron Water
Pipe meeting all of the City's specifications and requirements
therefor, for the total bid price of $257,801.00, based on esti-
mated quantities, which bid is on file in the Office of the City
Clerk is hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City's Manager of General Services is hereby
authorized and directed to issue
therefor, incorporating into said
tions, the terms of said bidder's
visions of this resolution.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the afore-
said procurement are hereby REJECTED, and the City Clerk is
directed to notify each such bidder and to express to each the
City's appreciation for such bid.
the requisite purchase order
order the City's specifica-
proposal and the terms and pro-
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
RECEtYEO
CITY CLERKS OFF!CE
'91 J,~111 P3:11
Roanoke, Virginia
June 17, 1991
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
SUBJECT:
to
action.
BIDS FOR DUCTILE IRON WATER PIPE
BID NUMBER 91-5-67
I concur in the bid committee's recommendation relative
the above subject and recommend it to you for appropriate
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/DDR/s~
c: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
June 17, 1991
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
SUBJECT: BIDS FOR DUCTILE IRON WATER PIPE,
BID NUMBER 91-5-67
I. BACKGROUND
Bids are received annually on a fiscal year
basis, for supplying to the City estimated
quantities of Ductile Iron Water Pipe. The
quantities are anticipated needs for a period
of one (1) year.
Funds are available in various Water
Department and Capital Maintenance accounts
to provide for the purchase of this required
material.
Bid Request with specifications were sent to
ten (10) vendors shown on the current bid
list. A public advertisement was also
published in the Roanoke Times and World
News.
Bids were received, after due and proper
advertisement, and were publicly opened and
read at 2:00 p.m., June 3, 1991, in the
Office of the Manager of General Services.
II.
CURRENT SITUATION
A. Five (5) bid responses were received. Bid
Tabulation is attached.
B. All bids were evaluated in a consistent
C. The lowest total bid as submitted by Griffin
Pipe Products Co. meets all required
specifications.
Ductile Iron Water Pipe
Page 2
III. ISSUES
IV.
A. Nee4
B. Compliance with Specification~
C. Fund Availability
ALTERNATIVES
Accept the lowest responsible total bid, as
submitted by Griffin Pipe Products Co., to
supply Ductile Iron Water Pipe for the period
July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992 and reject all
other bids.
Need - required pipe is necessary to
continue the support of the City's water
system, including new installations and
repairs.
Compliance with Specifications - the
product to be supplied by Griffin Pipe
Products Co. meets all bid requirements.
Prices are firm for one year.
Fund Availability - sufficient funds are
budgeted for the purchase of the water
pipe, in FY '91 - '92 budget.
B. Reject all bids.
Need - the need for continued support for
the City's Water systems would not be
met.
2. Compliance with Specifications - would
not be a factor in this alternative.
3. Fund Availability - budgeted funds would
not be expended with this alternative.
Ductile Iron Water Pipe
Page 3
V. RECOMMENDATION
Council concur with Alternative "A" - accept
the lowest responsible bid, as submitted by
Griffin Pipe Products Co., to supply Ductile
Iron Water Pipe for the period July 1, 1991
to June 30, 1992.
B. Reject all other bids.
Respectfully submitted,
Kit B. Ktser
Craig~us~
D. Darwin Roupe '
KBK/DDR/ss
c: City Attorney
Director of Finance
MARY F, PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W,Room456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2545
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
File #27-137
The Honorable James R. Olin
Representative, United States Congress
Room 706, First Federal Building
406 First Street, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Congressman Olin:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30566-61791 expressing con-
cern over and opposition to continuing excessive federal mandates
without funding. Resolution No. 30566-61791 was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, June 17, 1991.
~/'~ ~ -~'Sincerely'
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H, EAKIN
Deputy C~y C~erk
File #27-137
The Honorable Charles S. Robb
~ember, United States Senate
517 Hart Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Robb:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30566-61791 expressing con-
cern over and opposition to continuing excessive federal mandates
without funding. Resolution No. 30566-61791 was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, June 17, 1991.
Sincerely,
Nary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP : ra
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
File #27-137
The Honorable John W. Warner
Member, United States Senate
517 Hart Office Building
Washington, O. C. 20510
Dear Senator Warner:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30566-61791 expressing con-
cern over and opposition to continuing excessive federal mandates
without funding. Resolution No. 30566-61791 was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, June 17, 1991.
~'~'~-~'Sincerely'
~ary F. Parker, C~'C/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, $ W, Room 456
RQanoke, Virg~ma 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~y Clerk
File #27-137
Mr. R. Michael Amyx
Executive Director
Virginia Municipal League
P. O. Box 12203
Richmond, Virginia 23241
Dear Mr. Amyx:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30566-61791 expressing con-
cern over and opposition to continuing excessive federal mandates
without funding. Resolution No. 30566-61791 was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, June 17, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 17th Day of June, 1991.
~o. 30566-61791.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION expressing concern over and opposition to con-
tinuing excessive federal mandates without funding.
WHEREAS, local governments are closest to the people and
therefore are in the best position to determine and be responsive
to the people's needs; and
WHEREAS, local governments and their officials are continual-
ly striving for economy, effectiveness, responsiveness, and effi-
ciency in the delivery of services; and
WHEREAS, the federal government has mandated without funding
NPDES Permit Application Regulations for Storm Water Discharges;
and
WHEREAS, it is estimated at this time that the initial survey
and permit phase alone of the Storm Water Discharge Program will
cost the City of Roanoke over $200,000.00 and the ultimate
compliance costs are unknown at this time but could be in the
hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars; and
WHEREAS, the Storm Water Discharge program is only the most
recent in a series of increasingly excessive federal mandates
without accompanying funding sources; and
WHEREAS, while federal mandates to local governments have
increased significantly in recent years and caused serious finan-
cial concern, federal financial aid to local governments during
this period has decreased; and
WHEREAS, in today's economic environment with continuing ero-
sion of local revenue sources, unfunded federal mandates result
in the diversion of, local funds away
local programs and projects.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the
from desperately needed
Council of the City of
Roanoke that this Council hereby expresses its concern over and
opposition to continuing federal mandates without funding.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that attested copies of this resolu-
tion be transmitted by the City Clerk to Senator John Warner,
Senator Charles S. Robb, Congressman Jim Olin, as well as to all
other Virginia Congressional representatives, and the appropriate
officials at the Virginia Municipal League.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR.
CIl~Y ATTORNEY
CITY OF ROANOKE RECE ¥E
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEi~I?Y CLER ~:~ OFFICE
June 17, 1991
WILLIAM X PARSONS
MARK ALLAN WILLIAMS
STEVEN J. TALEVI
KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAU
ASSISTANT CITY A~TORNEYS
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: Federal Mandates - Stormwater Discharge Program
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
At the Council meeting of May 20, 1991, Council was briefed
with respect to the federally mandated Stormwater Discharge Program.
The initial survey and permit phase of this program alone will cost
the City over $200,000.00, and the ultimate compliance costs are
unknown at this time but could run into the hundreds of thousands
or even millions of dollars.
In accordance with Council's request, I am pleased to attach a
resolution expressing Council's concern over and opposition to con-
tinuing excessive federal mandates without funding.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
City Attorney
WCDJr:fcf
Attachment
cc:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
and Operations
MARY F. PARKER
C~ty Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456
Roanoke, V~rg~ma 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy C~ty Clerk
File #318
Mr. Joel M. $chlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
~r. James D. Ritchie, Chairman
Citizens' Services Committee
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30567-61791 concurring in
the recommendations of the Citizens' Services Committee for allo-
cation of City funds to various nonprofit agencies for fiscal
year 1991-1992, in the amount of $285,000.00. Resolution No.
30567-61791 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at
a regular meeting held on Monday, June 17, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP : ra
Enc.
pc: Mr.
Mr.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management
and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
Ihe 17th DaF of June, 1991.
No. 30567-61791.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION concurring in the recommendations of the Citizens'
Services Committee for allocation of City funds to various nonpro-
fit agencies.
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 1991-92 budget approved by City
Council for the Citizens' Services Committee provides for funding
in the amount of $285,000.00; and
WHEREAS, performance audits are to be conducted for each
agency receiving funds through the Committee to evaluate the
effectiveness and efficiency of funded programs; and
WHEREAS, in order to obtain an allocation for such funds, it
was necessary for agencies to file applications with the City
administration; and
WHEREAS, 29 requests for City funds in the total amount of
$555,146.21 were received by the Citizens' Services Committee
from various agencies.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as
follows:
1. Council concurs in the recommendations of the Citizens'
Services Committee as to the allocations for funding of various
nonprofit agencies as more particularly set forth in the attachment
to the Committee Report submitted to this Council dated June 17,
1991.
2. The Chairman of the Citizens' Services Committee and the
Director of Finance are authorized to release funds to any agency,
provided that objectives, activities,
been submitted and accepted.
and other reassurances have
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
June 17, lggl
Roanoke, Virginia
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Members of Council:
SUBJECT: RECO~ENDATIONS FOR CITIZENS SERVICES CO. Il-FEE FOR FUNOING OF QUALIFIED
AGENCIES
I. BACKGROUND
II.
AD
The Citizens Services Committee budget was established by City
Council, Ordinance #30515-51391, by which the General Fund Budget for
Fiscal Year 1991 - 1992 was adopted May 13, 1991.
B. Requests from 29 agencies were received for $555,146.51.
Individual study of each application was made by Committee members,
and public hearings were held April 10 - 12, 1991 to consider the
requests and hear applicants.
Agencies were notified of tentative allocation recommendations and
advised they could appeal the Committee's tentative recommendations.
CURRENT SITUATION
AD
The budget for Fiscal Year 1991 - 1992, approved by City Council for
the Citizens Services Committee, provides for the same funding as
allocated in Fiscal Year 1990 - 1991. Total funds available for
allocation in Fiscal Year 1991 - 1992 are $285,000.00.
Performance audits are conducted for each agency receiving funds
through the Committee to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of
funded programs.
Citizens Services Committee requests that $8,000.00 be transferred to
the Director of Human Resources' budget upon approval of City Council
to cover monitoring expenses.
Performance audits will be conducted by the Council of Community
Services in conjunction with the City's Director of Human
Resources.
Performance audits were adopted in 1981 to ensure City funds are
being used for the purpose for which they are requested and to
further assure that citizens of the City are benefitting from
their use.
3. The Committee is pleased with the contents and accuracy of the
audits performed during the past year.
Agencies submit a budget by objective and activity when applying for
funds throu~Th the Citizens Services Committee.
Agency plan of objectives and activitie~ to be accomplished with
City funding.
Total agency budget and amount of funds generated to the agency
by City funding.
3. Regional agencies are required to apply for funding from other
localities. The Committee is concerned that some regional
agencies are not funded by the other localities (Attachment
Attached schedule shows recommended fundinq for allocation to the
various agencies.
Most agencies are funded for les~ than their request.
Recommended funding amounts reflect the best judgment of the
Committee in serving the citizens of the City of Roanoke through
these programs.
Committee deliberations are contained in minutes of meetings on file
with the City Clerk.
Appeals of Committee recommendations, as provided by Council policy,
were received after notification to each agency of its tentative
recommended allocation. One {1) appeal was filed and was heard May
22, 1991.
Roanoke Museum of Fine Art~ requested an appeal to secure an
additional $250.00 for scholarships, and $300.00 for materials for
summer Artcamps proposal.
Bethany Hall -- $5,000.00. The Committee recommends a payment of
$20.00 per day for Roanoke City residents, up to a maximum of
$5,000.00.
The Salvation Army -- $22,600.0~. The Committee recommends that
$22,600.00 be allocated to The Salvation Army and a contract be
executed with The Salvation Army for the provision of services to City
citizens under the Homeless Housing Program and/or Abused Women's
Shelter.
Unified Human Transportation Systems, Inc. (RADAR) -- $22,000.00.
The Committee recommends that $22,000.00 be allocated to Unified Human
Transportation Systems, Inc. (RADAR) through Valley Metro in order
that Valley Metro may receive credit for providing transportation to
the handicapped.
III. RECOf~ENDATIONS
City Council concur with the funding of agencies in the amounts
recommended as indicated on the attached schedule (Attachment A).
City Council authorize the Chairman of the Citizens Services Committee
and the Director of Finance to not release funds to any agency until
objectives, activities, and other reasonable requests of the
monitoring staff are submitted and accepted.
Transfer $285~000 from the Citizens Services Committee account
#001-054-5220-3700, to new line items to be established within the
Citzens' Services Committee budget by the Director of Finance.
Do
Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate a contract for
$22,600.00 with The Salvation Army for the provision of services to
City citizens under the Homeless Housing Program and/or Abused Women's
Shelter. Council will be asked to authorize the execution of the
contract after it has been negotiated.
Respectful 1 y submitted,
dam~ . 'tchie, Chairman
Citiz))ns Services Committee
Harold Kyle, Vice Chairman
Raleigh Campbell
Reverend Frank Feather
Stanley Hale
Bernice Jones
A1McCain
JDR/gr
Attachments
CC:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Barry L. Key, Office of Management and Budget
o o c~ c~ o c~ o o c~ c~ c~
o
cD
o
o o
o
RECEIVED
CITY CtERF'S OFFICE
'91 JUH12 P1:28
Director of Human Resources
June 17, 1991
Roanoke, Virginia
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Members of Council:
I concur with the recommendations of the Citizens' Services Committee for funding of
qualified agencies.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manger
WRH:gr
cc'
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Barry L. Key, Office of Management and Budget
Members, Citizens' Services Committee
Room 356, Municipal Building. 215 Church Avenue, S W, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2302
RECEIVED
MINUTES OF THE 1%UDIT COMMITTEmI~~~'~TY COUNCIL
tune 3, 9"jU A9:38
The meeting of the Roanoke city Audit Committee was called to
order at 1:05 p.m. on June 3, 1991 with Chairman, David A. Bowers
presiding.
· The roll was called by Mr. Bird.
Audit Committee
Members Present:
Others Present:
David A. Bowers, Chairman
Elizabeth T. Bowles
James G. Harvey, II
William White, Sr.
Robert H. Bird, Municipal Auditor
Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Assistant City Manager
Jesse A. Hall, Adm. city Accounting Services
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., city Attorney
Thomas F. Baldwin, EDP Audit Supervisor
F. Michael Taylor, Audit Supervisor
Evelyn W. Barger, Administrative Assistant
Michelle R. Jones, Auditor
Kenneth F. Mundy, Controller
T. Douglas McQuade, KPMG Peat Marwick
Robert N. Collis, II, KPMG Peat Marwick
Joel Turner, Roanoke Times and World News
· Invocation was given by Mrs. Barger.
2. Mr. Bird introduced the new Auditor, Michelle Jones, to the Audit
Committee.
The motion was made by Mr. White and seconded by Mr. Harvey to
receive and file the KPMG Peat Marwick June 30, 1991 Audit Plan as
presented by Mr. McQuade. The motion was approved unanimously.
The motion was made by Mr. Harvey and seconded by Mrs. Bowles to
receive and file the Municipal Audit Annual Audit Plan as
presented by Mr. Bird. The motion was approved unanimously.
The motion was made by Mr. White and seconded by Mr. Harvey to
receive and file the report on Leases of City Owned Property.
motion was approved unanimously.
The
6. There was no unfinished business to come before the Committee.
Audit Committee Minutes
~age 2
June 3, 1991
New business: Mr. Bird noted that several audits are scheduled
for completion well in advance of the next Audit Committee meeting
on October 7. He indicated his desire to distribute written
reports as soon as they are available rather than wait until the
next scheduled meeting. There were no objections to early
distribution of reports with public discussion at the next
meeting.
8. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 1:16 p.m.
David A.~-~r~rs, Chairman
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th Day of June, 1991.
No. 30568-61791.
A RESOLUTION recognizing and commending the meritorious
rendered to this City and its people by The Honorable Patsy
Clerk of Circuit Court.
service
Testerman,
WHEREAS, The Honorable Patsy Testerman, Clerk of Circuit Court,
has announced her retirement as a constitutional officer effective
July 2, 1991;
WHEREAS, Miss Testerman was initially appointed as a Deputy
Clerk on March 17, 1952, and served under three Clerks of Court,
R. J. Watson, W. H. Cart and Walker R. Carter, prior to her elec-
tion as Clerk of Circuit Court in November, 1979;
WHEREAS, Miss Testerman assumed office as Clerk of Court on
January 1, 1980, and has served eleven and one-half years in this
capacity;
WHEREAS, under Miss Testerman's leadership as Clerk of Circuit
Court, the Clerk's Office was moved to the current Courthouse
facilities, and computerization of case management, financial
management and record indexing and trust fund accounting was
completed thereby greatly improving the efficiency of the Clerk's
Office;
WHEREAS, Miss Testerman is a member of the Virginia Court
Clerks' Association in which Association she served on the
Education and Legislative Committees, Virginia Association of
Government Archives and Records Administrators (Charter Member)
and the Association for Information and Image Management;
WHEREAS, Miss Testerman's public service has been of the
highest caliber, and in her service she has always displayed
attributes of honesty, integrity, friendliness, fairness, pre-
cision and attention to detail;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that, upon the occasion of the retirement of The Honorable
Patsy Testerman, Clerk of Circuit Court, after more than thirty-
nine years of dedicated public service, Council adopts this means
of recognizing and commending
Miss Testerman.
the outstanding public service of
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
C~ty Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S w , Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703)981-2541
June 19, 1991
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Ctty Clerk
Fi le #184
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30569-61791 establishing
Friday, July 5, 1991, as a City holiday for certain employees for
this calendar year only. Resolution No. 30569-61791 was adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, June 17, 1991.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
pc: The
The
The
The
Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney
Honorable Patsy Testerman, Clerk of the Circuit Court
Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, City Sheriff
Honorable Jerome S. Howard, Jr., Commissioner of Revenue
The Honorable Gordon E. Peters, City Treasurer
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Robert 4. Bird, Municipal Auditor
Ms. Nadine C. Minnix, Acting Director of Real Estate
Valuation
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
Public Safety
Mr. Kenneth S. Cronnin, Manager, Personnel Management
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
The 17th Day of 0une, 1991.
No. 30§69-61791.
ROANOKE,
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION establishing Friday, July 5, 1991, as a City
holiday for certain employees for this calendar year only.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. Friday, July 5, 1991, shall be observed as a holiday for
certain City employees as hereinafter provided.
2. City personnel who are not engaged in performing emer-
gency service or other necessary and essential services for the
City shall be excused from work on Friday, July 5, 1991.
3. With respect to emergency service employees and other
employees performing necessary and essential services who cannot
for reasons of public health, safety or welfare be excused from
work on July 5, 1991, such employees, regardless of whether they
are scheduled to work on July 5, 1991, shall be accorded equiva-
lent time off according to a schedule to be arranged by the City
Manager.
4. Adherence to this resolution shall cause no disruption
or cessation of the performance of any emergency, essential or
necessary public service rendered or performed by the City.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.