Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 08-12-91REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION .... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL August 12, 1991 7:30 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL Call to Order -- Rot Call. Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent. The invocation will be delivered by The Reverend H. Kelly Dampeer, Sr., Pastor, Oakland Baptist Church. Present. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America will be led by Mayor Noel C. Taylor. Presentation of the 1991 State of the City Address. The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor. The recommendations were referred to the appropriate staff persons for ropo~'t back to Council. BID OPENINGS Bids for neighborhood storm drain projects with segments at Walnut Avenue Bridge, Fleming Avenue, N. W., and Plantation Road, N. E. Eight bids were referred to a committee composed of Messrs. White, Chnil~mn, Kiser and Clark, for tab,clarion, roport and recommendation to Council. (5-1, Mr. Bowers voting no. ) io Bo PUBLIC HEARINGS Public hearing on the request of Messrs. Joseph S. and Louis P. Ripley and Mr. and Mrs. Daniel L. Crandall that two parcels of land lying on the southwest corner of the intersection of 13th Street and Cleveland Avenue, S. W., containing . 77 acre, more or less, identified as Official Tax Nos. 1220901 and 1220902, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multi-Family, Medium Density District, to C-I, Office District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioners. Mr. Daniel L. Crandall, Attorney. Adopted OrdinAnce No. 30644 on first ve~dlng. (6-0) Public hearing on the request of L & M Properties, a Virginia Partnership, that a tract of land located at 1011 Kimball Avenue, N. E., containing .82 acre, more or less, identified as Official Do Eo N. E., containing .82 acre, more or less, identified as Official Tax No. 3030201, be rezoned from HM, Heavy Manufacturing District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District. Mr. John H. Lipscomb, Spokesman. Adopted Orr{inAnce No. 30645 on first ~eading. (6-0) Public hearing on the request of Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc., that a portion of 20th Street and Westport Avenue, S. W., be permanently vacated, discontinued and closed. Mr. Robert E. Glenn, Attorney. Adopted Ol'dlnance No. 30646 on fil'St 1,earling. (6-0) Public hearing on the request of the City of Roanoke that Maitland Avenue, N. W., between Williamson Road and Woodbury Street, be altered by closure with barricades on a temporary basis. Mr. Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Assistant City Manager. Adopted Ordinance No. 30647 on first reading. (5-1, M~. Bowers voted no. ) Public hearing on the request of the City Planning Commission that Section 36.1, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1979, as amended, be amended to include proposed amendments which are deemed necessary to ensure that the City's development regulations are responsive to current development needs and community issues. Mr. Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairman, City Planning Commission. Adopted OrdinAnce NO. 30648, as amended, on first reading. (6-0) Public hearing on the request of the Wright-Creston-Rosewood Association that Creston Avenue and Rosewood Avenue, S. W., rights-of-way be barricaded by way of traversable barricades across Creston Avenue at the intersection of Strother Road and Creston Avenue, and across Rosewood Avenue southeast of its intersection with Sweetbriar Avenue. Mr. Gary M. Bowman, Attorney. Referrsd to the City M~n~ger and the City 1)]Anning Commission fo~' further study, rspol't and rscommendation. CONSENT AGENDA (Approved 6-0) 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 2 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. Minutes of the regular meetings of Council held on Monday, April 1, 1991; Monday, April 8, 1991; Monday, April 15, 1991; Monday, April 22, 1991; the special meetings held on Monday, April 22, 1991, and Thursday, April 25, 1991; and the Personnel Committee meeting held on Monday, April 29, 1991. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispense with the reading thereof and approve as recorded. A communication from Mayor Noel C. Taylor requesting an Executive Session to dicuss vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees 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 vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A) (1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. A communication from Vice-Mayor Howard E. Musser requesting an Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter, being the appointment of a specific public officer, 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 a personnel matter, being the appointment of a specific public officer, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A) (1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. A list of items pending from July 10, 1978 through July 22, 1991. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. A communication from Council Member David A. Bowers with regard to improvements to Memorial Bridge. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. A report of the City Manager recommending that Council schedule a public hearing for Monday, August 26, 1991, at 7:00 p.m., to receive public comments on the proposed Section 108 Loan Program. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in recommendation. C-7 C-8 C-9 C-10 C-11 C-12 A report of the City Manager in response to concerns expressed by Mr. Henry H. Craighead regarding rules and regulations that govern the City's adult softball leagues which are sponsored by the City of Roanoke Department of Parks and Recreation. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. A report of the City Attorney with regard to a request for an indepth review of the City's Zoning Ordinance to determine if stronger regulations and management procedures would be in order. RECOIVIMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. Qualification of Mr. A. Byron Smith as a member of the Virginia Western Community College Board for a term of four years ending June 30, 1995. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. Qualification of Mr. Frank J. Eastburn as a member of the Roanoke Public Library Board for a term of three years ending June 30, 1994. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. Qualification of Ms. Mozelle A. Scott as a member of the Personnel and Employment Practices Commission for a term of three years ending June 30, 1994. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. Qualification of Mr. Clay L. Dawson as a member of the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term ending May 31, 1993. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. Request of the City Attorney for an Executive Session to discuss and consider a matter of probable litigation, specifically a m2tter involving funding roquiroments, puPs,rant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(7), Code of Vis, nih (1950), as amended. Concurred in the roquest. REGULAR AGENDA Hearing of Citizens Upon Public Matters: Request of Mr. Ted H. Key, Director of the Northwest Revitalization Corporation, to address Council with regard to consideration of a measure prohibiting the owners of motels or other living facilities from renting rooms to the general public when other portions of the same facility are being used by prisoners on work release, parole or half way house. 4 mw Refer~ed to the City MsnAger and City Attorney for study, report and recommendation to Council. Petitions and Communications ao A communication from Council Member David A. Bowers requesting that Council take the necessary action to place the matter of a modified ward system for referendum on the November 5, 1991, ballot for consideration by the citizens of the City of Roanoke. Council endorsed items 1 - 4 contained in a document prepared by the City Attorney under date of August 12, 1991, entitled nSteps Req~ Pl.ior to Holding Referendum on City Council Eleetion Plmcedures. n The question of a specific date for development of a plan as well as appointment of a Task Fol.ce to work with City representatives on the new system, was deferred until the next regula~ meeting of Council in which it is detePmlned thRt all of the Members of Council will be in attendance. Council adopted a motion to extend the t~me limitation fol' the Council meeting beyond the 11:00 p.m., automatic adjoux~nment hour. A communication from the Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney, recommending acceptance of and participation in the Department of Criminal Justice Services Grant for the Victim/Witness/Juror Assistance Program, in the amount of $34,787.00; and appropriation of funds therefor. Adopted OrdinAnce No. 30648-81291 and Resolution No. 30649- 81291. (6-0) 2. A report of the City Manager concurring in the above request. Received and fried. A communication from the Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney, recommending acceptance of and continued participation in a Multi-Jurisdictional Special Drug Prosecutor Grant, in the amount of $86,634.00, for the period of July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1992; and appropriation of funds therefor. Adopted OrdinAnce No. 30650-81291 and Resolution No. 30651- 81291. (5-0, Mr. Harvey was out of the Council ChAmber.) 2. A report of the City Manager concurring in the above request. Received and fried. Repol'ts of Officers: a. City Manager: Briefings: None. Items Recommended for Action: A report with regard to City Market rental fees and budget. Adopted Ordlnnnce No. 30652-81291 and Resolution No. 30653- 81291. (5-0, Mr. Harvey was out of the Council ChRmber. ) A report recommending execution of an agreement with Downtown Roanoke, Inc., to provide for management of the daily operations of the City Market. Adopted Resolution No. 30654-81291. (5-0, Mr. Harvey was out of the Council Chsmber. ) A report recommending waiver of the rental fee and granting of concession rights and commission to the Roanoke Symphony Association of Volunteers through the Roanoke Symphony Orchestra for use of the National Guard Armory on August 23 and 24, 1991. Adopted Resolution No. 30655-81291. (6-0) o A report recommending acceptance of a Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA), Title I, Subregionai Library for the Blind Grant, in the amount of $7,615.00; and appropriation of funds therefor. Adopted O~4inR~ee No. 30656-81291 and Resolution No. 30657- 81291. (6-0) A report recommending acceptance of a Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA), Title I, Metropolitan Libraries Grant, in the amount of $13,399.00; and appropriation of funds therefor. Adopted Ordlns~ce No. 30658-81291 and Resolution No. 30659- 81291. (6-0) A report recommending appropriation of additional funds awarded to the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium, in the amount of $943,628.00, in order to serve clients under the Title II-A, Implementation Strategy, and Title III, Implementation Strategy, for Program Year 1991. Adopted Ordinance No. 30660-81291. (6-0) 10. 11. 12. 13. A report recommending appropriation of additional funds awarded to the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium, in the amount of $96,611.00, in connection with Operation Bootstrap project management, administration and administrative and program training expenditures. Adopted OrdinRnce No. 30661-81291. (6-0) A report recommending transfer of $8,000.00 in existing funds to match funding allocated by the State Department of Social Services, in order to provide additional services to eligible citizens. Adopted O]~im, nce No. 30662-81291. (6-0) A report recommending appropriation of $219,500.00 in additional funds allocated by the State Department of Social Services in connection with the purchase of employment services from the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium, to provide work experience and Adult Basic Education, as well as on-the-job training, for certain individuals participating in the JOBS Training Program. Adopted Ordim, nee No. 30663-81291. (6-0) A report recommending execution of a grant agreement with the State Department of Criminal Justice Services, and appropriation of $357,004.00, in connection with a Demonstration Grant Award from the State Council on Community Services for Youth and Families. Adopted O~inance No. 30664-81291 and Resolution No. 30665- 81291. (6-0) A report recommending adoption of an Ordinance authorizing the City Attorney to prepare and record a Deed of Restrictions for the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology relative to the approximately 140 acres of land purchased by the City from A. Wade Douthat. Adopted O~'wllnance No. 30666-81291. (6-0) A report recommending authorization to execute an agreement with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority for administration and implementation of various community development activities. Adopted Resolution No. 30667-81291. (6-0) A report recommending approval of certain monthly and short- term parking rates for the Tower Parking Garage, contingent upon acceptance of the facility by the City and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Adopted Ordinance No. 30668-81291. (6-0) 14. A report concurring in a report of a bid committee recommending award of a contract to L. H. Sawyer Paving Company, Inc., in the amount of $ 7,578.00, for path improvements to Norwich Park; and transfer of funds therefor. Adopted Ordinance No. 30669-81291. (6-0) b. Director of Finance: A report with regard to the financial condition of the City of Roanoke for fiscal year 1991. Received and filed. Reports of Committees: Annual Report of the Audit Committee of the Roanoke City Council for fiscal year 1990-91. Council Member David A. Bowers, Chairman. Received and filed. A report of a committee appointed to tabulate bids received for management and operation of the Tower and Downtown East Parking Garages, recommending acceptance of the bid submitted by the Greater Roanoke Transit Company, in the total amount of $113,720.00. Council Member William White, Sr., Chairman. Adopted Resolution No. 30670-81291. (6-0) Unfinished Business: None. Introduction and Consideration of Ordln~nces and Resolutions: Ordinance No. 30634, on second reading, granting to the United Way of Roanoke Vailey, Inc., a revocable permit to mount certain flags on street lighting poles in the Central Business District of the City, upon certain terms and conditions. Adopted Ordinance No. 3061M-81291. (6-0) Ordinance No. 30643, on second reading, amending and reordaining §32-108.1, Proration of personal prol~erty tax generally, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to delete boats from the categories of personal property subject to proration effective January 1, 1992; to reqmre that the owner or purchaser of property subject to proration declare such property with the Commissioner of Revenue within thirty (30) days of the property registration date with the State Department 8 of Motor Vehicles; to establish penalties and interest with respect to any owner or purchaser who shall fail to so declare property; to provide that prorated personal property tax shall be due and payable within sixty (60) days of the registration date of such property or May 31 of the tax year, whichever shall occur later; and providing for an effective date. Adopted Ordinance No. 30643-81291. (6-0) Motions and Miscellaneous Business: a. Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City Council. Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council. 10. Other Hearings of Citizens: Mr. Walter Beekner appeared before Council and complained about vanrl~llam and robbery at his business located at 1118 Salem Avenue, S. W. He requested better police protection from the City. The matter was ~efera%~cl to the City Manager and the Director of Admlni~tration and Public Safety to work w/th Mr. Beckner relative to his concez-ns. Certification of Executive Session. (6-0) Appointed the following persons: Ms. T.inda Durham -Spenlal Events Committee Mr. William C. Holland- Advisory Board of Hunmn Resources M~s. Robert B. Nolsn -Roanoke Public Library Beard Mr. J. Lee E. Osborne -Fifth planning Distrdct Commission Me. James G. Pappas- Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee Mre. Elizabeth T. Bowles- Total Aetion Agnln~t Poverty, Boaed of Diz~ctore The City Attorney was instructed to p~epaz~ the proper measure mncelling the Monday, October ?, 1991, meeting of Council ink-much as the Virginia Municipal League will hold its Annual Meeting in Roanoke on October 6 - 8, 1991. 9 M~RY F. pARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, $.W., Room 456 Roanoke, V'u'ginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #525 SANDRA H. F. AKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of the 1991 State of the City Address which was presented by the Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor, at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held on Monday, August 12, 1991. On motion, duly seconded and adopted, Council embraced the Mayor's recommendations and referred said recommendations to you for report to Council. Sincerely, f~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd STATE OF THE CITY 191)1 DELIVERED BY NOEL C. TAYLOR MAYOR OF ROANOKE COUNCIL, ELECTED FELLOW CITIZENS, HONORABLE VICE-MAYOR ~USSER, MEMBERS OF THE ROANOKE CITY ASSISTANT CITY ~ANAGER REYNOLDS, COUNCIL APPOINTEES, AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS, MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY, MY VISITING FRIENDS, AND SPECIAL GUESTS: I BELIEVE THE CITY OF ROANOKE IS DOING MORE TO INCREASE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS CITIZENS TODAY THAN DURING ANY PERIOD OF I~S HISTORY. ITS RICH HISTORY AND TRADITION COMBINE WITH A BRIGHT FUTURE FORECAST TO CREATE A CITY THAT IS MOVING PROGRESSIVELY FORWARD. ROANOKE'S DOWNTOWN HAS CO~E ALIVE. AFTER YEARS OF REVITALIZATION, THE AREA HAS BECOME THE CENTER OF ACTIVITY OFFERING A WIDE RANGE OF ACTIVITIES. PEOPLE ARE BEGINNING TO REDISCOVER THE ADVANTAGES OF LIVING IN ROANOKE -- A MAJOR ONE BEING THE EASY ACCESS TO WORK, CULTURE, SHOPPING, AND ENTERTAINMENT ACTIVITIES. TWO WORDS CHARACTERIZE THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS T~IS PAST FISCAL YEAR -- MONEY AND CRANES. ALMOST $200 MILLION IN DEVELOPMENT WAS UNDERWAY, FINISHING OR BEGINNING DURING THIS PAST FISCAL YEAR. $200 MILLION!!! IN THE MIDST OF THE WORST RECESSION SINCE THE EARLY 1980'S, THE CITY OF ROANOKE EXPERIENCED AN UNPRECEDENTED BUILDING BO0~. THE OTHER WORD I USED TO DESCRIBE THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS THIS YEAR WAS CRANES. WHETHER IT WAS THE DOMINION TOWER PROJECT, THE NORFOLK SOUTHERN PROJECT, THE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL GARAGE, OR THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH EXPANSION, CRANES DOMINATE THE SKYLINE OF DOWNTOWN ROANOKE. OF THAT ALMOST $200 MILLION, OVER $90 MILLION WAS IN DOWNTOWN ROANOKE. IT IS PROBABLY THE LARGEST EXPENDITURE OF DOLLARS IN ANY FISCAL YEAR IN DOWNTOWN ROANOKE SINCE THE CREATION OF THE CITY OVER 100 YEARS AGO. DOMINANT, OF COURSE, IN THAT INVESTMENT WERE THE DOMINION TOWER AND THE NORFOLK SOUTHERN BUILDING. THEY ARE TWO OF THE MOST HANDSOME BUILDINGS BUILT IN DOWNTOWN IN MANY YEARS. LITTLE BOYS AND GIRLS, AS WELL AS BIG BOYS AND GIRLS, GOT TREMENDOUS ENJOYMENT AT WATCHING THESE MAGNIFICENT STRUCTURES COME OUT OF THE GROUND. CONSTRUCTION, FOR THOSE OF KNOWING THAT SEVERAL OF OUR BANKSHARES, NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY, AND HAZELGROVE .MADE ADDITIONAL MAJOR COMMITMENTS THE ROANOKE VALLEY. WITH THE THRILL OF WATCHING THE US INVOLVED, CAME THE THRILL OF MAJOR CORPORATIONS, DOMINION WOODS, ROGERS AND AND INVESTMENTS IN DEVELOPMENT, OF COURSE, WAS NOT THE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OF DOWNTOWN. WE SAW THE CONTINUED CONSTRUCTION OF THE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE (UPS) BUILDING NEAR THE AIRPORT, THE OPENING OF QUIBELL, AND ELIZABETH ARDEN IN THE ROANOKE CENTRE FOR INDUSTRY AND TECHNOLOGY AND, OF COURSE, THE SITE WORK BEGINNING ON THE MAJOR EXPANSION OF ROANOKE ~EMORIAL HOSPITALS. NEITHER WERE DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS LIMITED TO tI4JOR BUILDING PROJECTS. FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 ALSO SAW ROANOKE AS HOST TO A NUMBER OF MAJOR EVENTS, EACH OF WHICH HAD THEIR OWN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ROANOKE VALLEY. THE METRO CONFERENCE BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT WAS CERTAINLY AMONG THE ~OST EXCITING OF THESE EVENTS. THE CONFERENCE DEMONSTRATED THIS COMMUNITY'S ABILITY TO HOST, IN A MANNER EQUAL WITH ANY OTHER COMMUNITY, A MAJOR SPORTING EVENT. AS YOU KNOW, IN YEARS PAST, I HAVE TALKED ABOUT ROANOKE AS A FESTIVAL CITY, ROANOKE AS A MAJOR CONVENTION AND CONFERENCE AREA, AND ROANOKE AS A ~tiJOR AMATEUR SPORTS AREA. DESPITE THIS, THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME TENTATIVENESS AND CONFUSION ABOUT HOW ROANOKE VIEWS TOURISM. AS WE HEAD INTO 1991-92, LET ME MAKE IT AS CLEAR AS I CAN -- THE CITY OF ROANOKE IS IN THE TOURISM BUSINESS. WE ARE IN THE TOURISM BUSINESS IN A BIG WAY ANO IT IS GOING TO GET BIGGER. ~Y DEFINITION OF A TOURIST IS RATHER BROAD. GENERALLY, IT IS ANYONE COMING FROM OUTSIDE THE ROANOKE AREA AND SPENDS MONEY. THAT COULD BE A CONVENTIONEER, SOMEONE BRINGING THEIR FAMILY IN FOR A SOCCER TOURNAMENT, SOMEONE COMING TO VISIT THEIR GRANDPARENTS, SOMEONE FROM SMITH MOUNTAIN LAKE RIDING INTO TOWN FOR THE DAY OR SOMEONE CO~ING OFF THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY TO VISIT OUR HISTORIC FARMERS' MARKET AREA. ALL THOSE FIT NEATLY INTO MY DEFINITION OF TOURISM AND ALL THOSE ARE GROUPS WHICH WE WILL BE PURSUING AND WELCOMING IN YEARS TO COME. THE TOURISM DOLLAR IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE A ~AJOR REVENUE GENERATOR FOR THE CITY OF ROANOKE. WE RAVE A GOOD BASE OF RESTAURANTS, RETAILERS, AND ROTELS IN THIS CITY, AND WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK EVEN RARDER DURING THE UPCOMING YEAR TO INCREASE ATTENDANCE IN TRE AREA. OUR KEY PROJECT IN THE AREA OF TOURISM FOR 1991-92 IS TRE HOTEL ROANOKE. WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK AT AN ACCELERATED PACE IN ORDER TO ALLOW TRIS PROJECT TO BECOME A REALITY DURING TRIS NEXT FISCAL YEAR. ITS CLOSURE RAS BEEN A DIFFICULT ECONOMIC OBSTACLE FOR THE CITY TO OVERCOME AND ITS CLOSED DOORS AND SECURED FENCE AROUND IT ACT AS A REMINDER EACH DAY AS WE DRIVE BY IT TRAT WE MUST WORK TO FIND A WAY TO SUCCESSFULLY BRING TRIS PROJECT TO A CONCLUSION TRIS YEAR. BETWEEN TRE CITY, VIRGINIA TECR, CLASSIC PROPERTIES OF VIRGINIA, MAJOR STATEWIDE CORPORATIONS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, INDIVIDUALS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC, WITR ALL THESE AS PARTNERS, CERTAINLY WE CAN FIND A WAY TO BRING TRIS PROJECT TO SUCCESSFUL FRUITION. ONCE WE GET THE ROTEL AND CONFERENCE CENTER OPEN, OUR SIGRTS WILL BE SET TOWARD THE FUTURE AS WE CONTINUE TO BUILD ON ROANOKE AS A DESTINATION POINT. TRE CONTINUED REVITALIZATION OF THE HISTORIC FARMERS' MARKET AREA, TRE UPGRADING OF THE TRANSPORTATION MUSEUM, THE REDEVELOPMENT ALONG HENRY STREET, A HOME FOR THE D-DAY MEMORIAL, AND ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR OUR CONVENTION BUREAU WILL BE IMPORTANT ITEMS AS WE CONTINUE TO DEVELOP FOR THE FUTURE. NET NEW JOBS CREATED IN THE ROANOKE DECEMBER, 1983, AND DECEMBER, 1990, WAS 23,575. MSA BETWEEN EDUCATION THE CHIEF ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION ARE REDUCING THE PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN SCORING IN THE BOTTOM QUARTILE ON STATE TESTS, RETAINING STUDENTS IN SCHOOL IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THEM WITH PRODUCTIVE CAREER SKILLS (AS EVIDENCED HY THE ~AINTENANCE OF A STUDENT DROP-OUT RATE NEAR THE STATE AVERAGE), AND REDUCING RACIAL ISOLATION IN THE SCHOOLS THROUGH UNIQUE AND CHALLENGING MAGNET PROGRAMS. THE KEY CHALLENGES TO PUBLIC EDUCATION DURING THE NEXT YEAR ARE: PROVIDING A SAFE AND DRUG-FREE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT FOR STUDENTS DESPITE THE AVAILABILITY OF DRUGS AND WEAPONS IN THE COMMUNITY; CONTINUING TO ACHIEVE RACIAL BALANCE IN THE SCHOOLS AND ENCOURAGING THE INTELLECTUAL AND SOCIAL GROWTH OF DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN WHO COMPRISE 40 PERCENT OF STUDENT ENROLLMENT; AND IMPROVING COMPENSATION FOR ALL E~PLOYEES IN ORDER TO RECOGNIZE THEIR EFFORTS ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN AND TO CONTINUE TO ATTRACT WELL-QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS TO PUBLIC EDUCATION. THE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT HAVE WORKED TIRELESSLY AND DILIGENTLY WITH RENEWED COMMITMENT TO RECRUIT AND HIRE MINORITY OFFICERS. THIS PAY DIVIDENDS AS WE HIRE MORE MINORITIES VERY HIGH STANDARD NECESSARY TO PROVIDE SERVICE THE CITIZENS OF THIS CITY HAVE COME EFFORT IS BEGINNING TO THAT HAVE ACHIEVED THE THE QUALITY OF POLICE TO EXPECT. THE POLICE ACADEMY CLASS IN JUNE GRADUATED TEN OFFICERS. THIRTY PERCENT ARE MINORITY. THE CLASS SCHEDULE FOR SEPTEMBER IS EXPECTED TO HAVE AN EQUAL OR GREATER NUMBER. OUR GOAL IS TO CONTINUE THIS LEVEL OF MINORITY HIRING FOR YEARS TO COME. I COMMEND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THAT EFFORT, AND I AM CONFIDENT OF ITS FUTURE SUCCESS. THE "COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING EFFORT." OR C.O.P.E. TEAM, IS ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT EXAMPLE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S CONCERN AND COMMITMENT TO STRENGTHEN POLICE COMMUNITY RELATIONS WHILE ALSO PURSUING THE DEPARTMENT'S GOAL OF PEACE AND ORDER. COMMUNITY ORIENTED LIFE AND EXPAND THE OPTIONS OF THOSE POLICE OFFICERS IN IDENTIFYING AND DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR WELL-BEING. POLICING ALSO SEEKS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF CITIZENS WHO JOIN WITH ERADICATING OBSTACLES THIS PROGRAM IS WELL CONCEIVED BUT WILL REQUIRE THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE PUBLIC, THE POLICE, AND ALL ELEMENTS OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT. I ALSO WISH TO COMMEND OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR FINE WORK TO DEVELOP AND I~PLEMENT TWO IMPORTANT PUBLIC SAFETY PROGRAMS DURING THIS PAST YEAR. THE FIRST RESPONDER PROGRAM WAS I~PLEMENTED IN MARCH. FOLLOWING 120 HOURS OF TRAINING, 24 MEMBERS OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVING IN THE SOUTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST SECTIONS OF THE CITY BEGAN RESPONDING TO E~ERGENCY MEDICAL CALLS. THE TEAMS PROVIDE BASIC LIFE SUPPORT UNTIL THE PARAMEDICS ARRIVE. THE FIRST RESPONDER P~OGRAM HAS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED RESPONSE TIME TO THOSE SECTIONS OF THE CITY AND THUS IMPROVED EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TO THE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES LOCATED THERE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL RESPONDER PROGRAM IN THE NEW NUMBER 14 STREET, N. E., IN THE FUTURE. INCORPORATE THE FIRST FIRE STATION ON ~ECCA SECONDLY, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THROUGH A TEAM EFFORT, DEVELOPED AN EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT ANALYSIS PROGRA~ WHICH, WITH CITY COUNCIL'S APPROVAL, ALLOWED FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIVE PUMPING ENGINES AND ONE LADDER TRUCK. THIS NEW EQUIPMENT HAS SIGNIFICANTLY ENHANCED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S SUPPRESSION CAPABILITY AND WILL MAINTAIN THE CITY'S ESTABLISHED RESPONSE TIME AVERAGE OF FOUR MINUTES. ROANOKE CITY RECYCLING PROGRAM DURING THE LAST YEAR, RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM INCLUDED SEASONAL BAGGED COLLECTION FOR ITS 38,000 RESIDENCES. APPROXIMATELY 438 TONS OF LEAVES AND 154 WERE DIVERTED FRO~ THE REGIONAL LANDFILL. THE CITY OF ROANOKE KICKED OFF ITS FIRST TWO PROJECTS FOR THE LEAF AND CHRISTMAS TREE OVER A TEN-WEEK PERIOD, TONS OF CHRISTMAS TREES THE CURBSIDE RECYCLING COLLECTION PROGRAM BEGAN IN MARCH, 1991, AND HAS EXPERIENCED STRONG PARTICIPATION WITH A 42 PERCENT WEEKLY SET OUT RATE. DURING THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF CURBSIDE RECYCLING COLLECTION, OVER 220,000 POUNDS OF GLASS, PLASTIC~ METAL, AND NEWSPRINT WERE DIVERTED FROM THE REGIONAL LANDFILL. THE AWARENESS CREATED BY THE CURBSIDE PROGRAM APPEARS TO HAVE CAUSED AN INCREASE IN VOLUME AT EXISTING DROP-OFF CENTERS IN THE CITY. ONE OF THE MAIN PROBLEMS WITH THE CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROGRA~ WAS THE INABILITY TO SERVE THE NUMBER OF CITIZENS THAT REQUESTED THE SERVICE. ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENTS LOVE THE ROLL OUT CARTS, THEY ARE EXPENSIVE AND SLOW TO SERVICE. IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, US TO TRIPLE PROBLEM WITH REQUIRED TO RETIREMENTS DEPARTMENT AS ADDITIONAL TRUCKS AND CONTAINERS SHOULD ARRIVE ALLOWING THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS CURRENTLY SERVED. ANOTHER EXPANDING RECYCLING PROGRAMS IS THE LACK OF MANPOWER CARRY OUT VARIOUS PROJECTS. CITY CUTBACKS AND HAVE GREATLY AFFECTED THE REFUSE COLLECTION A WHOLE. THE UPCOMING YEAR WILL BE A CHALLENGE AS NEW RECYCLING PROGRAMS EVOLVE FROM THE STAGES OF PLANNING TO IMPLEMENTATION. IN ADDITION TO INCREASING RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE COLLECTION, THREE OTHER RECYCLING PROJECTS WILL BE TARGETED: 1. THE COLLECTION AND PROCESSING OF YARD WASTE. THE PRODUCTION OF AN INSTRUCTIONAL BUSINESS WASTE RECYCLING VIDEO TO HELP THE BUSINESS SECTOR IMPLEMENT IN-HOUSE RECYCLING PROGRAMS. THIS PROJECT IS A JOINT VENTURE INVOLVING ROANOKE CITY, ROANOKE COUNTY, AND THE CLEAN VALLEY COUNCIL. THE ORGANIZATION OF AN INTERNAL WORKING GROUP TO PLAN A CITY EMPLOYEE OFFICE RECYCLING PROGRAM WHICH WILL ALSO ADDRESS WASTE REDUCTION. OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS, ROANOKE CITY RECYCLING WILL CONTINUE TO USE A MULTI-FACETED APPROACH TO FULFILL THE STATE'S MANDATED RECYCLING GOAL OF 25 PERCENT BY 1995. 11 REGIONAL APPROACHES SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL IS A NATIONAL, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL PROBLEM. STATE REGULATIONS APPROVED IN DECEMBER, 1988, SETTING STANDARDS FOR PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION PROVIDES GREATER PROTECTION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. THESE REGULATIONS AND THE NEED TO FIND A NEW DISPOSAL SITE WILL DOUBLE OR TRIPLE THE COST OF SOLID ~STE DISPOSAL. THE CITY RECOGNIZED THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF JOINING WITH OTHER ROANOKE VALLEY GOVERNMENTS IN THE MID 1970'S TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A REGIONAL LANDFILL. WE CONTINUE TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF A REGIONAL APPROACH TO SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AS WE PLAN FOR A NEW TRANSFER STATION IN THE CITY OF ROANOKE AND A NEW LANDFILL IN ROANOKE COUNTY. LEGAL DOCUMENTS ARE VIRTUALLY FINISHED WHICH, WITH THE APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL, ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND THE TOWN OF VINTON COUNCIL WILL SET THE STAGE FOR MEETING THE GOAL OF A NEW REGIONAL SOLID WASTE FACILITY BEING OPERATIONAL IN LATE 1993. THE UPCOMING TWELVE (12) MONTHS SHOULD SEE THE GOVERNING BODIES OF THE VALLEY GOVERNMENTS GRANTING FORMAL APPROVAL OF THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS. WE SHOULD ALSO SEE THE COMPLETION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES OF POTENTIAL TRANSFER STATION SITES, THE COMPLETION AND APPROVAL OF PART A AND PART B APPLICATIONS FOR THE TRANSFER STATION SITE AND THE DISPOSAL SITE. ALL NEEDED REAL ESTATE SHOULD BE ACQUIRED AND THE END OF THE YEAR. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS AWARDED I2 BY 13 WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CITY COUNCIL, ON JULY 22, 1991, APPROVED A $30 MILLION WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. THIS ACTION CULMINATED 18 MONTHS OF STUDY, CITIZEN MEETINGS, AND PUBLIC INFORMATION EXCHANGE. THE IMPROVEMENTS WILL CORRECT A PENDING SHORTAGE IN OUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE WATER TO OUR EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AND CORPORATE CITIZENS, PROVIDE AVAILABLE WATER TO SUPPORT ANTICIPATED GROWTH FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS AND BEYOND, PROVIDE THE ABILITY TO MEET STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, AND PROVIDE FACILITY BACK-UP SAFEGUARDS. INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS, APPROVED AS PART OF THE PROGRAM, INCLUDE PARALLEL PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION FROM CARVINS COVE DAM TO OUR DOWNTOWN AREA, EXPANSION OF THE RATED CAPACITY OF CARVINS COVE TREATMENT PLANT FROM 18 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY TO 28 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TWO MAJOR PUMP STATIONS. THE SUPPORT OF THE CITIZENS OF ROANOKE CITY TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY FUNDING NEEDED FOR THE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IS GREATLY APPRECIATED. THE UPCOMING TWELVE (12) MONTHS WILL SEE US ENGAGE ENGINEERS TO DESIGN THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS, OBTAIN REGULATORY REVIEW AND APPROVAL, AND BE IN THE POSITION OF AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS. MAYOR'S ~ITTEE FOR THE DISABLED DURING THE 1990-91 FISCAL YEAH, CONCERNS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SOLUTIONS TO DIFFICULTIES WERE BROUGHT TO THE FOHEFRONT THROUGH THE EFFORTS OF THE MAYOR'S COMMITTEE FOR THE DISABLED. THE LATTER PART OF 1990 BROUGHT WITH IT INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY. THROUGH THE COMBINED EFFORTS OF THE CITY, THE COMMITTEE, THE CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE FOR THE DISABLED, AND DOWNTOWN ROANOKE, FIVE NEW HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACES AND NINE NEW CURB CUTS WERE INSTALLED IN THE IMMEDIATE DOWNTOWN AREA. THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY DEMONSTHATED THEIR INTEREST AND CONCERN BY PUBLISHING A "GUIDE TO HANDICAPPED PARKING." ALONG WITH THE NEW PARKING SPACES AND CURB CUTS CAME AN INCREASE IN THE FINE FOR ILLEGALLY PARKING IN A HANDICAPPED SPACE. ALTHOUGH THE DISABLED COMMUNITY ADVOCATED FOR $100.00, A COMPROMISE WAS REACHED AND THE FINE INCREASED TO $50.00. THE COMMITTEE SECURED A QUARTER-PAGE PUBLIC SERVICE AD TO EDUCATE THE COMMUNITY REGARDING THE INCREASE WHICH WENT INTO EFFECT SEPTEMBER 1. A NEWS CONFERENCE WAS HELD IN THE ~4RKET AREA TO DEMONSTRATE THE CITY'S DESIRE TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL ITS CITIZENS. VALLEYWIDE COOPERATION WAS DEMONSTRATED AS THE SURROUNDING LOCALITIES ALSO INCREASED THEIR FINE TO $50.00. CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES LET IT BE KNOWN THAT PARATRANSIT SERVICES WERE NOT MEETING THEIR NEEDS. A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD AND WAS WELL ATTENDED. THE GREATER ROANOKE TRANSIT COMPANY BOARD (GRTC) APPROVED AN INCREASE IN THE SERVICE, HOWEVER, A FARE WAS LEVIED. AGAIN, CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES ADVOCATED THAT THE FARE WAS CAUSING UNDUE HARDSHIP FOR PEOPLE ON FIXED, LIMITED INCOMES. VALLEY METRO ESTABLISHED A CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO HELP OPEN THE LINES OF COMMUNICATION AND A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE MAYOR'S COMMITTEE WAS ASKED TO SERVE. THE COMMITTEE REVIEWED ITS MISSION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. CHANGES WERE WADE TO REFLECT THE COMMITTEE'S DESIRE TO BE UTILIZED AS A RESOURCE TO THE V~AYOR AND OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS REGARDING ISSUES AFFECTING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. THE COMMITTEE STRONGLY BELIEVES THAT TRANSPORTATION, EMPLOYMENT, ACCESSIBLE/AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND RECREATION ARE STILL MATTERS OF CONCERN TO ROANOKE CITY'S CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES. AS MAYOR, I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THROUGH THE ~PERATIVE EFFORTS DEMONSTRATED BY RECENT EVENTS, THESE ISSUES WILL BE RESOLVED IN A MANNER WHICH IS SATISFACTORY TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED AND WILL SHOW THAT ROANOKE IS TRULY AN ALL AMERICA CITY. ADVANCEMENTS IN HUMAN SERVICE PROGRAMS 1. YOUTH FACILITIES. IN SPITE OF A LACK OF ADJUSTMENT IN THE STATE GRANTS FOR OUH THREE YOUTH FACILITIES, THE JUVENILE DETENTION HOME, SANCTUARY/CRISIS INTERVENTION CENTER, AND YOUTH HAVEN I, WE CONTINUE TO OPERATE THESE PROGRAMS IN A MANNER THAT MEETS THE NEEDS OF OUR YOUNG PEOPLE WHO MUST RESIDE IN THESE FACILITIES. FIVE YEARS AGO, THE STATE WAS REIMBURSING THE CITY APPROXIMATELY 83 PERCENT OF THE COST OF OPERATING THESE THREE FACILITIES, BUT DURING THE LAST FISCAL YEAR, THIS REIMBURSEMENT DROPPED BELOW 70 PERCENT. ALTHOUGH THE STATE DID NOT REDUCE FUNDING TO THESE ORGANIZATIONS, THEY FAILED TO KEEP UP WITH INFLATION IN PROVIDING THE FUNDING. IN SPITE OF THIS, WE CONTINUE TO SERVE THE YOUNG PEOPLE IN A QUALITY MANNER. WE CURRENTLY HAVE UNDER CONSTRUCTION A NB FACILITY FOR THE CRISIS INTERVENTION CENTER THAT WILL CONTINUE TO SERVE THOSE YOUNG PEOPLE W~iO, USUALLY THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, HAVE NO OTHER PLACE TO GO. COUNSELING WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES. THE DEMANDS ON ALL THREE OF THESE PROGRAMS ARE GREAT AND EVEN WITH LESS STATE FUNDING, WE ARE OPERATING ABOVE CAPACITY. 2. FOCUS GRANT. THE CITY LAST YEAR WAS ONE OF FIVE LOCALITIES IN VIRGINIA TO RECEIVE A DEMONSTRATION GRANT FROM THE STATE ($425,000) TO HAVE AGENCIES WORK TOGETHER TO DEVELOP SERVICES TO KEEP OUR YOUNG PEOPLE OUT OF RESIDENTIAL CARE AND l? TREATMENT FACILITIES. NOT ONLY DO YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE TO LEAVE THE CITY TO ENTER SUCH FACILITIES, THE CARE IS EXTREMELY COSTLY TO BOTH THE CITY AND THE STATE. AGENCIES SERVICES, SCHOOL SYSTEM) ARE WORKING VERY CLOSELY TO DEVELOP WE ARE ALL VERY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE FUTURE. WE ARE HAPPY TO REPORT THAT THE FIVE MAJOR CHILO CARING (THE SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, JUVENILE COURT HEALTH DEPARTMENT, MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, AND THE THIS PROGRAM. PEOPLE A DAY DURING DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. 3. SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM. THE CITY COUNCIL WAS RECENTLY BRIEFED ON DETAILS OF THIS PROGRAM THAT HAS BROUGHT IN FEDERAL FUNDS TO PAY FOR BREAKFAST AND LUNCHES FOR 1.000 YOUNG THE SUMMER UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE FIFTH AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM AND THE SOCIAL THE PROGRAM HAS GROWN FROM A DOZEN LUNCHES PER DAY FIVE YEARS AGO WHEN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM WAS OPERATING IT IN THE SCHOOLS, TO ASSUMED BY THE COMMUNITIES. OVER 1,000 LUNCHES PER DAY ~-]EN OPERATION WAS CITY AND ~OVED TO SOME OF OUR LOWER IN~E 4. PROJECT SELF-SUFFICIENCY. THE EMPHASIS OF THE ENTIRE CITY HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDIVIDUALS TO REACH THEIR FULLEST POTENTIAL AND ABILITY TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES. WE BELIEVE THAT THE KEY TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND GETTING PEOPLE OFF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE IS TO PROVIDE TRAINING PROGRAMS THAT WILL TRAIN PEOPLE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF EMPLOYERS AND FILL MEANINGFUL JOBS. 18 PROJECT SELF-SUFFICIENCY HAS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN MOVING OVER 65 PERCENT OF THE PARTICIPANTS WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS OFF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ANO INTO OUR WORK FORCE. CONTINUES TO THROUGH THE THE HOMELESS. ALTHOUGH THE HOMELESS IN OUR CITY BE OF GREAT CONCERN, WE ARE HAPPY TO REPORT THAT EFFORTS OF OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY THERE ARE ENOUGH EMERGENCY BEDS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE STREET TO HAVE A WARM, COMFORTABLE PLACE TO SPEND THE NIGHT. THIS HAS REQUIRED A GREAT COMMUNITY EFFORT AND A 139 PERCENT INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF BEDS AVAILABLE IN THE CITY SINCE 1987. OTHER SERVICES, SUCH AS DAY SHELTERS THAT PROVIDE WARM MEALS AND PROGRAMS AND TRANSITIONAL LIVING THAT GIVE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET ON THEIR FEET, HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE CITY AND SERVE PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE ROANOKE VALLEY. 6. PROGRAMS TO PREVENT HOMELESSNESS. THE MAJOR EFFORTS THE CITY HAVE BEEN TO ENCOURAGE AND ESTABLISH PROGRAMS THAT OF PREVENT PEOPLE FROM BECOMING HOMELESS. ONE PARTICULAR PROGRAM IS THE EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FUND WHICH CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHED BY PROVIDING $45,000 IN C"'OM~UNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO PAY EMERGENCY RENTAL OR UTILITY PAYMENTS THAT ENABLE PEOPLE TO STAY IN THEIR OWN HOMES AND PREVENT EVICTION OR THE LOSS OF SHELTER. THE PROGRAM HAS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL AND HAS PREVENTED OVER 1,900 INDIVIDUALS FROM LOSING THEIR HOMES IN THE LAST THREE YEARS. REVENUE HAVE HAD A GREAT EXCUSE AND ELIMINATE FUNDING TO HUMAN 7. OTHER AGENCY FUNDING. WITH THE LOSS OF FEDERAL SHARING AND OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL CUTS, THE CITY WOULD OPPORTUNITY IN THE LAST FEW YEARS TO SERVICE AGENCIES, PARTICULARLY THE FUNDING FOR THE CITIZENS SERVICES COMMITTEE, BUT, IN FACT, FUNDING FOR TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY, MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, AND THE CITIZENS SERVICES COMMITTEE HAS INCREASED AT THE SAME R. ATE OF GROWTH AS THE INCREASES TO DEPARTMENTS OF THE CITY. THIS YEAR, ALL OF THESE PROGRAMS WERE FUNDED AT THE SAME LEVEL AS LAST YEAR. 8. NURSING HOME. BECAUSE OF THE WAY IN WHICH THE MEDICAID PROGRAM REIMBURSES FOR NURSING HOME CARE, OUR CITY NURSING HOME HAS DROPPED FROM RECOUPING ALMOST FULL COST OF OPERATION TO AN APPROXIMATE $200,000 PER YEAR LOSS WHICH IS SUPPLEMENTED FROM THE ROANOKE CITY GENERAL FUND. IN SPITE OF THIS LOSS IN FUNDING, THE CITY CONTINUED TO PROVIDE QUALITY NURSING CARE TO 58 OF OUR LOW-INCOME CITY RESIDENTS. 9. FOSTER CARE. OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS, THE STATE HAS REDUCED ITS FUNDING FOR MANY OF THE CHILDREN WHO ARE IN CUSTODY OF THE CITY AND RECEIVE FOSTER CARE SERVICES FROM 80 PERCENT REIMBURSEMENT TO 50 PERCENT. THIS HAS CONTRIBUTED TO AN INCREASE OF $154,000 IN CITY FUNDING IN THE LAST THREE YEARS. EVEN WITH THE INCREASED COSTS, WE CONTINUE TO IIORK COOPERATIVELY WITH THE COURTS AND OTHER CHILD CARING AGENCIES TO ASSURE A SAFE, SECURE ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR CITY'S CHILDREN. 2O CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE 1. TEENAGE PREGNANCY. LIKE OTHER URBAN AREAS, TEENAGE PREGNANCY IS A MAJOR PROBLE~ IN THE CITY OF ROANOKE. USUALLY WHEN A YOUNG GIRL BECOMES PREGNANT, SHE FINDS IT NECESSARY TO DROP OUT OF SCHOOL AND, THEREFORE, STOPPING HER NORMAL EDUCATIONAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT, ALL TOO OFTEN WAKING HER AND HER CHILD DEPENDENT UPON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FOR YEARS TO COME. THE CITY IS TRYING TO INSTITUTE PROGRAMS TO DEAL WITH THIS THROUGH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, AND A COALITION OF AGENCIES CALLED "BETTER BEGINNINGS." WE NEED TO GIVE SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THIS PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE. 2. ABUSE OF ALCOHOL AND DRUGS. THE' ABUSE OF ALCOHOL AND ILLEGAL DRUGS, PARTICULARLY CRACK/COCAINE IN OUR CITY HAS REEKED DEVASTATION UPON MANY OF OUR FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS. THROUGH OUR DRUG ABUSE COUNCIL, THIS CITY HAS TRIED TO BRING THE VALLEY TOGETHER TO DEAL WITH THIS REGIONAL PROBLEM. WE HAVE ASKED THE DRUG COUNCIL TO COORDINATE EFFORTS AND BRING NEW PROGRAMS THAT WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO OUR CITIZENS. ONE OF THE FRUSTRATIONS OF DEALING WITH THIS PROBLEM IS THAT ALTHOUGH ONE VIOLENT ACT AS THE RESULT OF THE DRUG TRADE IS TOO MUCH FOR THIS COMMUNITY TO TOLERATE, MANY OF THE FEDERAL AGENCIES TO WHOM WE APPLY FOR FUNDS TELL US OUR PROBLEM IS NOT GREAT ENOUGH TO RECEIVE FUNDING. THEREFORE, THE FUNDING GOES TO SOME OF THE LARGER URBAN AREAS RATHER THAN MUCH NEEDED HELP FOR OUR OWN CITIZENS. IN THE AIDS IN AT RISK ARE THAT ONLY 3. SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES. THERE IS AN INCREASE INSTANCE OF SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES, PARTICULARLY THE ROANOKE VALLEY. ALL SEGMENTS OF OUR SOCIETY ARE NOW OF THESE DEVASTATING DISEASES. MANY OF THESE DISEASES ALSO RELATED TO THE GROWING DRUG PROBLEM. IT IS IMPERATIVE ALL SEGMENTS OF OUR COMMUNITY DEAL WITH THESE DISEASES, NOT THROUGH OUR HEALTH DEPARTMENT, BUT THROUGH OUR CHURCHES AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS PROVIDING EDUCATION TO OUR YOUNG PEOPLE. RECOMMENDATIONS 22 1. BASIC TO FUNCTIONING IN OUR SOCIETY IS THE NEED AND THE ABILITY TO READ. OUR LIBRARY SYSTEM, ALONG WITH LITERACY FOUNDATION OF THE ROANOKE VALLEY, IS WORKING TOGETHER TO TRY TO MAKE READING PROGRAMS AVAILABLE TO EVERY PERSON WHO NEEDS AND WANTS TO LEARN TO READ. I RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY OF ROANOKE MAKE AN ALL-OUT EFFORT AND CALL UPON OUR CITIZENS FROM THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY TO VOLUNTEER WITH THESE PROGRAMS TO HELP TEACH SOMEONE TO READ. I ALSO URGE THOSE WHO NEED TO IMPROVE THEIR SKILLS TO CONTACT THE LITERACY FOUNDATION OR THE PUBLIC LIBRARY. ILLITERACY IS A PROBLEM THAT CAN BE ELIMINATED IN OUR CITY. 2. I RECOMMEND THAT OUR CITY CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF JOBS FOR OUR CITIZENS, AND JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, TO ASSURE THAT EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS ARE IN PLACE THAT WILL PREPARE ALL OF OUR CITIZENS FOR MEANINGFUL WORK WITHIN THEIR CAPABILITIES. THIS IS THE KEY TO SUCCESSFUL HUMAN SERVICE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. MANAGER TO TO COUNCIL I RECY)MMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ASK THE CITY SET UP A COMMITTEE THIS FISCAL YEAR TO REPORT BACK BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR AS TO WHETHER THE ROANOKE AREA HAS ADEQUATE FACILITIES AND SUPPORT STAFF TO COMPETE IN AN EVEN GREATER WAY IN THE AREA OF ATTRACTING AMATEUR SPORTING EVENTS TO THE ROANOKE VALLEY. 4. I RECOMMEND THAT THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO REDUCE THE REAL ESTATE TAX RATE FROM $1.25 PER ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS OF ASSESSED VALUE TO $1.20 PER ONE HUNDRED OOLLARS OF ASSESSED VALUE DURING THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. OUR CITIZENS CONTINUE TO RECEIVE HIGHER ASSESSMENTS AS THEIR PROPERTY VALUES INCREASE, AND I BELIEVE THE TIME HAS COME TO GIVE SOMETHING BACK TO THE CITIZENS. THIS RECOMMENDATION WILL ESTABLISH A GOAL AND THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD WILL HOPEFULLY GIVE THE CITY COUNCIL ADEQUATE TIME TO DEAL WITH ANY FINANCIAL SHORTFALL IT MAY ENCOUNTER. 5. I RECOMMEND THAT WE O0 WHATEVER WE CAN, WITHOUT INCREASING THE TAX LEVEL ON OUR CITIZENS, TO PROVIDE THE EMPLOYEES OF ROANOKE CITY GOVERNMENT AND THE ROANOKE CITY SCHOOL SYSTEM WITH A SALARY INCREASE DURING FISCAL YEAR 1992-93. 6. I RECOMMEND THAT WE INFORM OUR CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS OF OUR STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WHICH IS THE FINAL REMNANT OF A ONCE PROUD AND EFFECTIVE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE NATION'S CITIES. THIS PARTNERSHIP IS THE MOST EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE, AND ECONOMICAL METHOD OF DELIVERING SERVICES TO THE NATION'S LOW AND MODERATE INCOME CITIZENS. A PARTING WORD THE KEY TO ANY SUCCESSFUL URBAN REVITALIZATION PROGRAM IS REESTABLISHING THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. ROANOKE CITY WILL BE SUCCESSFUL IN ATTRACTING NEW CITY DWELLERS BY OFFERING A WIDE RANGE OF HOMES, FROM CONDOMINIUM COMPLEXES FOR HIGH-END BUYERS TO SINGLE-ROOW OCCUPANCY FOR LOW-END RENTERS. PEOPLE ARE BEGINNING TO REDISCOVER THE ADVANTAGES OF LIVING IN AN URBAN SETTING -- A WAJOR ONE BEING THE EASY ACCESS TO WORK, CULTURE, SHOPPING, AND ENTERTAINMENT ACTIVITIES. ROANOKE IS A COMMUNITY CONVENIENCE. AMONG THE COLLECTION UNIQUE RESTAURANTS AND FOOD SHOPS. HAS A 'CULTURAL CLIMATE THAT AND OF CHARACTER, CHARM, AND OF SMALL STORES ARE NUWEROUS WITHOUT A DOUBT, THIS CITY IS SYWBOLIZED BY CENTER IN THE SQUARE ENHANCED BY THE GREAT MUSIC OF THE ROANOKE SYMPHONY. I HAVE STATED, BOTH PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY, ~Y HIGH REGARD FOR THE MEWBERS OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL AND COUNCIL APPOINTEES AND CITY ADMINISTRATORS. I HAVE LEARNED TO ADMIRE AND RESPECT THEM FOR THEIR PERFORMANCE, AND I SINCERELY APPRECIATE THE SPLENDID MANNER IN WHICH THEY COOPERATED WITH ME IN THE PERFORWANCE OF MY'DUTIES AS MAYOR. IT IS DIFFICULT TO REALIZE THAT OVER FIFTEEN YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE I FIRST TOOK THE OATH OF OFFICE AS MAYOR OF THIS CITY. I AW PARTICULARLY INDEBTED TO THE MANY CITIZENS WHO ELECTED WE AND HAVE WORKED SO FAITHFULLY WITH ME. THEIR CONFIDENCE AND SUPPORT MADE MY JOB AS MAYOR EASIER. THIS HAS BEEN AN EXPERIENCE WHICH I SHALL CHERISH THE REST OF ~ LIFE, AND I SINCERELY THANK ALL THE CITIZENS, PAST AND PRESENT, WHO GAVE ME THIS OPPORTUNITY. FINALLY, WAY THE LOVE OF GOD, AND THE COMMUNION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, BE WITH YOU ALL. M~RY F. PARKEI~ City Clerk CIT OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue. S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, V'h'~inia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #514-20 SAND~A H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk ~/Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Mr. Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairman City Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Gentlemen: At the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke on Monday, August 12, 1991, a public hearing was held on the request of the Wright-Creston-Rosewood Association that Creston Avenue and Rosewood Avenue, S. W., righta-of-way be barrieaded by way of traversable barricades across Creston Avenue at the intersection of Strether Road and Creston Avenue, and across Rosewood Avenue southeast of its intersection with Sweetbriar Avenue. On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the matter was referred to you for further study, report and recommendation to Council relative to alternative strategies for reducing excessive traffic. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: Mr. Gary M. Bowm~n, p. O. Box 13366, Roanoke, Virginia 24033-3366 Mr. Wflburn C. Dibilng, Jr., City Attorney Ms. Nadine C. Mlnnix, Acting Director of Real Estate Valuation MI'. L. Elwood Norris, Chairman, Board of Zoning Appeals Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Dlreotor of Utilities and Operations Mr. John R. Marllee, Secretary, City Planning Commission Mr. Edward R. Tucker, City Planner Ms. Doris Layne, Office of Real Estate Valuation MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456 Roanoke, Vitgmla 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 June 12, 1991 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy Cl~y Clerk File #514 Mr. Charles A. Price, Jr., City Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Chairman Dear Mr. Price: Pursuant to §30-14, Procedure for altering or vacating City streets or alleys; fees therefor, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of an application from the Wright-Creston-Rosewood Association requesting that the Wright Road, Creston Avenue and Rosewood Avenue, S. W., right-of- way be barricaded by way of traversable barricades at the inter- section of Strother Road and Creston Avenue and on Rosewood Avenue, southeast of its intersection with Sweetbriar Avenue, S. W., as more specifically set forth on a map identified as Exhibit A. Sincerely,.j Mary F. Parker. CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra ST.CLOSE3 Eric. pc: Mr. Dennis R. Ga tens. Co-President, Wright-Creston-Rosewood Association, 3548 Wright Road S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24015 ' ' Mr. Bradley T. Snead, Co-President, Wright-Creston-Rosewood Association, First Campbell Square, 210 First Street, S. ~. Suite 100, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 ' Mr. John R. Marlles, Agent/Secretary, City Planning Commission Mr. Ronald R. Miller, Zoning Administrator Mr. Edward R. Tucker, City Planner Mr. Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney VIRGINIA: CITY CLERF~$ OFF}CE: IN THE COUNCIL~&F ROANOKE, VIRGINIA IN RE: BARRICADING OF THE WRIGHT ROAD AND ROSEWOOD THROUGHWAY ) APPLICATION ) FOR STREET ) CLOSING TO: THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL OF ROANOKE We, the Wright - Rosewood - Creston Association, pursuant to S15.1-364 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, hereby apply to have the Wright Road, Creston Avenue and Rosewood Avenue right- of-way barricaded by way of traversable barricades at the intersection of Strother Road and Creston Avenue and on Rosewood Avenue southeast of its intersection with Sweetbriar as more particularly shown on a map attached as Exhibit A, or altered, and in support of this application state as follows: 1). Upon petition of over 83% of the households in the Wright Road, Creston Avenue, Rosewood Avenue and other adjoining neighborhood streets, requesting a traffic study of their neighborhood, the City Engineer ordered a traffic study and as a result, the City Engineer prepared an interdepartmental communication dated June 14, 1990 addressing neighborhood, traffic, cost and community perception. The report, a cody of which is attached as Exhibit B, recommended that the "City staff can endorse their efforts to apply for the barricading of Wright Road at Creston Avenue." 2). A list of residents directly affected by closure of the Wright-Creston-Rosewood throughway is attached as Exhibit C. 3). The City Engineer advised Dennis Gatens and other neighbors of the results as recommended in the petition. 4). Reduced traffic will make the neighborhood a safer, more desirable place to live and raise property values. (See Exhibit B, page 2) 5). The Wright Road, Creston Avenue, and Rosewood Avenue throughway (hereinafter " the throughway") presently handles the following volumes of traffic: 7 day ADT 5 day ADT Wright Road 2,665 2,799 Creston Avenue 2,333 2,448 Rosewood Avenue 2,194 2,315 (See Exhibit B, page 1) Of these volumes, 7§ to 85% of the vehicles are estimated to be through vehicles using the corridor as a short cut between Colonial and Brambleton Avenues. (See Exhibit B, page 2) 6). This heavy volume of traffic is undesirable and unsafe. As a result of this heavy volume of traffic and as a result of the unsafe speeds which vehicles travel on these narrow roads, numerous accidents have occurred along the throughway with 19 accidents occurring along this throughway in a three year period from 1987 through 1989 with only two of the drivers involved in these accidents being residents of the immediate neighborhood. (See Exhibit B, page 2) These figures, of course, do not include the numerous unreported accidents as well as those from individuals entering Colonial Avenue from Wright Road. These accidents are not in the City records, as they occurred in Roanoke County. 7). Closure of the throughway will also result in an external benefit to the Brambleton and Grandin Court areas by reducing traffic. ( See Exhibit B, page 2) 8). Emergency access would not be affected in as much as responding vehicles can choose the appropriate route via Colonial or Brambleton without any considerable increase in response time. (See Exhibit B, page 3) In addition, it appears from a letter dated February 21, 1991, from Rawleigh W. Quarles, Sr., that response times to the throughway neighborhood is actually shorter from station number 8 in Crystal Spring than from number 7 on Memorial Avenue. A copy of this letter is marked Exhibit D and attached hereto. Finally traversable barricades would allow emergency vehicles to use the throughway if an emergence required its use. 9). Safety will improve by removal of approximately 2000 vehicles per day from the narrow and curvy streets of this throughway onto alternate routes with approximately 900 using Overland, 900 proceeding to the County and 200 using other means. (See Exhibit B, page 3) 10). The additional 1 1/2 to 2 miles of travel for these 2000 vehicles as well as the additional 3 to 3 1/2 minutes of travel time are minimal in comparison to the net benefit gained to the neighborhood and the community as a result of the closure. 11). If the throughway is not barricaded, traffic will continue to use this route and will likely increase as Southwest County continues to develop. (See Exhibit B, page 4) Although the final report, a copy of which is marked Exhibit E and attached hereto, does not recommend closure because of an increase in emergency access times, the preliminary report attached as Exhibit B indicates that there will be no impact on emergency access. Furthermore, subsequent findings by the fire department show a faster response time from Crystal Springs number 8 (with closure) than with using the Wright Road corridor. The route from South Roanoke is also safer. 12). Although the City Engineer now states that the net benefit to the community does not 3ustify the negative impact from emergency access, the City Engineer has not been able to satisfy members of the Association as to why this is so when faster response times are achieved coming from station number 8 in South Roanoke than from station number 7 on Memorial Avenue. (See Exhibit D, page 1) 13). Additionally, neighbors on Wright Road can remember on1¥ two occasions on which emergency vehicles used this corridor and on both of those occasions access was gained not from Brambleton Avenue as the City Engineer maintains is the shortest and fastest route, but from Colonial Avenue. Both of these occasions were for emergencies in the Wright Road, Rosewood and Creston neighborhood. 14). The Roanoke City Fire Department will inspect and approve any traversable barricades or other barricades erected. The Roanoke City Fire Department has stated that emergency response times and service will not be affected if traversable barricades are used on the throughway and has stated that it is not opposed to closure so long as traversable barricades are used. 15). If necessary, residents requesting closure understand that they may be required to bare some of the cost of materials and/or labor of construction of the barricades. 16). The physical features of the throughway make it unsuitable for the volume of traffic which it currently handles, and without closure, traffic will only increase as it has done so over the last few years. Recent approval of high density housing in Roanoke County on Colonial will only exacerbate the problem as will future anticipated development in the immediate area. 17). Closure fits in with the City's Dlans to save middle income neighborhoods and to keep them from deteriorating. 18). Signalization of Overland Road should be a high priority ss it would allow for better regulation of traffic flow for traffic currently using Overland and for any other traffic which may be diverted to Overland Road as a result of closure of the throughway. WHEREFORE, the Wright - Creston - Rosewood Association, applies to City Council to have closure of the Wright Road, Creston Avenue and Rosewood Avenue throughway to through traffic. Respectfully submitted. The Wright - Creston - Rosewood Association Dennis Gatens, Co-President B~ey T. Sneed, Co-President & Mrs. & Mrs. & Mrs. & Mrs. Walter Menefee Randall Larson Ray Byrd Jr. Bradley Sneed NAME COLONIAL AVE. Mr. & Mrs. Lister Ives WRIGHT RD. Mr. & Mrs. Hill Crockett Ms. Karen Haynie Mr. & Mrs Fred Miller Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. & Mrs. William Watkins Mrs. Edith B. Fortune Mr. & Mrs. Wm. H. Martin Mr. & Mrs. Scott Whitaker Ms. Ora Smith Mr. & Mrs. Mr. & Mrs. Mr. & Mrs. Emmett Manley Michael Stanley Dennis R. Gatens Ms. Beverly Bury Mr. & Mrs. Mark Vance Mr. & Mrs. Gary Bowman Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Cook PROPERTY OWNER LIST ADDRESS 3217 3558 3554 3542 3530 3522 3512 3535 3527 3545 3519 3588 3571 3574 3561 3548 3566 3536 3580 3583 EXHIBIT C TAX NUMBER 1570212 1570208 1570207 1570205 1570203 1570201 1470215 1570106 1570105 1570107 1470201 1570216 1570109 1570210 1570108 1570206 1570209 1570204 1570211 1570110 CRESTON AVE. Mr. & Mrs. Mark Mallen 2606 Mr. James Maxey 2597 Mr. Rodman Mueller 2623 Mr. John Evers 2617 CWR Benson 2622 Mrs. James Ramseur 2641 Claire Stone White 2651 Verity Callender-Briggs 2750 Mr. James Johnston 2631 Mr. John Lane 2725 Mr. Jackson Dickerson 2605 Mary Stevenson 2602 Betty Morgan 2736 Margo Bogdandwitz 2744 Susan Steele 2614 (Mailing Address: P.O. Box 63 Amherst, Blanche Hamden 2715 SWEETBRIAR AVE. Mr. Richard Bell 2601 Mr. Frank Carmack 2611 Mrs. Linda R. Pyne 2574 ~TROTHER RD. Mr. Michael Montgomery Mr. Steven Fisher Mr. Jerome Kaczmarek Mrs. Susan Shafer 3703 3709 3713 3719 VA 24521) 1470219 1470103 1561314 1561306 1470213 1561305 1561304 1570112 1561312 1651204 1561309 1470203 1570125 1570111 1470214 1651205 1561024 1561023 1470121 1650921 1650922 1650923 1650924 Mrs. Thelma Meredith Mrs. Helen Mcclanahan Mrs. Elizabeth Fannin Mr. James Ruel Mr. Stephen McGee Mr. John Eanes Mr. Howard Regnier Mr. David C. Smith Mr. William Crisp Mr. Stuart Boblett Ms. Betty Brooke Ms. Jeanette Cabaniss Mr. Howard Regnier Mr. & Mrs. William Leffel Mrs. Charlotte Mason 3401 3411 3421 3427 3428 3326 3320 3436 3422 3316 3301 3311 3315 3306 3412 1561321 1561307 1561313 1561308 1470102 1561224 1561210 1470123 1470122 1561201 1561016 1561017 1561018 1561223 1470101 DEPUTY FIRE CHIEFS Billy N. Akers John H. Johnson Billy W. Southalt DISTRICT FIRE CHIEFS Garry R. Basham Beverly D. Mitchell James A. Patton Bobble S. Slayton PhiUip A. Taylor Paul O. Thompson PLANNING OFFICER Peter T. Kandis TRAINING/ HAZ MAT OFFICER Winston V. Simmons DEPUTY FIRE MARSHAL David R. Rickman ROANOKE CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE FIRE CHIEF 124 WEST KIRK AVENUE ROANOKE. VA 24011 Exhibit O February 21, FIRE CHIEF Rawleigh W. Quarles. Sr. 1991 Mr. Bradley T. Sneed First Campbell Square 210 First Street S.W., Suite Roanoke, Virginia 24011 100 Dear Mr. Sneed: In response to your letter of February 8, 1991, timed responses were again conducted from No. 7 Fire Station as well as No. 8 Fire Station. No. 8 engine responds with No. 7 engine and No. 7 ladder to the area discussed. The following is the result of those tests. Tests From No. 7 Station (1742 Memorial Avenue) · From No. 7 Station via Grandin Road, Guilford, Woodlawn, Rosewood, Creston, to Wright Road (distance 2.3 miles, response time - 8 minutes, seconds). From No. 7 Station via Grandin road, Brandon, Brambleton, Overland, Colonial to Wright Road (distance 3.1 miles, response time 10 minutes). NOTE: These tests confirm earlier tests that show a 2 -minute delay for 7 engine and 7 ladder responding via alternate route. Tests From No. 8 Station (2328 Crystal Springs Ave.) ae From No. 8 Station via Broadway, Wonju,'Colonial to Wright Road (distance 3.0 miles, response time - 7 min. and 30 sec.). From No. 8 Station via Broadway, Wonju, Colonial, Ogden, to Windward Road (distance 4.0 miles, response time 10 min.). (703) 981-2327 or 981-2257 Mr. Sneed February 21, 1991 Page 2 The standard response to an alarm in Roanoke City is that of 2 engine companies and 1 ladder company. This is the minimum force required to effectively combat an average dwelling fire. Response times are determined by {he first arriving company. While low response times are critical to the beginning of firefighting operations, the success of the operation, that of saving lives and property, is dependent upon the quickness in which an effective fire fighting force is placed into action. Due to the nature of fire behavior (on the average fire doubles in intensity every minute) and the response times involved (double the City's average) the deployment of an effective force becomes even more essential to the operation. As you can see from our test, No. 8 engine's response closely parallels that of No. 7 engine and No. 7 ladder, however, when the alternate route is taken, there is a 2 minute delay before adequate equipment and personnel engage the fire. I understand and appreciate your concerns for the safety of the citizens and who reside in this area, but my consideration is for the best possible fire protection for these citizens and I can not, given the reasons stated, recommend closing of this street. I do regret that I cannot be of assistance at this t~me, however, i will be qlad to consid~ any oth~ proposals that you may have in this regard. Sincerely, Fire Chief :t cc: Beverly Fitzpatrick, City Councilman W. Robert Herbert, City Manager George C. Snead, Director Administration & Public Safety William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Robert K. Bengston, Civil Engineer Members of the Council Page 7 recommends that City Council approve Alternative A, thereby denying the applicants' request to close the subject streets and further recommending that City Council refer the matter to the Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation, of alternative strategies for reducing excessive through traffic in this and other residential neighborhoods. The Commission's recommendations to be presented to City Council within a period of six months or less from any date of Council action effecting this decision. The above recommendation is based on the following conclusions: Residents within the community are divided on the issue of street closure. Be Residents unanimously agree that traffic management measures are needed. Residential streets being used by heavy through traffic are not properly aligned or adequately designed for thoroughfare or collector street purposes. De Closure would result in a transferal of the problem to other residential streets. The residential environment of neighborhoods should be protected and preserved. Traffic management changes can be made to reduce the scale of the existing traffic problem. Respectfully submitted, Charles A. Price, Jr., Cha'irman Roanoke City Planning Commission JRM:ERT:mpf attachments cc: Assistant City Attorney Director of Public Works City Engineer Building Commissioner Petitioners /2') ~ 0 A 8 I II ,! /21 EXHIBIT A AVE. C4 7~, o N_.. COI~BIESHAW MAP ' 9', BY.C.F. KEFAUVJER MAP ILE NO. 6100 D-'~.O .~E.F_ $ DRo~ D.I~ Exhibit DATE TO FROM: THRU: SUBJECT: June I~, 1990 William F. Clark, Director of Public Works John R. Harlles, Chief, Community Planning $~ephanie A. Feeler, Neighborhood Partnership Coordinator M. David Hesper, Chief of Police Raelelgh Quarlles, Fire Chief Wands B. Reed, Coordinator, Emergency Services Robert K. Sengcaou, P.E., City lngiueer~.~ Charles H. Ruffine, P.E., City Engiueer~r~F TP~AFFIC STaY OF ~IG~ RO~, C~STON AVE~ ~D ROSEWOOD A~N~, S.~. FOR ~VIEW, CO~ ~D ~TU~ TO ENGI~E~NG I. Back~round: ~etitions were received from residents of the Wright Road, Creston Avenue, Rosewood Avenue and other adjoining neighborhood streets requ~stin$ a traffic study of their neighborhood. Eighty-three (83) percent of the households petitioned la the study area signed the petition. Petitioners IMlieve that the heavy traffic floe along the one-half mile long Wright-Creston-Roseeood route (see attached u~p A) between Colonial and Brambleton Avenues is ,~Adesirable and unsafe. They requested that the City study the situation along this corridor to determine what alternatives are available for reducing the flow of vehicles. In particular, they request the City examine the feasibility of clcei:g Wriih~ P~ed (similar to the closing om Winding Way Road} l'r;i~ivnera acknoeledge the impact a ~irrlcade ~ould have on travel times and distances, the routing of neighborhood traffic and emergency vehicles, and access during icy road conditions. Current Situations: A. Traffic volumes recorded on each segment of the corridor reveal the following: ~right Road Creston Avenue Rosewood Avenue Z da~ ADT 5 2,665 2,799 2,333 2,~&8 2,19~ 2,315 ?age 2 III. Of these vol,,~es, 7S to 85 Percent of the vehicles are estimated to be thru vehicles that are using this corridor as · short-cut between Colonial and Brambletoa AVenues, Some of these vehicles also continue onto Other neighborhood Streets between Brembleton Avenue and Grsndin Road. B. ~ud~. of traffic on Vrlght Road revealed that the 85th percen- tile northbound speed was 30 mph, while the 85th percentile southbound Speed was 33 mph. These Speeds are SOmewhat high given the narrow width of the Street. C. Ac_AC_cident records for · three-year period from 1987-1989 along this corridor rev~sl~six (6) accidents at the Sharp curve near the Creeton/RoSewood intersection, each of which invOlved tvs (2) vehicles but no injuries or fatalities. There were also tvs (2) Single vehicle accidents st the curve near the Vrigbt/Crestoa intersection, with no injuries or fatalities. Only two of the drivers in these eight (8) accidents Were residents of the neighborhood. The COlonial/Vright intersection has hsd no accidents during this three year period, while the grsmbletoa/RoSewood intersection has had eleven (11) accidents entering/exiting , Seven (7) of which involved motorists RoSewood Avenue, (which included one (1) injury), b~.th only one (1) driver being a resident of tbs neighborhood. ~eSues: B. Safet~ C. Traffic D, Cost -- E. C-'~'~'~'~unlt~ perceptio~ A. ~rhood that C/ty stsff can endorse their efforts to apply ~ -t-h~of Vright Road at trenton Avenue as depticted in the attached ~ap B. 1. ~, if Successful In sinl and City Coun-~ - - g ug Plsnnin Co:mi F~ece co live due to r-a..--~ -- . . a mo~e desirable of the nel-~ .... --,,,.mu ~urou~n traffic. S auuurnooe w'lll o'-si ...... -.c -~mzuents access. The ad sin .~ · -uT closure due to restr/ Branbleton ..a J__ !~S.neighborhood to the mort. ;~--- cted traffic as a resul- ^~ - .[.-~_-x~erzence reduced throe h Page 3 2. Safety will improve by removal of approximately 2,000 vehicles per day from the narrow (18 Co 20 feeC pavement widths and no shoulders) and curvy Streets. Emergency access would aec be affected inasmuch es responding vehicles can choose the appropriate route via Colonial or Branbleton without any considerable increase in response time. 3. Traffic vi11 be rerouced co ocher roadways which provide the Colonial co Bramblecon connection. The next route available in the City is Overland Road, a distance of 1.1 nile co the east of Wright Road along Colonial Avenue (includes passing by VWCC). To the west, the next route available is in the county. IC consists of Poplar Drive and View Avenue, · distance of 0.9 miles to the west of Wright Road along Colonial Avenue. Our projection is ChaC the 2~000 daily short-cut motorists viii redistribute between the following alternative routes: 900 on Overlandj 900 to the County; 200 ocher. This would create added pressure for signalization of Colonial ac Overland as veil as granblecon aC Overland. Tne additional traffic would cause the Colonial/Overland Intersection to rise on the traffic cigna1 priority List from No. 6 to No. 1, while the gr&nblecon/Overlend intersection would rise from No. 8 Co No. 6. C~osc est/maCe of ~,000 for implementing dead end would involve Cbt barricade mater/al end any property acquisition for cml-de=sac. CoununiC~ perception would likely be negative due co the route being · public street, lc could also generate sinllar requ~sce for ocher neighborboode. Depending upon uoCorist origin and destination, alternative routes can be somewhat lc~ler in terns of both distance (es nuc~ es II ~o l mles) and travel Clam (as such as 3 Co 3t minutes). Inform nmi hberbood chac City staff cannot endorse their efforts co apply for the barricading of Yrlght Road ac Creates Avenue as depicted in the attached nap ~. 1. Nellbborhood complaints viii continue co be received reisrdlng the undesirability of the through traffic on Chess n-trow, curvy streets. Safety Il not improved. Rovever, all emergency access will be retained as La. Page 3. T~rafflc vi11 continue Co use this route, and rill likely increase as SouChwes~ County continues co develop. 4. C~ost is hoc an issue. 5. ~°mmunicI perception is hoc an issue. ~ork rich neighborhood to develop alternative traffic mitiis~ing measures (similar co Deyerle area). 1. ~ concerns emisc for all hours of the day. Traf- fic volu~es do hoc significantly level off during non-peak bouts. Restrictive measures only during peak hour vould not fully address neighborhood's tuality of 1Ifa concerns. 2. S~afecy only improves during hours of restrictions. 3. Traffic vould be rerouted co other roadways as discussed in parc IV.&.3. Coat of slgnage is ~[niul. ~0~untt~ perception vould likely be negative due to the Depending upon motorist origin and destination, al£ernative routes can be aonevhat longer in terms of both distance (as much as lj to 2 miles) and travel time (aa much as 3 co 3~ ~tnutas). V. Reco~endation: Inform neighborhood that City staff can endorse their efforts to apply for the barricading of Yrighc Road at Creston Avanue as plcted in the attached ~ap B. Implementation should be contln- =est upon signalization ac Ovarla~d/Coionial. ~B/fm Exhibit E Office of the City Engineer November 28, 1990 Mr. Dennis R. Gatens 3548 Wright Road, $.W. Roanoke, VA 24015 Dear Mr. Gatens: The City of Roanoke has completed its comprehensive study of Wright Road, Creston Avenue, and Rosewood Avenue, S.W. as petitioned by residents of that area. The petition indicated strong support from the immediate neighborhood for a traffic study to examine the feasibility of closing Wright Road to through traf- fic between Brambleton Avenue and Colonial Avenue. Subsequent to the petition, you informed us that residents of the dead-end segment of Creston Avenue will oppose the closure of Wright Road at Creston Avenue inasmuch as they desire to retain access to Colonial Avenue. Therefore, you amended your request by asking us to review one barricade at Creston and Rosewood Avenues and another at Strother Road. For the purposes of the study, both scenarios were considered. In order for a roadway to be a good'candidate for closure, it should have a reasonable alternative route to serve the relocated traffic, as well as be able to maintain acceptable emergency response times so as not to place the neigh- borhood and surrounding community at greater risk during an emergency. Therefore, the appropriateness of barricading a roadway considers more than just tha issue ~f through traffic. STUDY SUMMARY The study of Wright Road included a review of traffic volttmes, speed studies accident analysis, and impact on emergency services. The following information summarizes these study items: Average daily traffic (ADT) recorded on each segment of the corridor reveal the following: Wright Road Creston Avenue Posewood Avenue 7-day ADT Week-day ADT 2,665 2,799 2,333 2,448 2,194 2,315 Dennis R. Gatens November 28. 1990 Page 2 Speed study of traffic on Wright Road revealed that the 85th percen- tile speed (the speed below which 85 percent of these vehicles travel for that particular location) was 30 m.p.h, for northbound vehicles and 33 m.p.h, for southbound vehicles. The 85th percentile speed is often recognized as the basis of posting speed limits unless circum- stances indicate otherwise. (The average speeds were 27 m.p.h, and 29 m.p.h., respectively for northbound and southbound vehicles.) A Speed limit of 25 m.p.h, is posted. Accident analysis of the four intersections along this corridor indi- cates the following: Intersection Colonial/Wright Wright/Creston Creston/Rosewood Rosewood/Brambleton 1987 1988 1989 1990 (first six months) 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 3 0 5 3 3 2 The only intersection where injuries resulted from these reported accidents occurred at Rosewood/Brambleton where five (5) injuries occurred. Emergency services response times are significantly impacted by a closure of this roadway corridor. From the Fire Department, we have learned that Number 7 Engine and Number 7 Ladder (located et 1742 Memorial Avenue) would respond to the Wright Road/Creston Avenue area and are currently responding in approximately seven (7) minutes. If ~right Road at Creston Avenue was blocked end an alternative route chosen, an additional two (2} minutes would be added to the present response time of seven (7) minutes making the new response to Wright Road and beyond, nine (9) minutes. When using the alternate route to Wright Road, emergency fire appara- tus would have to go by two schools - James Madison end Virginia Western Community College and at certain times of the day this would add extra minutes to the nine (9) minute response time if the inci- dent would occur when school was letting out end a 15 mile per hour school zone is encountered. Dennis R. Gatens November 28, 1990 Page 3 Police Department responses would vary depending upon the location of patrol vehicles at any particular instant. As an example, a vehicle on grambleton Avenue near the intersection with Rosewood Avenue would only need to travel approximately 0.5 mile from Brambleton to Colonial using Rosewood/Creston/Wright. However, if barricaded, response using Brambleton/Overland/Colonial would travel approximately 2.2 miles to get to Wright Road, while response using Brambleton/View/Poplar/ Colonial would travel 2.3 miles. In either alternative, valuable minutes are added to the response time. At prevailing speeds, travel time of 3.0 to 3.5 minutes are added. R~sponse time speeds would be somewhat less, but the additional time would still be critical. It should be noted that these response times are critical not only to the residents of your l~mediate neighborhood, but to area residents as well. Residents of Robyn Road, Hartland Road (and others in that sub- division), and the Windward Condominiums off Ogden Road rely on emergency access which may need to pass through your neighborhood. CONCLUSION While the observed vehicle speeds and reported accidents are comparable to many other neighborhood streets throughout the City, the traffic volume is rela- tively high. It is perfectly understandable that such volumes are objectionable to the residents. However, it is clear that the impact upon emergency response times bears the greatest concern. Therefore, the trade-off between reduced . traffic for increased emergency response time simply does not result in a net .benefi~ to the community. Additionally, much of the relocated traffic is likely to pass through the school corridor on both Colonial Avenue and Overland Road. Also, from a tech~ical perspective, the cul-de-sac placem=~C et Creston and ro~ewoou Avenue creates a problem. 1'nat is, in the closure plan preferred by the Creston Avenue group which requires the dedication of private property for a cul-de-sac at Creston and Rosewood Avenues, it would be undesirable to have the turnaround located on a 131 grade. OTHER ALTERNATIVES In an effort to determine if certain turn restrictions would help reduce traffic volume, we requested the Virginia Department of Transportation to study left turn restrictions from Colonial Avenue onto Wright Road (due to intersec- tion actually being in Roanoke County). However, the absence of any reported accidents at this intersection during the last three years was enough to cause VDOT to have serious reserva£1ons about restricting this turn. Consequently, VDOT denied this request. Dennis R. Gatens November 28, 1990 Page 4 The City considered other turn restrictions throughout the neighborhood, but due to the logistics of the existing street pattern, we could not identify a workable turn restriction plan. Further, our experience with trying turn re- strictions in other neighborhoods indicates that considerable organized opposi- tion will likely result when motorists are forced to seek alternative routes. RECOMMENDATIONS While we cannot approve this street closure nor the turn restric£ion, we believe that we can make a reasonable effort £o enhance the safety of the existing Wright/Creston/Rosewood route. We propose the following traffic system 'management improvements: Roughen the pavement surface of southbound Rosewood Avenue as it approaches Creston Avenue for improved skid resistance. This could help to reduce accidents at this location. Five of the six accidents reported at this intersection were associated with vehicles eliding on wet pavement as they crested the hill in this curve. Paint solid white edgelines along this route to help define the pave- ment edge. This may also serve to "psychologically" narrow the available pavement width which could subsequently cause motorists to reduce their speed. Install a Stop sign and paint a Stop bar on the pavement for eastbound Creston Avenue motorists at Rosewood Avenue. This would assign the right-of-way to motorists ascending the steep grade of Rosewood Avenue and allow them to turn left into Creston Avenue without having to stop on the Steep grade. While stop signs are not to be installed :o reduce speai, ~uch may be a side =ffect from this sign. We regret that we are not able to fulfill your neighborhood's request. We are prepared to implement the recommended measures as soon as weather conditions and contracted work allows (therefore these items may not be completed until mid-1991). Dennis R. Gatens November 28, 1990 Page 5 Please contact us with any questions you may have concerning this information. RKB/fm cc: Sincerely, Traffic Engineer Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., City Council Member W. Robert Herbert, City Manager William F. Clark, Director of Public Works George C. Snead, Director of Administration and Public Safety M. David Hooper, Chief of Police Raleigh W. Quarles, Chief of Fire Department John R. Marlles, Chief of Community Planning Charles M. Huffine, P.E., City Engineer Wanda B. Reed, Coordinator, Emergency Services Chauncey L. Logan, Director of School Transportation NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, August 12, 1991, at 7:30 p.m., or as Soon after as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chamber in the Municipal Building, 4th Floor, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., on a proposal to have Creston Avenue and Rosewood Avenue rights-of-way barricaded by way of traversable barricades across Creston Avenue at the intersection of Strother Road and Creston Avenue, and across Rosewood Avenue southeast of its intersection with Sweetbrier Avenue, S.W. A copy of this proposal is available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Municipal Building. Ail parties in interest may appear on the above date and be heard on the question. GIVEN under my hand this 24th day of _ July 19.91 . Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Please publish in full twice in the Roanoke Times & World News, Morning Edition, once on Friday, July 26, 1991, and once on Friday, August 2, 1991. Please send publisher's affidavit and bill to: MS. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Room 456, Municipal Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011 AO NUMBER - 72~I3907 PUBLISHER'S FEE - $101.20 CITY OF RCANOKE C/D MARY F PARKER CITY CLERKS OFFICE ROOM 456 MONICIPAL dLDG ROANOKE VA 2GOll RECEIVED CITY CLERKS ~FFICE R 12 P2:04 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF ROANOKE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I9 (THE UNDERSIGNED) AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TIMES-.ORLD COR- PORATION9 WHICH CORPORATION IS PU~LISPER DF THE ROANOKE TIMES & ~ORLD-NE,$. A DAILY NE,SPAPER PUdLISHEC IN ROANOKE~ IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIAt DO CERTIFY THaT THE ANNEXED NOTICE ,AS PUBLISHED IN SAID NEWSPAPERS ON THE FOLLU~ING DATES 07/26/91 MORNING & EVENING 08/02/91 MORNING ~ EVENING .ITNESS~ DAY OF AUGUST AtJTHDRIZED SIGNATURE MARY F. PARKER C~:¥ Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S W,Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 July 22, 1991 File #514 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy C~Ty Clerk Mr. Dennis R. Gatens, Co-President Wright-Creston-Rosewood Association 3548 Wright Road, S. W. Roanoke, Vlrglnla 24015 Mr. Bradley T. Snead, Co-President Wrlght-Creston-Rosewood Association First Campbell Square 210 First Street, S. W. Suite 100 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Gentlemen: I am enclosing copy of a report of the City Planning Commission recommending that the Council of the City of Roanoke deny the request of the Wrtght-Creston-Rosewood Association to have Creston Avenue and Rosewood Avenue, S. W., rights-of-way barricaded by way of traversable barricades across Creston Avenue at the Intersection of Strother Road and Creston Avenue, and across Rosewood Avenue southeast of its Intersection with Sweetbriar Avenue, S. W. Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1981, a public hearing on the abovedescrlbed request has been set for Monday, August 12, 1991, at 7:30 p.m., In the City Council Chamber, fourth floor of the Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, For your Information, I am enclosing copy of a notice of the public hearing and an Ordinance providing for the barricading, which Mr. Dennis R. Gatens Mr. Bradley T. Snead July 22, 1991 Page 2 notice and Ordinance were prepared by the City Attorney's Office. Please review the Ordinance and if you have questions, you may contact Mr. Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney, at 981-2431. Questions with regard to the City Planning Commission report should be directed to Mr. John R. Marlles, Chief of Community Planning, at 981-2344. Sincerely, City Clerk MFP=ra Enc. pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City.Manager Mr. Wilburn C. Dlbling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney The Honorable Jerome S. Howard, Jr., Commissioner of Revenue Ms. Nadine C. Mlnnix, Acting Director of Real Estate Valuation Mr. Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairman, City Planning Commission Mr. L. Elwood Norris, Chairman, Board of Zoning Appeals Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Enginner Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator Mr. John R. Marlles, Agent/Secretary, City Planning Commission Mr. Edward R. Tucker, City Planner Ms. Doris Layne, Office of Real Estate Valuation RECEIVED CITY CLEF'NS FFF!CE &,IL 24 P5:02 Roanoke City Planning Commission August 12, 1991 The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Request from the Wright-Rosewood-Creston Association, represented by Co-presidents Dennis Gatens and Bradley T. Sneed, to have the Wright Road, Creston Avenue, and Rosewood Avenue right-of-way barricaded by way of traversable barricades at the intersection of Strother Road and Creston Avenue and on Rosewood Avenue southeast of its intersection with Sweetbriar. I. Backqround: Public streets, Wright Road, Creston and Rosewood Avenues, S.W. are located in the Jefferson Hills and Grandin Court residential communities. Be Residential street connections (Wright-Creston- Rosewood) provide a "short-cut" route through this residential community for traffic moving between the major thoroughfare streets of Colonial and Brarmbleton Avenue, S.W. Vehicular traffic moving through this short-cu~ route have to turn onto and pass through three (3) separate residential streets to gain access to the above-mentioned thoroughfares. Wright Road, Creston Avenue and/or Rosewood Avenue, S.W. are not properly aligned or designed for thoroughfare or collector street purposes. Traffic problem is the result of conflict between the land use (residential) element and the transportation element (heavy through traffic). Residential street connections creating a link between major thoroughfares would not be allowed under current subdivision standards. Room 355 Municipal Bu~mO,r.D 215 Church Avenue S.',X4 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2344 Members of the Council Page 2 Fe City has received numerous complaints in recent years concerning the steady increase in traffic on these residential streets. Traffic study (attached) prepared by the City traffic engineer on November 28, 1990, reveals that traffic volumes moving through these residential streets have reached a level of 2,800 vehicles per day. Traffic volume on Colonial Avenue, S.W., between Overland Road, S.W. and Wright Road over the past 20 years has increased from approximately 7,000 vehicles per day to 14,800 vehicles per day. Overland Road, S.W. is properly designed and aligned to serve as a proper thoroughfare connector between Colonial and Brambleton Avenues. The lack of signalization at its intersection with Colonial and Brambleton Avenues reduces its capacity and limits its potential as an effective traffic conductor. ApDlicants have previously requested that the City conduct a traffic study on the subject streets (see attached report dated November 28, 1990). Applicants have also previously requested other traffic management devices, such as the following: 1. Restrictions on turning movements. 2. "No commercial vehicles" signs. 3. Stop signs. City has previously a~reed to install the following traffic management measures: Stop sign for eastbound Creston Avenue traffic at the intersection of Rosewood Avenue. e Painting of white edgelines along street pavement edges to enhance the psychological reaction of motorists to the actual restraints and limits of the roadway pavement. Pavement "roughening" on steep portion of Rosewood Avenue to improve skid resistance in bad weather conditions. 4. "No commercial vehicles" signs (these signs have already been installed). Members of the Council Page 3 ne Traffic engineer requested that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) review the request to restrict turning movements from Colonial Avenue, S.W., onto Wright Road (Colonial Avenue at this location is in Roanoke County). VDOT denied the request as unjustifiable (accident level too low to justify the request). Applicants contacted the Office of Community Planning in April of 1991 with a request for assistance in the preparation of their application for street closure. Ne Plannin~ staff requested that the applicants delay filing an application until a public meeting between City staff and residents of the affected streets could be held. Applicants agreed to delay the filing date. Oe Residents of the community were notified and a public meeting was held on May 6, 1991, at Fishburn Park Elementary School with approximately 100-120 residents in attendance. Public meetinq provided a forum for the applicants to present the merits of their application to residents of the neighborhood at large. Residents in favor of street closure represented a clear majority of those in attendance. Opposition to the proposed closure, however, was clearly present and frequently expressed during the course of the meeting. II. Current Situation: Application to close the subject streets by barricade was received on June 13, 1991. Application proposes the installation of traversable barriers so that fire, police and emergency services will still retain adequate access to the immediate community and points beyond. Be Plannin~ Commission reviewed the subject application at its regular meeting of July 3, 1991. Approximately 100-125 persons were in attendance at the public hearing. Attendance was comprised of residents from the immediate neighborhood, and residents of other streets within the general vicinity. Ce Public comment was expressed by 31 individuals. Public comments were related to the issue as follows: 27 of those who expressed opinions would be directly affected by the requested street closure. Members of the Council Page 4 12 of those who expressed opinions and who would be directly affected by the requested closure spoke in support of the requested closure. 15 of those who expressed opinions and who would be directly affected by the requested closure spoke in opposition to the requested closure. 3 other individuals speaking in opposition to the request related to the issue as follows: One speaker was a resident of Overland Road, S.W. One speaker was a resident of Brambleton Avenue, S.W. One speaker represented the U.S. Postal Service who stated that if the streets were closed it would cost the Postal Service approximately $20,000 to study realigned mail routes. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting and residents' petitions and correspondence are attached to this report. Office of Community Planning has subsequently received numerous letters from neighborhood residents. Letters express both opposition to and support for the requested closure. III. Issues: A. Neighborhood impact. B. Traffic impact. C. Fire, police and emergency services. D. Costs. IV. Alternatives: City Council deny the applicants' request for street closure and further recommend that City Council refer the matter to the Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation for purposes as outlined in part V. of this report. 1. Neighborhood impact: Neighborhood residents are divided on the issue of street closure (see attached letters, petitions, correspondence). Members of the Council Page 5 Neighborhood residents in attendance at the aforementioned public meeting appeared to be unanimous in the opinion that traffic management measures were needed in the neighborhood. Ce "Primary function of local residential streets is to provide access to abutting properties or destinations, not to provide through movement," according to the Residential Street Design and Traffic Control manual (Institute of Transportation Engineers). de If heavy through traffic movement trend is not reduced and discouraged, traffic element may eventually overwhelm the abutting residential land uses and the general residential quality of life in the immediate community as well. 2. Traffic impact: Traffic volumes will continue at present levels until effective traffic management measures are implemented. Implementation of traffic management measures (as recommended in Part V. this report) will cause some vehicular traffic to revert to other streets and will act to slow down those that continue to use the "short-cut" route. Access to both Colonial Avenue and Brambleton Avenue would be retained by neighborhood residents. Traffic management measures should hinder and discourage future use of the street system as a "short-cut" route. Fire, police and emergency services responses would continue to be maintained at existing levels. Costs: Implementation of traffic management measures could be accomplished by the Street Maintenance Department. Funds are available the department's daily operations budget. in City Council approve the applicants' request to close the subject streets, by means of traversable barricades. Members of the Council Page 6 1. Neighborhood impact: ae Many residents from within the cor~unity will oppose any closure of streets. A number of residents have expressed concern over the possibility of losing access to either of the two thoroughfare streets of Colonial Avenue and/or Brambleton Avenue. Some residences are situated on steep to sloping terrain and have complained that a closing of streets would limit their available modes of access in bad weather conditions. 2. Traffic impact: Traffic will revert to other streets along the corridor, such as View and Poplar Avenues in Roanoke County, and Overland Road and Persinger Road in the City. View and Poplar Avenues and Persinger Road are also residential streets. be Traffic load will be increased on Overland Road in the vicinity of Virginia Western Community College and two (2) City public schools. Overland Road currently has no signalization at its intersections with Colonial or Brambleton Avenues. 3. Fire, police and emergency services: Fire department has stated that it does not oppose the closure if safe, traversable barriers are installed that meet the department's requirements. be Police department opposes the request for closure. Emergency services does not oppose the closure, as requested. Costs: Costs will be comprised of the acquisition and installation of two (2) traversable barricades with necessary signage and reflective devices. Applicant has not fully addressed the question of who will bear the expense of barricades and their installation. Recommendation: Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-0 (Mr. Price absent) MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 ChurCh Avenue, S W,Room456 June 12, 1991 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy CiTy Cler~ Vile #514 qr. Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairman City Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Price: Pursuant to §30-14, Procedure for altering or vacating City streets or alleys; fees therefor, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of an application from the Wright-Creston-Rosewood Association requesting that the Wright Road. Creston Avenue and Rosewood Avenue, S. W., right-of- way be barricaded by way of traversable barricades at the inter- section of Strother Road and Creston Avenue and on Rosewood Avenue, southeast of its intersection with Sweetbriar Avenue, S. W., as more specifically set forth on a map identified as Exhibit A. Sincerely'.2~ ~4ary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP : re ST. CLOSE3 Enc. pc: qr. Dennis R. Gatens, Co-President, Wright-Creston-Rosewood Association, 3548 Wright Road, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24015 ' Mr. Bradley T. Snead, Co-President, Wright-Creston-Rosewood Association, First Campbell Square, 210 First Street, S. ~., ~.te 100, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 John R. Marlles, Agent/Secretary, City Planning Commission Mr. Ronald R. Miller, Zoning Administrator Mr. Edward R. Tucker, City Planner Mr. SteYen J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney PETITION FILED BY THE WRIGHT-CRESTON- ROSEWOOD ASSOCIATION REQUESTING CLOSURE BY TRAVERSABLE BARRICADES AT THE INTER- SECTIONS OF STROTHER ROAD/CRESTON AVENUE AND ROSEWOOD AVENUE/SWEETBRIAR AVENUE MINUTES CONSIDERED AT THIS COUNCIL MEETING MAY BE REVIEWED ON LINE IN THE "OFFICIAL MINUTES" FOLDER, OR AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Noel C. Taylor Mayor Howard E. Musser Vice-Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 August 12, 1991 Council Members: David A. Bowers Elizabeth T. Bowles Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. James G. Harvey, II William White, Sr The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mrs. Bowies and Gentlemen: I wish to request an Executive Session to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1- 344 (A) (1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. NCT: sw Noel C. ~aylor Mayor Howard E. Musser Vice-Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 August 12, 1991 Council Members: David A. Bowers Elizabeth T. Bowles Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr James G. Harvey, II William White, Sr. The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen: I wish to request an Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter, being the appointment of a specific public officer, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A) (1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Sincerely, Howard E. Musser Vice-Mayor HEM:sw Pending Items Referral Date 7/10/78 7/9/90 8/27/90 2/4/91 2/11/91 2/25/91 3/4/91 from July 10, 1978, Referred To City Manager City Manager Director of Finance City Manager City Manager Architectural Review Board City Manager City Manager School Administration through July 22, 1991. Item Recommendation No. 11 con- tained in the Mayor's 1978 State of the City Message. (Development of a hotel on Mill Mountain.) Matter with regard to the Pay Plan for Roanoke City employees. Request to investigate the feasibility of instituting a "Adopt-A-Program," an arrange- ment whereby businesses could fund a specific City program for a certain period of time. Matter with regard to place- ment of banners and flags in the downtown area of the City, as well as tourism signs for downtown Roanoke. Request to review Section 36.1-345(b) of the City Code and after conducting a public hearing on the matter, to submit a report and recommen- dation to Council with regard to clarification of the language contained therein. Request for a briefing with regard to the City's program relating to Small and Minority Business Develop- ment. Request to submit a joint report to Council and the School Board relative to the three schools proposed to be renovated after Forest Park Elementary School renovations have been completed to deter- mine if there remains a need to renovate said facilities as elementary schools. (Note: See City Manager's communication under date of March 22, 1991, suggesting that the study process on the matter begin in July, 1991.) -1- Pending Items from July 10, 1978, through July 22, 1991. Referral Date Referred To Item 3/25/91 4/8/91 5/13/91 5/13/91 5/13/91 5/20/91 5128191 Director of Real Estate Valuation City Manager City Manager 1992-93 Budget Study City Manager City Attorney City Manager Request to submit a report to Council with regard to an assessment of property located in the Shaffers Crossing area of the City. Matter with regard to rental fees proposed to be charged by the Department of Parks and Recreation for use of City recreation facilities. Request to confer with the City's Pay Plan consultant with regard to salaries for certain positions which appear to be out of line with comparable positions in the Pay Plan. Request to investigate the possibility of retaining a consultant to review areas of joint cooperation where the City and the school system could combine activities in an effort to save money. Request to obtain information with regard to a Sales Tax Rebate Program. (See City Attorney's communication under date of May 17, 1991, to the Honorable David A. Bowers.) A communication from the Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Sheriff, with regard to overcrowding of the City Jail. City Manager A communication from Council Member David A. Bowers requesting consideration of a proposal to allow a real estate property tax rebate for developers or homeowners who build single family resi- dences on inner city vacant lots. -2- Pendin9 Items Referral Date 6/17/91 7/22/91 7/22/91 7/22/91 from July 10, 1978, Referred To City Attorney William White, Sr. William F. Clark George C. Snead, Jr. William White, Sr. William F. Clark George C. Snead, Jr. City Manager through July 22, 1991. Item 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 connection with Council's denial of a peti- tion to appeal a decision of the Architectural Review Board regarding an applica- tion for a Certificate of Appropriateness for property located at 526 Mountain Avenue, S. W. Bids for Towne Square/Airport Road improvements. Bids for construction of alterations and additions to the Grandin Court Recreation Center. Communication from Council Member David A. Bowers with regard to installation of pedestrian safety devices on Salem Turnpike between the Lansdowne Housing neigh- borhood and the Melrose Branch Library. -3- Noel C. Taylor Mayor Howard E. Musser Vice-Mayor RECEIYE ~D~r~r, CITY OF ROANONR ...... CITY COUNCIL 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 4~] Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 AL -5 P3:22 August 2, 1991 Council Members: David A. Bowers Elizabeth T Bowles Beverly T Fitzpatrick, Jr. James G. Harvey, II William White, Sr. Honorable Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia RE: Memorial Bridge Improvements Dear Mrs. Bowles & Gentlemen: As you all know, I attempted over the last couple of years to improve the entrance ways into the Raleigh Court neighborhood through the four-laning of Brandon Avenue just west of Towers and the paving of Memorial Avenue and the refurbishing of Memorial Bridge. I want to thank each of you for your support in these efforts and I can share with you many positive responses from our citizens of four-laning of Brandon Avenue. Unfortunately, as you know, the adminis- tration has not yet seen fit to repave Memorial Avenue, which is still in need of some attention in that regard. It is with this in mind that I am pleased to commend the City Manager for his proposal to improve Memorial Bridge, which he has described as a visual and moral embarrassment to him during his tenure as City Manager. agree. One of the things that I have learned as a member of this Council is that we should always consider the maintenance and upkeep of public works projects developed in this City. When I travel to other cities, I often see grand public buildings, plazas and bridges, but they are often in a sorry state of disrepair. I don't believe the citizens of Roanoke want their city to ever get this way, and we must take the necessary steps in order to prevent this from happening. Memorial Bridge, when it was first built, was to be a grand public acknowledgment of the victory of our veterans in World War I. Unfortunately, as Mr. Herbert indicates, it has been neglected over the years and now needs to be refurbished. Although the structural integrity of the bridge Honorable Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council August 2, 1991 PAGE TWO remains adequate, according to the Manager, he is nonetheless taking appropriate measures to clean and re-light the structure. Memorial Bridge should stand as a prominent reminder to our citizens of those Roanokers who lost their lives in the defense of our liberty. I want to thank the Manager for making this improve- ment project on Memorial Bridge, which is due to be completed by November 1, possible. Perhaps the local Veterans Council will now be able to schedule some kind of celebration on Veterans's Day, November 11 at the bridge this year. Best personal regards to each of you. DAB/jfk Councilman Office of the City Monager July 25, 1991 The Honorable Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dea~~ Mayor and Members of City Council: Subject: Memorial Bridge Improvements ~everal weeks ago Mr. Nelson Jackson, Manager of Custodial and Building Maintenance, and I reviewed his annual work plan. As a part of that review, he co~p~ted an analysis which indicated that improvements mUst be made to the Me~b~ial~l~ ~ B~idge short of the major repairs which we have been previously focusing onf The most visible portions of the bridge continue to deteriorate. Rel~{orced steel bars are exposed to the weather and much of the surface con- crete is spalling (flaking off) at an accelerated rate. The steel bars must be recovered with concrete to prevent further deterioration. As you may recall, rehabilitation of the Memorial Bridge was estimated in the range of $1.5 million. In comparison to other bridges needing repair, however, the Memorial Bridge was prioritized lower since the structural integrity of its deck remains in sound condition. I am pleased to report to you that city staff has found a way to divide this project into two phases. Phase I will include repairs to the interior and exterior sidewalls, sidewalks, lighting structnres, and complete repair of the concrete spalling. Phase II will include all of the other work which is ex- tremely expensive and relates to the structural integrity of the deck and snb~ structure. Additionally, Phase I will include the restoration of the Memorial plaq6~s embedded in the exterior walls of the bridge which should logically be done at the same time the concrete is replaced. Mr. Jackson has estimated that the p~oject~can be completed by early November, 1991, as the materials mnst be ordered and the work scheduled for his crews. The work will be conducted with funds allocated for normal bridge maintenance. Phase II will still be several years away. Again, I am pleased to be able to report that we can make some progress o~ this project short of the major effort which we had previously reported to Council. If yon should have questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. WRH:EBRJr:mp cc: Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. Nelson Jackson, Manager, Custodial/Building Maintenance Mr. Charles Huffine, City Engineer Room 364 MunicipalBuildtng 215ChurchAvenue,~.W. Roonoke, Virginia24011 (703) 9812333 July 1, 1991 Mr. Sloan Hoopes 2023 Maiden Lane, S. W. Roanoke, VA 24015 Dear Mr. Hoopes: The Memorial Bridge has been a visual and moral embarrass- ment to me during my tenure as City Manager. This bridge is scheduled for major repairs, currently estimated in the range of $1.5 million sometime close to 1995. The structural integrity of the deck remains adequate, therefore, other bridges that are currently subjected to weight limitations, will by necessity need to be prioritized ahead of the Memorial Bridge for major repairs. I am pleased to report to you that we have divided this pro- Ject into two parts. Part I is that area including interior and exterior sidewalls with new sidewalks, new lighting structures and complete repair of the concrete spalling. Part II is all other work, including substructure and reinforcement of the structural integrity of the deck. Part I can be accomplished for approximately 10 percent of the total project costs and, therefore, I am authorizing that we proceed with the repair and rejuvenation of the visual portion of the bridge. Par.t I will, by necessity, include the matntenanc~ 'and restoration of the memocial plaques on the bridge. If ypu or your organization has any interest in this particular aapcct, please do not hesitate to contact me. The timing for this project is to complete the project by November 1, 1991. Please feel free to call me if you hsv~' any questions or comments. Sincerely, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/ga . ~ CC: ~-C~ouncilman David A. Bowers ~ Nelson Jackson, Manager, Custodial/Building Maintenance 2t5 Church Avenue, 5 W Roanoke, Vkginio 2401 t July 1, 1991 Judge Jack B. Coulter Suite 4-A Southwest Virginia Building Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear Judge Coulter: The Memorial Bridge has been a visual and moral embarrass- ment to me during my tenure as City Manager. This bridge is scheduled for major repairs, currently estimated in the range of $1.5 million sometime close to 1995. The structural integrity of the deck remains adequate, therefore, other bridges that are currently subjected to weight limitations, will by necessity need to be prioritized ahead of the Memorial Bridge for major repairs. I am pleased to report to you that we have divided this pro- Ject into two parts. Part I is that area including interior and exterior sidewalls with new sidewalks, new lighting etructures and complete repair of the concrete epalling. Part II is all other work, Including substructure and reinforcement of the structural integrity of the deck. Part I can be accomplished for approximately 10 percent of the total project costs and, therefore, I am authorizing that we proceed with the repair and rejuvenation of the visual portion of the bridge. Part I will, by necessity, include the maintenance ~nd restoration of the memorial plaques on the bridge. If y.,o? or your organlzatlon has any interest tn this particular a~ect, please do not hesitate to contact me. The timing for this project is to complete the projec'~ by November 1, 1991. Please feel free to call me if you have a~,y questions or comments. Sincerely, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/ga cc: ~4~ouncilman David A. Bowers Nelson Jackson, Manager, Custodial/Building Maintenance 215 Church Avenue, 5. W, ~on~e. ~rginlo 240 ~ t ·// l July 1, 1991 Mr. Richard F. Pence Signet Bank Building 1st Street and Church Avenue Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear Mr ~ Pence. The Memorial Bridge has been a visual and moral embarrass- ment to me during my tenure as City Manager. This bridge is scheduled for major repairs, currently estimated in the range of $1.5 million sometime close to 1995. The structural integrity of the deck remains adequate, therefore, other bridges that are currently subjected to weight limitations, will by necessity n~ed to be prioritized ahead of the Memorial Bridge for major repai;s. I am pleased to report to you that we have divided this pro- Ject into two parts. Part I is that area including interior and exterior sidewalls with new sidewalks, new lighting structures and complete repair of the concrete spalling. Part II is all other work, including substructure and reinforcement of the structural integrity of the deck. Part I can be accomplished for approximately 10 percent of the total project costs and, therefore, I am authorizing that we proceed with the repair and rejuvenation of the visual portion of the bridge. Part I will, by necessity, include the maintenance and restoration of the memorial plaques on the bridge. If you o? your organization has any interest in this particular aspect, please do not hesitate to contact me. The timing for this project is to complete the project by November 1, 1991. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/ga cc: ~ouncilman David A. Bowers Nelson Jackson, Manager, Custodial/Building Maintenance 2~ 5 Church Avenue. 5.W. Roanoke, Virginia 2~01t RECE)¥ED AtE -? Att :58 Roanoke, Virginia August 12, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Request for Public Hearing on proposed Section 108 loan application to HUD I. Background: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is authorized to loan funds to CDBG entitlement cities, up to five (5) times the annual entitlement. Program is titled Section 108 Loan program. city of Roanoke currently has two (2) such loans outstanding: Coca-Cola Section 108 - balance $2,119,488.72 Shaffers/Deanwood Section 108 - balance $196,435.02 CJ New federal regulations will allow City to borrow additional funds, with CDBG allocation as primary collateral, over a period of twenty (20) years. II. Current Situation: City is considering aDDlying for $6,000,000 Section 108 loan to assist with the Hotel Roanoke renovation project. Two administrative public hearings will be held on August 14 and August 22 to solicit views of citizens. HUD regulations require governing body to adopt resolution authorizing submission of the loan application. Citizen participation requirements call for an evening public hearinq by Council prior to submission of the Section 108 loan application to HUD. III. Recommendation: WRH/MTP CC: Recommend City Council schedule a public hearing on August 26, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. at Council's neighborhood meeting at Oakland Elementary School. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager Assistant City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Public Works Director of Human Resources Chief of Economic Development Chief of Community Planning City Engineer Building Commissioner Grants Monitoring Administrator F:108HEAR.RPT CiTY CLERg,"'- ~'~F ~' gE Office of the City Manager July 25, 1991 The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Mayor Taylor and Members of City Council: At your June 17, 1991, regular meeting, Mr. Henry Craighead appeared before you and expressed concerns regarding the rules and regulations which govern the City's adult softball leagues which are sponsored by the Department of Parks and Recreation. As many of you know, Mr. Craighead has been a long time supporter of the City's adult softball league program. Currently being a coach, and formerly a player, Mr. Craighead has participated in the programs' growth which is valuable experience from which we can draw. His desire for a residency requirement has been discussed with city staff in the past; thus, we are aware of and have tried to be sensitive to his suggestions. Given that no other valley government has such a requirement and the monitoring/ enforcement of such a rule would be a monumental task, we have not had the staff or demand from the other coaches to implement this change. Similarly, the matter of limiting participants to playing in only one league touches upon some of the same issues. That is, none of our leagues are so filled to capacity that we have had to turn away any team wishing to par- ticipate. Nor have we had the demand from other coaches and/or players to change the current rules of participation. As you might guess, it is fairly common practice for adult softball league participants to play for more than one team as the individuals who commit their time to these activities are extremely serious about the sport. As we are in the process of planning our pre-season meeting for co-ed soft- ball and our end-of-season meeting for adult softball, we will ensure that Mr. Craighead's concerns are put on the agenda to be discussed along with all the other matters which may affect the future of how these two very popular programs are played and regulated. These meetings are open to the general public. A second issue, which is equally important, involves the benefits derived by allowing people from throughout the valley to take part together in recreational activities. These activities help build a bridge between the people of the Roanoke Valley and provide sites where they can meet, build friendships and better come to understand each other. A residency requirement would reduce the opportunity for Roanoke citizens to come together on a people- to-people basis and ultimately on a government-to-government basis. Room 364 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2333 The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council Page 2 July 25, 1991 We do, however, value the input of Mr. Craighead, as well as all the coaches/players, who participate in the City sponsored softball leagues. It is our hope that the pre and/or post season meetings referenced above will allow dialogue sufficient to resolve any concerns with how the games are played and regulated in the future. As Mr. Craighead has discussed these and related mat- ters with Messrs. Reynolds, Snead and Fenton in the past, he is familiar with how to access them. I know they will be happy to help him with any additional questions or comments. Respectfully submitted, City Manager WRH:EBRJr:mp cc: Mr. Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Assistant City Manager Mr. George Snead, Director, Administration and Public Safety Mr. Gary Fenton, Manager, Parks and Recreation Mr. Owen Grogan, Recreation Superintendent Mr. Henry Craighead, Coach WILBURN C. OtBLING, JR. CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNII,'I~'¥ August 12, 1991 WILLIAM X PARSONS MARK ALLAN WILLIAMS STEVEN J. TALEVi KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAU ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen: At the City Council meeting of January 8, 1990, City Council adopted a motion requesting the City Attorney "to conduct an in- depth review of the City's Zoning Ordinance to determine if stronger regulations and management procedures would be in order." My Office has completed a careful revieQ of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and other development review ordinances of the City with the assistance of the Planning Department. Upon completion of this review, we are not aware of any significant problems with any of these ordinances or the need for any major revisions. I do wish to call to your attention that amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the definitions of "fast food restaurant" and "restaurant" are being recommended by the Planning Commission to City Council. These amendments should eliminate the potential for future controversies such as that surrounding the opening of a Little Caesar's Pizza Restaurant in Southwest Plaza. The City Council referral also had reference to review of "management procedures". With respect to management of offices other than that of the City Attorney, I would respectfully suggest that this is beyond the purview of the City Attorney. Please be assured that this Office is continuously reviewing the City's development review ordinances in an effort to determine whether additional amendments are needed. Should the need for an additional amendment or amendments arise, my Office will work closely with the Planning Department in recommending such changes to City Council. The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 12, 1991 Page 2 me. WCD:f cc: If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely yours, ~, jr'~'' City Attorney W. Robert Herbert, City Manager William F. Clark, Director of Public Works John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner and Zoning Administrator Mary F. Parker, City Clerk MARY F. PARI~R City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKF OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981.2541 August 23, 1991 SANDRA H. F_AKIN Deputy City Clerk Dr. Charles L. Downs, President Virginia Western Community College P. O. Box 14045 Roanoke, Virginia 24038 Dear Dr. Downs: This is to advise you that Mr. A. Byron Smith has qualified as a member of the Virginia Western Community College Board for a term of four years ending June 30, 1995. MFP:gd Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) ) To-wit: CITY OF ROANOKE ) I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the Council of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof, do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council held on the eighth day of July, 1991, A. BYRON SMITH was reelected as a member of the Virginia Western Community College Board for a term of four years ending June 30, 1995. Given under my hand and the seal of the City of Roanoke this fifteenth day of July, 1991. City Clerk 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 August 23, 1991 SANDRA H. F-AKIN Deputy City Clerk Ms. Beverly A. Bury City Librarian Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Ms. Bury: This is to advise you that Dr. Frank J. Eastburn has qualified as a member of the Roanoke Public Library Board for a term of three years ending June 30, 1994. ~'~'~¥"~'Sincerely' Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd C©~MONWEA~TH OF VIRGINIA ) ) To-wit: CITY OF ROANOKE ) I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the Council of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof, do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council held on the eighth day of July, 1991, FRANK J. EASTBURN was reelected as a member of the Roanoke Public years ending June 30, 1994. Given under my hand and the fifteenth day of July, 1991. Library Board, for a term of three seal of the City of Roanoke this City Clerk MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue. S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, V]rginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 September 3, 1991 SANDRA H. EAI(IN Deputy City Clerk Ms. Judy D. Witcher-Jackson P. O. Box 6003 Roanoke, Virginia 24017-9998 Dear Ms .Witcher-Jackson: This is to advise you that Ms. Mozelle A. Scott has qualified as a member of the Personnel and Employment Practices Commission for a term of three years ending June 30, 1994. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: Mr. Kenneth S. Cronin, Manager, Personnel Management COMMONWEALTH OF CITY OF ROANOKE VIRGINIA ) ) To-wit: I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the Council of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof, do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council held on the eighth day of July, 1991, MOZELLE A. SCOTT was reelected as a member of the Personnel and Employment Practices Commission for a term of three years ending June 30, 1994. Given under my hand and the seal of the City of Roanoke this fifteenth day of July, 1991. City Clerk M.o. RY F. PARKER Cit~ Clerk CITY OF ROANOKI . OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue. S.W.. Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 26, 1991 SANDRA H. EM, gIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. Thomas H. Miller, Chair Youth Services Citizen Board 1509 Terrace Road, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Dear Mr. Miller: This is to advise you that Mr. Clay L. Dawson has qualified as a member of the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term ending May 31, 1993. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: gd pc: Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources COMMONWEALTH OF CITY OF ROANOKE VIRGINIA ) To-wit: ) I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the Council of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof, do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council held on the tenth day of December, 1990, CLAY L. DAWSON was elected as a member of the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term ending May 31, 1993. Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twelfth day of December, 1990. City Clerk WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR. CITY A~FORNEY CITY OF ROANOKE RECEIYED OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORN~TyY CLUE. :~F FJC£ WILLIAM X PARSONS MARKALLAN WILLIAMS , STEVEN J. TALEVI KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAU ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS August 12, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Re: Request for Executive Session Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen: I request that Council convene in Executive Session to discuss and consider a matter of probable litigation, specifically, a matter involving funding requirements, pursuant to S2.1-344(A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely yours, WilburnC.~--~ibling, City Attorney Jr. WCDJr:dlj MARY F. P.~uRKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #51-5-66 SANDRA H. EAKIN DepuW City Clerk p/Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Gentlemen: Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney Roanoke, Virginia At the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held on Monday, August 12, 1991, Mr. Ted H. Key, Director of the Northwest Revitalization Corporation, addressed Council with regard to consideration of a measure prohibiting the owners of motel or other living facilities from renting rooms to the general public when other portions of the same facility are being used by prisoners on work release, parole or half-way house. On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the matter was referred to you for study, report and recommendation to Council. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: Mr. Ted H. Key, 4202 Melrose Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 RECE~¥ED CITY gl ERKS OFFICE '9t RL "I P1:54 (703) 563-7221 4202 Melrose Avenue, NW · Roanoke, Virginia 24017 August 1, 1991 TO : MARY PARKER, CITY OT.'~.~'.~ R~ 656 ~93NICIPAL BLUILDING ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 26011 SUBJECT : THE NORTHWEST REVITALIZATION CORP. WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD BY CITY COUNCIL AT THE NEXT MEETING ON AUGUST 12th @ 7:30 PM. FOR THE PURPOSE OF REQUESTING COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE THAT WTT,T, PROHIBIT ANY MOTEL OR OTHER LIVING QUARTERS THAT RENTS PART OF THEIR SPACE TO PRISONERS ON WORK Rw3,w. ASE, PAROLE OR HALF WAY HOUSE - FROM RENTING THE OTHER ROOMS OR SPACES TO THE UNKNOWING, UNSUSPECTING ~]TORING PUBLIC. Thank you. for this consideration .... Sincerely, . Ted H. Key ,DireCtor of NWR CORP. FOR THE Board this the 1st day of August 1991 of NWRC & Hand delivered 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 August 19, 1991 File #40-132 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Dibling: I am attaching copy of a communication from Council Member David A. Bowers requesting that Council take the necessary action to place the matter of a modified ward system for referendum on the November 5, 1991, ballot for consideration by the citizens of the City of Roanoke, which communication was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. On motion, duly seconded and adopted, Council endorsed Items 1 - 4 contained in a document prepared by you under date of August 12, 1991, entitled "Steps Required Prior to Holding Referendum on City Council Election Procedures". The question of a specific date for development of a plan, as well as appointment of a task force to work with City representatives on the new system, was deferred until the next regular meeting of Council in which it is determined that all members of the Council will be in attendance. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager, Roanoke, Virginia Noel C. ~ylor Mayor Howard E. Musser Vice-Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 August 6, 1991 Honorable Mayor & Members of Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia RECEI'¢ED CITY . -,L-.. /tlJ6-7 I0:09 Council Members: David A. Bowers Elizabeth T Bowies Beverly T Fitzpatrick, Jr. James G. Harvey, II William White, Sr. Dear Mrs. Bowles & Gentlemen: Repeatedly, over the last several months, I have asked for Council to consider taking action on the proposal for a modified ward system for Roanoke City Council. It is my recollection that each of us, in recent campaign appearances, promised to the voters that we were in favor of a modified ward system and would see that it is imple- mented for the City. I don't have any problem in taking the time necessary to study this proposal, to deliberate on it, and to build a public concensus on it. However, I do have a problem in delay if it is for purely political expediency. As Byron Smith of the People's Voters League said sometime ago, this is not just an issue that affects black voters, it is an issue that affects all the voters of Roanoke. My intention is to continue to increase the element of democracy on our Council. Simple put, it really means setting up a system whereby neighbors will represent neighbors in the governing body of their City government. According to information provided to me by Bob Firebaugh, former chairman of the Roanoke City Democratic Committee, since 1976, 73% of the elected Council members have resided in the Southwest quadrant of the City. This is an unacceptable statistic for me and cries for justice in equal representation for the people of Southeast, old Southwest, Monterey, and the Northwest sections of our City. Additionally, Mr. Firebaugh reports that, since 1976, member- ship on the most influential boards and commissions have shown distinctive bias in favor of Southwest residents. For instance, he states that 68% of the membership on the Planning Commission was from South Roanoke alone, even though that neighborhood comprises only 11% of the City's population. His figures also indicate that 68% of the membership of the Board of Zoning Appeals, 64% of the membership on the Industrial Development Authority, 46% of Honorable Mayor & Members of Roanoke City Council August 6, 1991 PAGE TWO the membership on the Economic Development Commission, and 46% on the Civic Center Commission, all came from the South side of town. These statistics demand that we take action to assure all citizens of the City fair and equal representation at City Hall. Accordingly, I would propose that we main- tain the current size of the Council at 7 members, but designate 3 of the seats as ward systems, representing generally the Northwest section of the City, the Northeast section of the City, and the Southern section of the City. If this is not a good proposal, then let me hear from you as to what your specific proposal is. To date, I have not heard any other proposals from anyone, other than Mr. Dibling and Mr. Firebaugh. As I indicated to you in my letter back on June 3, 1991, it is time to move this issue along, to provide a public forum for the expression of our citizens, to deliberate on it, and put it to a vote of our citizens. I would respectfully request that we take the necessary action to see that the matter is placed for referendum on the November 5, 1991 ballot for consideration by the citizens of the City. I am asking that this matter be placed on the Council agenda for our regular meeting on August 12, 1991. In advance of that meeting, I have provided a copy to Mr. Dibling so that he can be prepared to counsel us as to the most expeditious and proper way to bring this matter to the voters for their decision. Best personal regards to each of you. DAB/jfk Councilman STEPS REQUIRED PRIOR TO HOLDING REFERENDUM ON CITY COUNCIL ELECTION PROCEDURES * Analysis of 1990 Census data by planners, demographers and statisticians. Issue for analysis would be how to better provide for proportionate representation of blacks on City Council, if possible. 2 City Council provides for full opportunity (a) for citizens to be put on notice of proposed Charter amendment and (b) for citizen comment (public notices, work shops, public hearings, etc.). Based upon technical report and citizen comment, Council would adopt a plan setting forth: Number of members of City Council; and Number of members elected from districts. City 4. City Attorney drafts specific language of Charter amendment. City Attorney obtains Circuit Court order requiring referendum and forwards to State Board of Elections at least sixty (60) days in advance of general election. City Attorney obtains Department of Justice preclearance as to date of referendum (not preclearance of the plan; this comes only after the plan is finalized). * This outline assumes a referendum in connection with a general election without any other changes in voting procedures. No attempt is made to set forth post election actions which might include, among others, some or all of the following: enactment of Charter amendment by General Assembly; drawing of election district lines; and Section 5 submission to Department of Justice. August 12, 1991 Wilburn C. Dlbling. Jr. PRINCIPLES TO BE OBSERVED IN DEVISING AN ELECTION DISTRICT SYSTEM * City Council is prohibited by the Voting Rights Act from adopting any plan which dilutes minority voting strength. Any plan must provide proportionate representation for black citizens. In drawing black controlled election districts, Council should attempt to provide a "super majority" of black citizens (60% to 65% blacks). Election districts should observe the Constitutional "one person, one vote" principle. There should be no more than 10% deviation between most populated and least populated election districts. 5. Districts should be compact and contiguous and follow clearly observable boundaries. 6. Any plan must be precleared by the Department of Justice once it has been finalized. * This outline attempts to condense very complicated issues and does not intend to set forth every applicable principle or to discuss all relevant issues. August 12, 1991 Wllburn C. Dlbllng, Jr. MARY F. PAI~O~R City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #133-236 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution 30649-81291 authorizing acceptance of Grant No. 91-A7677 made to the City by the State Department of Criminal Justice Services for a Victim/Witness/Juror Assistance Program, in the amount of $34,787.00, and authorizing execution and filing of the conditions of said grant and other grant documents. Resolution No. 30649-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, f~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and Public Safety Ms. Mary Ann Myers, Victim-Witness Coordinator IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, /he 12th Day of AuGust, 1991. No. 30649-81291. VIRGINIA A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of Grant No. 91-A7677 made to the City of Roanoke by the State Department of Criminal Justice Services for a Victim/Witness/Juror Assistance Program and authorizing the execution and filing by the City Manager of the conditions of the grant and other grant documents. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City of Roanoke hereby accepts the offer made by the State Department of Criminal Justice Services of Grant No. 91- A7677in the amount of $34,787.00 for Fiscal Year 91-92 for a Victim/Witness/Juror Assistance program. 2. The local cash match for Fiscal Year 91-92 shall be in the amount of $20,011.00. 3. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager is hereby authorized to accept, execute and file on behalf of the City any documents setting forth the conditions of Grant No. 91-A7677. 4. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager is further directed to furnish such additional information as may be required by the Department of Criminal Justice Services in connection with the City's acceptance of the foregoing grant or with such project. ATTEST: City Clerk. MARY F. PARKI~R City Clerk CIT OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Te~ ~:r ~o n e:, ( 7~0~ 98J. -.~.,,~ 1 File #60-133-236 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30648-81291 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 Grant and General Funds Appropriations, providing for appropriation of $34,787.00 and transfer of $20,011.00, in connection with acceptance of a grant made to the City by the State Department of Criminal Justice Services for a Victim/Witness / Juror Assistance Program. Ordinance 30649-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: gd pc: The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and PubLic Safety Ms. Mary Ann Myers, Victim-Witness Coordinator IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROaNOkE, VXR~XN~A The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30648-81291. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1991-92 Grant and General Funds Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. W~EREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the exist. THEREFORE, Roanoke that certain sections Funds Appropriations, be, and reordained to read as follows, City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of of the 1991-92 Grant and General the same are hereby, amended and in part: Judicial Administration Victim Witness 91-92 (1-9) ........................ Revenue Judicial Administration Victim Witness 91-92 (10-11) ...................... $ 358,505 54,798 $ 358,505 54,798 A~ ro 'a ' s Non-Departmental Transfer to Other Funds Judicial Administration Commonwealth,s Attorney (12) ..................... (13) ..................... $12,037,572 10,656,395 3,407,416 685,687 1) Regular Employee Salaries 2) FICA 3) Hospitalization Insurance 4) Dental Insurance 5) Life Insurance 6) Training and Development 7) Telephone 8) Administrative Supplies 9) Management Services 10) State Grant Revenue 11) Local Match 12) Transfer to Grant Fund 13) Local Match (035-026-5115-1002) $ 41,443 (035-026-5115-1120) 3,170 (035-026-5115-1125) 2,904 (035-026-5115-1126) 192 (035-026-5115-1130) 365 (035-026-5115-2044) 2,249 (035-026-5115-2020) 1,080 (035-026-5115-2030) 2,015 (035-026-5115-7015) 1,380 (035-035-1234-7103) 34,787 (035-035-1234-7104) 20,011 (001-004-9310-9535) 20,011 (001-026-2210-9536) (20,011) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. existing, this ATTEST: City Clerk. RECEI¥E.D CITY '~1 R~ -7 All :59 Roanoke, Virginia August 12, 1991 The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor and Members of Council: Subject: Acceptance of Victim/Witness Assistance Program Grant I concur in the attached letter dated August 12, 1991, from Mr. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney, concerning the above subject. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/ga Donald S. RECEIVEO CITY CtE?S August 12, 1991 Honorable Noel C. Taylor', Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, VA Dear' Members of Council: Subject: Acceptance of Victim/ Witness Assistance Program Grant I. Background Victim/Witness Program is designed to recognize and address the needs of victims and witnesses in the Roanoke City Criminal Justice System and to continue the commitment for citizen support. Roanoke City Victim/ Witness/Juror Assistance Conm]ittee (RCVWJ) was formed in the fall of 19813, by Judges and Clerks of Circuit Court, General DisJzrict and Juvenile Courts, Conm]onwealth's Attorney, Clty Sheriff, Chief Magistrate, Chief of Police, Director of Administration and Public Safety, and Roanoke Bar Association. Victim/Witness Program was developed and utilized volunteers in the court system to provide services to support the needs of victims, witnesses. The RCVWJ conm]ittee submitted the program to the State with a request for full payment funding~ A start-up grant (~85A6252) was issued on July 1, 198~, in the ~mount of $16,202 for FY :~ubject to proportional annual local funding to be approved each year. City Council accepted the start-up grant in September, 1986, and hired a full-time program coordinator in October, 198~. City Council accepted the second year of the Victim/Witness Assistance Program grant (~86A6292) in September, 1985, and appropriated $2,630 for FY 85-86 as the City's first year proportional share of the grant subject to the terms of the original agreement (15% of $16,202). Members Sllbj elut Pa~e ~ ef .,o,lnll' 11 Acceptance of Victim/Witness Assistance Program Grant In Octobe~ 1985~ the City Mahager approved the new classificatioF~ of the Victim/Witness coordinator's position at a gay grade 09 and the full time coordinator received a salary increase of $3,108. The additional expense of this salary increase was transferred from the Conm~onwealth Attorney's 85 86 budget to the Victim Witness Grant budget. City Council accepted the third year of the Victim/Witness Assistance Program grant in Ausust~ 1986, and appropriated $6,575 for FY ~6-87 as the City's local cash match. In June.= 1987~ the Victim/Witness Assistance Program grant (~86A6%00} was extended from June '~'~? November~ 1987. City Council accepted the fourth year of Victim/Witness Assistance Program grant (~81A6526) in November, 1.987, and appropriated $9~916 as the City's local cash match fop the srant peried~ November? 1987 te August, 1988. City Counci}, accepted the fifth year of the Victim/Witness Assistance Program grant in September, 1988, and appropriated $16,51~ as the City's local cash match for the srant period, September, 1988 to June 1989 City Council accepted the sb~t.h year ef the Victim/Witness Assistance Program grant (~89A6821) in August 1989, and appropriated $20,072 as tile City's !,.,cal cash match for the grant period July, 1989 to Jnne 1990. Cit~ Conncil accepted the seventh yea~- of the Victim Witness Assistance Prosram srant !~90-A7380 AD), in ~uguat 1990, and appropriated $20,072 as the City's local cash match for the srant period July, 1990 to June 1991. I~l ~pri_]~ 1991 - request for a new grant was submitted by tile Victim Witness {.oc~idlnat,~r additional state funds beeame available. Members of Council Subject: Acceptance of Victim/Witness As;~istance Program Grant Page 3 II. Current Situation Tbe Victim/Witness Assistance Program has been awarded a twelve month $36,787 grant (%91-A7677) for July, 1991 through June 1992, ~ich will be matched by a local cash match of $20,011 for a total grant budget of $5~,798. The Victim/Witness Program continues to operate with a full-time coordinator, as well as aa full-time assistant for Juvenile & Domestic Rela'tions Court. Duties have expanded and increasingly greater contact has been made with persons in need of program services. A sun%mary of FY 8~-P, 5, 85-867 86-87, 87-88, S8-89, and 89-90 contacts docume,~ts the services of the program (see Attachment A). Co The Victim/Witness Pro,ram is coordinated by the Office of the Con~onweal~%'s Attorney and this office's FY 91-92 budget as approved by City Council included a local cash match grant fund of $20,072 /appropriated as outlined in Attachment B). III. Issues A. Services B. Costs IV. Alternatives Accept the Victim/Witness Grant ~91-A7677 for $36,787 with Roanoke city paying $20,011 as a cash match for a total grant of $56,798. local Present level of services and contacts would be maintained fo~' victims and witnesses in General District Court. Present level of services and contacts would be maintained for victims and witnesses in Juvenile & Domestic Relations District Court:. Members of Council Subject: Acceptance of Victim/Witness Assistance Program Grant Bo Page 2. Costs a. Cost to the City for Grant ~91-A7677 would be $20,011 as a local cash match. City Council not accept the Victim/Witness Gran't ~91-A7677 in the amount of $3~,787. Services such as those below would be greatly curtailed or not provided if the grant is net accepted. Providing felony victims and witnesses with a letter and educational brochure familiarizing them with the court system, procedures and terminology before their court appearance. Notifying the victims and witnesses of the status of pending cases thereby decreasing the number of unnecessary trips made to court and helping the victims and witnesses feel informed and a [-',art of the criminal JustJ ce system. Providing police officers with case status information and organizing their cases so that they are heard consecutive]y, thus eliminating unnecessary and costly overtime charges. Assisting victims in securing court ordered restitution payments. e o Making victims aware of the Virginia Crime Compensation Fund and assisting them ii1 completing the application process. Provide referrals to o~ler agencies which call help victims address their non criminal Justice needs. Accompany victims and witnesses to court proceedings to reduce their fears and anxieties regarding court appearances. Members of Council Subject: Acceptance of Victim/Witness Assistance Program Grant Page 5 Intercede with employers and school officials when victims and witnesses have difficulties securing time off. Assist sexual assault victims in having forensic medical bills paid by the court system. Assist probation and parole officers in the preparation of Victim Inpact Statements which are presented to the Judge at the defendant's sentencing. k. Provide "counseling" and crisis intervention to crime victims and witnesses. Arrange for transportation to court for those victims and witnesses who have special needs. Provide public relations information in the form of courthouse tours, programs and lectures about the criminal justice system and victimology. 2. Costs would sot be an issue. V. Recon~endations City Council to concur with Alternative A, which would allow for the acceptance of, and participatiou in the Department of Criminal Justice Services Grant ~91-A7677 for the Victim/Witness/Juror Assistance Program in the ~]ount of $~6,787, with the City providing a local cash match of $20,011 from t[~e monies provided in the Commonwealth Attorney's FY' 91- 92 budget. B. Authorize the City Manager to sign and execute all appropriate doc%m~ents to obtain Grant ~91-A7677. Members of ¢~uncil Subject: Acceptance ef Viotim/Wi%ness Assistance Program Grant Page: 6 Appropriate $31,787 in state ~rant funds and transfer $20,0]1 in local matching funds from General Fund account 001-026-2210~9536 to %be Grant Fund and establish a corresponding revenue estimate into accounts to be established by the Director of Finance. DSC:mam pc: Respectftll ly submitted, Donald" ~,. Caldwel 1 Co,~mYz, nweal th ' s ~ttorney City Manager City Attoz'ney Director of Finance Director of Administration & Public Safety Victim Witness Coordinator VICTIH-VII~ES$ ASSISTANCE PRO~RAN SERVICE SUHMART SERVICE Cass Disposition & Case Status Infor~ation Intercession trlth Schools or E~loyers Victin Counsnl SessionsS Referral to Cries Coupensation Fund Restitution Payment Assistancs*a Contacts in Person or by Phone to Educate Persons to the Criednal Justice Systen PT F~ F~ F~ 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 556 1,063 868 900 3,123 12 17 12 25 18 14 56 30 50 24 84 70 250 254 71 218 314 400 822 662 1,406 1,299 1,350 2,634 7. Introductor7 Brochures Mailed 51 607 686 2,250 1,484 8. Total Victims ContactedeS, 982 2,245 1,714 4,500 6,125 9. Total Vituesses Contactede,a 554 1,464 528 1,100 I0. Police Contacts for Case 66 157 93 Inforeation**ee 120 NA 11. Volunteer Hours Served 826 926 544 626 497 * Statistics are no longer kept on counseling session8 **The Victim Witness Program was given referrals from the courts on 822 cases and collected $17,709 during FY 88-89 ***Statistics kept are no longer separated into categories. ****Statistics are not kept on the number of police contacts for lnforeation. However, the Victin Witness Program works with the Police Department on a daily basis. ATTACHMENT A Victim Witness Assistance Program Service Sl.m~mar y Service FY L~,9- 90 I. C~se Dispositior~ ,~ 2,661 ~e Status Info~Tnation 2. Intercession with Schools 25 o~' Employers C~ls~s Intervention 62 ~. Referral to (~ ' ..rime Victims 223 Compensation Fund 5. Restitution Payment Assistance 625 6 Criminal Justice '~ - z~y5 tern 3 % 8 Explanation 7. Educational Brochures given 99~, 8. Total Victims Contacted 9. Total Witness .... .,~a~tac ted 736 ].0. Courtroom tours for child witnesses 11. Volunteer/Intern hours 603 utilized 12. Amount of restitution col ]ected 13. ~]ount of crime compensation collected for wictims FY 90-91 2,79~ 2~ 192 665 1,589 256 70 3OO $.,~,0o~. $38,971 $67,212. $77,6~9. · ~,~rvlces listed on this page reflect the services now being counted statistically by the Victim Witness Program as required by the Departn~ent of Criminal Justice Services. 2. The totals reflect the number of victims which the progr.an~ had extensive contact, beyond giving routine case ~ta~.u=, information cr pre-printed infermation. ATTACHMENT C FY 86-85 FY 85-86 FY 86-87 FY 87-88 FY 88-89 FY 89-90 FY 90-91 FY 91-92 LOCAL CASH MATCH GRANT FIrND DCJS LOCAL TOTAL GRANT CASH MATCH $16,202 (100%) $16,202 $!3,772 ( 71%) $5,538 (29%) $19,310 $32,550 ( 86%) $6,575 (16%) $39,125 $17,225 ( 66%) $9,916 (36%) $27,161 $19,068 ( 57%) $16,516 (63%) $33,562 $32,250 ( 62%) $20,072 ( 38%) $52,322 $35,619 (6~%) $20,072 (36%) $55,961 $34,787 ( 66% ) $20,011 (36%) $5~,798 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 August 19, 1991 File #133-236 ~2~DRA H. FAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30651-81291 authorizing acceptance of a Multi- Jurisdictional Special Drug Prosecutor Grant made to the City by the Commonwealth of Virginia, in the total amount of $86,634.00, and authorizing acceptance, execution and filing of all appropriate documents to obtain said grant. Resolution No. 30651- 81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held an Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and Public Safety IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30651-81291. VIRGINIA A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a Multi- Jurisdictional Special Drug Prosecutor Grant made to the City of Roanoke by the Commonwealth of Virginia 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 Multi- Jurisdictional Special Drug Prosecutor Grant No. 91-A7631AD in the total amount of $86,634.00 from the Commonwealth of Virginia for the period of July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1992. 2. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager 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, as more particularly set forth in the report to this Council dated August 12, 1991. 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 such grant or with such project. City Clerk. MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKF. ?FICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #60-133-236 SANDI~ H. F. AK1N Deputy City Clerk Mr. Joel M. Schianger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schianger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30650-81291 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 Grant Fund Appropriations, providing for the appropriation of $86,634.00 in connection with acceptance and continued participation in a Multi- Jurisdictional Special Drug Prosecutor Grant for the period of July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1992. Ordinance No. 30650-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, j~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and Public Safety ~N THE COUNCIL OF THE C~TY OF RO~%~O~E~ V~RG~N~ The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30650-81291. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1991-92 Grant Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 1991-92 Grant Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Judicial Administration Multi-Jurisdiction Drug Grant (1-3) ............... Rev~ue Judicial Administration Multi-Jurisdiction Drug Grant (4) .................. 1) Regular Employee Salaries 2) Training and Development 3) Administrative Supplies 4) State Grant Receipts (035-026-5124-1002) $68,917 (035-026-5124-2044) 1,100 (035-026-5124-2030) 16,617 (035-035-1234-7105) 86,634 $ 445,139 86,634 $ 445,139 86,634 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. RECEIVED CITY CLEF~KS AUG-7 P3:5¢ Roanoke, Virginia August 12, 1991 The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor and Members of City Council: Subject: Acceptance of Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Prosecution Grant I concur in the attached letter from Donald S. Caldwell, commonwealth's Attorney, concerning the above subject. Respectfully submitted, ~er H~erbert~ City Manager WRH/ga Attach. CITY OF ROANOKE REGIONAL DRUG PROSECUTOR 145 w CAMPBELL AVE SUITE 2C)5 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011 August 7, 1991 Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Subject: Acceptance of Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Prosecution Grant Dear Mayor Taylor and Members of City Council: I. Backq~u_n.~ A. Federal fundinq was made available to the State of Virginia to be used for the development of several. Multi- Jurisdictional Special Drug Prosecutors statewide. The positions were developed to coordinate prosecutorial efforts among independent jurisdictions, reduce fractional and duplicate prosecutions, enhance the recovery of Driminal assets, utilize federal, state and local resources to assure maximum prosecutoriai effectiveness and to provide specialized prosecutorial resources to the regional drug enforcement effort. In addition, the Regional Drug Prosecutor may also be cross-designated as an Assistant U. S. Attorney. The cross-designation will permit a state prosecutor to make use of the Federal Grand Jury. B. The Commonwealth's Attor~gys of Crai~_~o~D~f.~.ranklin Count3, Roangk~_Counti' and the Cities of Roanoke and Salem applied on October 9, 1987, to the Commonwealth's Attorneys' Services and Training Council, the State agency responsible for the administration of the grant money to fund a Multi- Jurisdictional Special Drug Prosecutor. C. ~ity Council accepted the Multi-Jurisdictional Special Drug Prosecuuor Grant in April, 1988, and a full-time Special Drug Prosecutor was hired in July, 1988, Mayor Noel C. Taylor Members of City Council Page Two August 7, 1991 ==. Current Situation A. ~_ 17, 1991 - The Commonwealth's Attorneys' Services and Training Council notified the above-mentioned Commonwealth's Attorneys that this region's Grant Application was renewed in the amount of $86,634.00 for the period July I, 1991 through June 30, 1992. II!. I__ss_ue~ A. Prosecutorial Efforts ~g~D~.pru~q Trafficking~ B. IV. A. %o~EuK.in }~e_~__cep%~nce of Multi-Jurisdictional Special Drug Prosecutor Grant #9!-A7631AD renewed in the amount of $86,634.00 for the period July i, 1991 through June 30, 1992. 1. Prosecutoria] ~aforts 9 a~g~A~ D__ru~r___aff__l_.cKi~ would be enhanced because of centralization and coordination of efforts and specialized expertise. Acceptance also allows evaluation of the usefulness of a Multi-Jurisdictional Grand Jury to aid in investigations throughout the five participating jurisdictions. 2. The entire cost will be fully funded by the DCJS/CASTC Grant. B. City Council not acqgpt__th%.~Mu~ii~risdictionaI $~ecial ~_~g Prosecutor Grant #91-A7631AD. -- !. pXos.ec~%ol~a~ Efforts a~ainst Dru~ Traffickisg will not be approached as a regional concept. 2. qgqu would remain the same but the advantage of State funding support for a worthy project would not be realized. ~ e c__op.__m _e_n d A. City Cg~cil_g%~S~.3~_~A~ernative "A" and allow for uhe acceptance of and continued participation in State Grant #91- A7631AD for a Multi-Jurisdictional Special Drug Prosecutor in the amount of $86,634.00 for the period of July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1992. Mayor Noel C. Taylor Members of City Council Page Three August 7, 1991 B. Authorize the City Manager to sign and execute appropriate documents to obtain State Grant #91-A7631AD. C. Appropriate ................... ~86,634.00 for the Multi-Jurisdictional Special Drug Prosecutor and establish a corresponding revenue estimate into accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund. Respectfully submitted, Donald S. Caldweli Commonwealth's Attorney DSC/msh cc: City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Administration & Public Safety blARY F. PARKER City Clerk CIT OF ROANOKI OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, ~rmginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #42 ,~RA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30653-81291 establishing rates for rental of curb spaces in the City Market area, effective September 1, 1991. Resolution No. 30653-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: gd pc: Mr. Franklin D. Kimbrough, Executive Director, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., 310 First Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and Public Safety Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget Mr. Gary N. Fenton, Manager, Parks and Recreation Ms. Deborah J. Moses, Chief, Billings and Collections IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA lhe 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30653-81291. A RESOLUTION establishing rates for the rental of curb spaces on the streets in the City Market area; and providing for an effective date. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council 1. The monthly rate for the streets in the City Market area shall be as follows: A. Market Square Spaces Space 40 Space 7; 7A Spaces 1-6, 36-39, 41-43 B. Market Street~ S.E. Space 17 $30.00 Spaces 8, 18, 35 $27.00 Spaces 9, 11-16, 19-24, 26-30 32-34 $25.00 Spaces 10, 25, 31 $20.00 C. East Side of Wall Street Spaces 1 -13 The daily rates for each of the $5.00. 3. of the City of Roanoke that: use of the curb spaces on the Monthly Rates $30.00 $27.00 $25.00 $20.00 above spaces shall be The Customer Service Charges of the City of Roanoke, maintained by the Director of Finance, shall be amended to include the foregoing new rates. 4. This resolution shall be in full force and effect on and after September 1, 1991. ATTEST: ~.~ City Clerk. August 19~ 1991 File #60-42 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30652-81291 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 General Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of $7,740.00 in connection with an increase in rental fees charged for curb spaces on the streets in the City Market area. Ordinance No. 30652-81291 was adopted by the Councli of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and Public Safety Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget Mr. Gary N. Fenton, Manager, Department of Parks and Recreation ZN THE COUNCZL OF THE CZTY OF ROANOKE, VZRGZNZA The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30652-81291. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1991-92 General Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 1991-92 General Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: A ro iations Parks, Recreation and Cultural City Market (1-2) .............................. Revenue from Use of Money/Property Market Rents (3) ............................... 1) Fees for Prof. Services 2) Advertising 3) Curbage Fees (001-050-7210-2010) $ 4,000 (001-050-7210-2015) 3,740 (001-020-1234-0505) 7,740 $ 833,342 19,113 $ 916,740 19,740 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. CITY CLEE ~'S ~FFICE '91 AL~$ -7 ? 4 :~i~ Honorable Mayor Noel C. Taylor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Roanoke, Virginia August 12, 1991 Dear Mayor Taylor and Members of Council: SUBJECT: CITY MARKET RENTAL FEES AND BUDGET I. BACKGROUND: Curbage rates and charges for rental of market spaces are prescribed by City Council in accordance with Section 24-66 (a) of the City Code. B. Rental fees were last revised July 1, 1982. (Refer to Attachment "A".) II. CURRENT SITUATION: Curbage fees collected in FY91 exceeded anticipated revenues by $3,984.00. It is projected that, at current rates, FY92 revenues will exceed budgeted expectations by $4,000.00. Farmers and Downtown Roanoke, Inc. (DRI) have agreed that the promotion of the Market is essential to its success. Farmers voted at their February 7, 1991 meeting to request that City Council raise the current Farmers' Market curbage fees, contingent upon the additional revenue generated being made available for promotional activities. A report was made at the DRI Board of Directors meeting on February 12, 1991, regarding this action. (Refer to Attachments "B" and "C". ) Proposal to increase current curbage rates is as follows: (daily rates by $2.00, monthly rates by $5.00 depending on site location) DAILY FROM TO $3.00 $5.00 MONTHLY $15.00 $20.00 20.00 25.00 22.00 27.00 25.00 30.00 Mayor and Members of Council August 12, 1991 Page 2 Proposed Curbage fee increases coupled with aggressive collections are estimated to increase revenues by an additional $7,740.00, which would be utilized exclusively for promotion of the Farmers Market. (Refer to Attachment "D".) III. ISSUES: ae Compliance with City Code. Promotion of Market. Funding. IV. ALTERNATIVES: Be Approve proposed increases in curbage rates. 1. Compliance with City Code would be met, through City Council approval of rate changes. 2. Promotion of Market would be enhanced through a specialized promotional campaign. 3. Funding would be available through increased fees and collections. Do not approve proposed increases in curbage rates and in Market budget. 1. Compliance with City Code would not be an issue, since rates and charges would remain same. 2. Promotion of Market would not be enhanced. 3. Funding issue is moot. RECOMMENDATION is that City Council concur with Alternative "A" which will authorize the following: Amendments to the Fee Compendium Market Curbage Rates and Charges which will increase current daily rates by $2.00 and current monthly rates by $5.00, effective September 1, 1991. Mayor and Members of Council August 12, 1991 Page 3 Ce Increase the revenue estimate for the account (001-020-1234-0505) from $19,740.00 curbage revenue $12,000.00 to Increase City Market appropriation accounts by the following amounts: Fees for Professional Services (001-050-7210-2010) From $6,000.00 to $10,000.00. Advertising (001-050-7210-2015) From $0.00 to $3,740.00. TOTAL INCREASE: $7,740.00 Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/gf Attachments CC: City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Administration and Public Safety Director of Public Works Manager, Office of Management and Budget Manager, Parks and Recreation Executive Director, Downtown Roanoke, Inc. ATF ,C N ENT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 26'th day of April, 1982. N~. 25988. A RESOLUTION prescribing rates and charges for the renta~ of curb spaces on the streets in the City }larket area and providlhg an effective date for such rates and charges. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. From and after July 1, 1982, the rates and charges for the use of the curb spaces on the streets in the City Market area shall as follows: A. Maz%~t S~e Spaces Space 40 Space 7 Spaces 1-6, 36-39, 41-43 B. First Street~ S. E. ~elson Street) Space 17 Spaces 8, 18, 35 Spaces 9, 11-16, 19-24, 26-30, 32-34 Spaces 10, 25, 31 C. West Side of First Street, S.E. & East Side of Wall Street Ail Spaces be Rates $25.00 monthly $ 3.00 a-~ly $22.00 monthly $ 3.00 ~ly $20.00 monthly $ 3.00 ~ly Rates $25.00 monthly $ 3.00 a-~ly $22.00 monthly $ 3.00 d~ly $20.00 m~nthly $ 3.00 ~ly $15.00 m~nthly $ 3.00 H~{ly Rates $15.00 mmthly $ 3.00 ~ly ATT/kC D. West Side of Wall Street (Large Vehtcle Ail Space~ ~tes $ 3.00 ~"~ly for vehicles not over 2 toms $ 5.00 ~ly for ve~cles over 2. Nothing in this resolution shall be deemed'to amend or repeal the rates and charges established for market stalls by Resolution No. 24332, adopted September 11, 1978, which shall remain in effect, except for curbage fees which are established by the instant resolution. ATTEST: City Clerk. Farmer's Committee Meeting - February 7, 1991 Paul Grisso - 6343 Mt. Ch~tnut Road, Roanoke, Va. 24018 Jason RichardSon - 4355 Richardson Drive, Roanoke, Va. 24019 Thomas L. Geathrie - Rte 2, Box 64, Boones Mill, Va. 24065 Charles E. Lavinder - 5447 Canyon Road, Roanoke Co., Va. 24018 Sheldon Golf 6704 Conner Road, N.E., Check, Va. 24072 Blaine & Karen Jarreth - P.O. Box 397 Boones Mill, Va. 24065 Gina Reed - 7235 LaMarre Drive, Roanoke, Va. 24019 Julia Light - 2949 Harmony Drive, Roanoke, Va. 24014 Eddie & Chris Grisso - 6123 Rose Lawn Road, Roanoke, Va. 24018 David & Connie Wright - 6182 Mt. Chestnut Road, Roanoke, Va. 24018 Mrs. Rosalin Walter - Rte 2, Box 344, Hardy, Va. 24101 T. S. Martin - 1115 Ray Road, S.E. Roanoke, Va. 24014 ./ ATTACHMENT MINUTES DOWNTOWN BOANOKE INCORPORATED BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING TUESDAY,< ~'~RUARY 12, 1991 8:00 A.M. DRI BOARD RO(iM PRESENT: Ben~ett~ Davidson, Fitzpatrick, ' Grisso, Grove/ Hall, Harris, Hawkins, Hubard, H~tcherson, Massey, Moor~aw, Mulholland, Porterfield, Turner, Waldvogel, Walters, Warsaw, Waters, Webster, Wishneff, and Wright; Guests: Richard Rife and Judg~ Beverly T. Fitzpatrick~ Sr.; Staff: Kimbrough, Mason, and McHugh. Chairman William Hubard called the meeting to order. The minutes of ~ January 8, 1991 meeting were submitted and approved. .Treasurer' s Re~)ort Treasurer Joseph Wright suk~itted tb~ monthly financial statements whioh were accepted by the Board. Mr. Wright also called the Board's attention to the FY 89-90 Aru%ual Audit P~port distributed through their packets. The Board accepted and filed the report as presented by the auditors. Committee R~ports Farmer's S~b-Co~ttee - Chairman Paul Grisso reported that at a recent meeting of the co~ttee, a~ increase in monthly and daily stall rental fees of $5 and $2 respectively was recommended. The proceeds fr~n this increased fee is to be completely allocated towards the Market Area's Image Marketing Campaign. Mr. Grlsso also reported that a special "ad hoc" grow of farmers met with City Parks & Recreation officials to discuss the physical problems of the Market Area. FUture farmer recruitment plans will be addressed shortly. Environment Cc~a~ittee - Chairman Robert Bennett reported that the committee was preparing a proposal whereby downtown building owners, who made improvements to their building (s) which costs greater than "x" amount, would be required to bird proof that building and keep it that way /n the future. A specific proposal should be forthco~ng by April. He also reported that the coaraittee was exploring: 1.) ways to get a downtown historic property owner on the City's architectural review board (ARB) and 2. ) to require the ARB to follow precedents or so{ne other reoognized set of guidelines/standards when approving or disapproving request for certificates of appropriateness. Planning & Development Cc~raittee - Chairman Chip Warsaw presented the Board with the architectural rendering of the proposed Dom/nion Tower streetscape. He AT'T/ ,C H/W,F_NT pointed out different sides of the building and highlighted the special features including the briok pavers and lighting fixtures. Future plans include extending the streetscape design east on Sale~ toward Williamson Road and up Wall Street. He reported that the corm~ttee reoc~m~_nded the plan with the request that som~ of the trees ~m~ybe as many as a third of those proposed) on Jefferson and Salem be elim/nated so the architectural style of the building would be visible. Mr. Warsaw moved that the Board approve the committee's recormaendation to this effect. Mr. Fitzpatrick seconded and the Board approved the recoa~endation. Mr. Wishneff wished to voice his opposition on record. Downtown Housing sut-Com~ittee - Mike Waldvogel reported for the comTdttee that plans for the Co~lm/nity Development Corporation were progressing. One financial institution was recently eliminated from the list of participants. The coalm/ttee is currently working with three housing develoloers in further exploration of downtown housing possibilities. Market Area Committee - Chairman Richard Walters updated the Board on the coa~tittee's Plans for the next Image Marketing Campaign promotion to be called "Springtime On The Market". The bulk of the funds for the spring campaign will be allocated towards television advertising with some radio tLme. Mr. Walters also presented tb~ Board of Directors with the new Market Area logo, designed by DRI's Virginia Tech graphic arts intern. Roanoke Failway Exposition Comnittee - Mr. Kimbrough reported that the RRE Steering C(xmtittee has tentatively narrowed the field to two firms for advertising/public relations services. He also said that the Roanoke (~apter- NRHS Board was close to reaching a compromise and that they plan to contribute a significant amount of money to support the Roanoke Railway Exposition in 1991. R~tail Promotions Sub-Go~mittee - MS. Anne Marie McHugh reported for Stephen Parson that the bi-a~nual event, Dollar Days, was scheduled for February 14- 16. A/so, a year-long promotions calendar has been produced end would be distributed to all downtown retailers to assist them in their business plans for 1991. Ms. McHugh discussed Downtown Roanoke Incorporated's role in the upcom~g Metro Conference Basketball Tournament in March and called the Board's attention to the item in the Board packet titled "Downtown Roanoke Incorporated's Plans For the Metro Conference Basketball Tournament". Seasonal Decorations Sub-C(mlnittee - Mr. Robert Webster reported that the RFP regarding proposals for new downtown seasonal decorations received no responses from Virginia Tech. Consequently, DRI staff re-submitted a RFP to the Urban Planning Department at the University of Virginia. Marketing C~ttee .- On behalf of the comnittee, Mr. Mark Mulholland reco~l~ended that, due to the current econc~/c climate, the 1991 membership campaign concentrate on retention and renewal of present members rather than on solicitation for new memberships. A/so, regarding Fantasyland, the proposal to split up the displays has been placed on hold until the coamttttee is able to ~ork the plan Out with Heironimus' president, Richard Lynn. Initially, Mr. Mulholland said, Mr. Lynn's, reaction has been positive, but the committee is awaiting further comTunications. Economic Development Committee_- Committee Chairman Larry DavldSon moved that the two newest board members, ~4~. John Grove and Mr. Douglas Waters, be appointed to the E~nomic Development C~x~nittee. Mr. Fitzpatrick seconded the motion and the board approved the appointments. Old Business Board Liability For ~tivities In Support of the RDanoke c~unity Development Corporation - Mr. James Massey assured the Board that the level of liability for the formation of the Cormunity Development Corporation is virtually none because all investors are banks or lending institutions. He elaborated t. hat DRI'S role in the develo~t of the (]DC is as a manager and will co~d~ct operations only with the agreement of the participating institutions. T~e Executive Co~ttee rec(x~ends t/~at the organization lim/t involvement i~ the (DC to a(~d-nistration and marketing, and within th/s contract, he anticipates no liability problems. The banks themselves will make determinations about the CDC'S l~vestme~%ts. Mr. Wright move to approve the Executive comnittee' s recomme2~tion; Mr. Fitzpatrick seconded and the Board ~nanimously approved the measure. Downtown ~loyee Shuttle - Mr. Willia~ Hawkins, Chairr~an of the Traffic Management Sub-Committee, informed the Board that a press conference was held FebrUary 11, to formally announce the Downtown Employee Shuttle Service. At the moment only 120 coa~tments have been received by the DRI office to participate in such a program; 360 commitments are needed. Mr. Hawkins said that if the threshold number of 360 is not reaohed after each business has been contacted, the program will be shelved. All contacts will he r~ade prior to the next board meeting and further action taken at that time. New Business Downtown Recycling Plan - Mr. Bennett detailed the Downtown Rmanoke Incorporated Downtown-wide Recycling Plan for the Board. He said that to participate, each business would need to purchase specially designed purple bags to distinguish m/xed-paper products from non-paper trash. In order to carry out a successful program, Mr. Bennett asked the Board of Directors for their endorsement and approval. Mr. Walters questioned whether cardboard boxes would be accepted as m~xed paper. Mr. Klmbrough responded that he would obtain clarification on that matter. With the Board's approval, a press conference would be planned in March to officially kick-off the program. Mr. Bennett moved t~at the Board endorse the downtown-wide recycling program; Mr. Turner seconded the motion and the Board approved. House Resolution Encouraging State Offices Downtown - Mr. Klmbrough asked C he Board for support of a House of Delegate's Resolution requiring state funded agencies, departments or organizations to reasonably exhaust allpossible office . locations for expansion, new offices, or relocation in a Central business d/strict before co~sideri~g alternative suburban sites. Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the request; Mr. Wishneff seconded and the Board approved. Mr. Fitzpatrick indicated he wo~ld also try to include the issue on the city's legislative agenda for next year. . ~ Downtown Service ~Dtstrtct - Mr. Hubard reported that because of a budget shortfall, due in part to the lower than anticipated 1991 assessment of the Dominion Tower and new Norfolk Southern office building, DR/ officials would like to explore the expansion of the current size of the downtown service d/strict and the possible increasing of the present levy from $. 10 to $. 19 per $100.00 of assessed valuation. Further administrative changes are needed because DRI's five year contract contains a sunset clause which will expire in June, 1992. DRI's budget is short of the funds needed to ar~ess all the objectives set forth in the 1991 Workplan because of the reasons stated above. He further stated that the Board must decide whether to el/mlnate several current programs or come up with more .financial resources. After much discussion, Mr. Harris moved that the Board should explore the feasibility of expa~ding the c~rrent d/strict and increasing the tax levy and make a recommendation to the Board of Directors in March. Special Presentation - Chairman Hubard asked OUr guests (Richard Rife and Judge Fitzpatrick) if they would allow us to move their presentation to the March Board meeting due to the lateness of the hour and the exodus of Board members. Mr. Rife and Judge Fitzpatrick agreed and Mr. Hubard prom/seal them the full attention of the Board early on the agenda in March. Executive Director's P~port - Mr. Kimbrough distributed copies of the Economic Growth Heport for the period of January 4, 1991 through February 8, 1991 as well as the printed 1991 Workplan for the organization. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully su~tted, Secretary June 3, 1991 ATT$CH/',AENT D OFFICERS AND OIRECTOR$ Mr. Ga~-f Fenton Director of Parks and Recreation City of ~o~noke 210 Resel~ve Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24016 Dear Gary: At ~]eir January meeting, the members of Do~]town Roanoke Incorporated's Faz-mer's Committee voted to raise the current faz~er's market curbaEe fees and use the extra dollars for promotional purposes. The Farmer's Conm~ittee is chaired by Mr. Paul G~isso of Mountaiu Top O~oha~ds, and is composed of farmers ~o reEularly sell in ~e Historic Farmer's Market. This proposal has subsequently been wal~ly endorsed by the Market Area Standin~ Con~ittee and the Board of Directors of Do~town Roanoke Incorpomated. Specifically, be made: tho farmers desire tho followin~ ohanEes Proposed Effective Daily rental rate $3.00 $5.00 Prima~y rate (monthly) ranges from $15-$25 $20-$30 Secondary ~ate (monthly) ranRes from $15-$25 $20-$30 The members of the Farmer's Committee want to ensure that the Historic Fax~er's Market retains its "hustle and bustle" atmosphere by contrib~tinE to a ma~kotinE effort throuzh thei~ regular rental rates. Ali additfonal dollars raised from this proposed increase will be allocated to Downtown Roanoke Inco~porated's already established ImaEe Ma~ketinE CampaiEn. Tho oampaiEn spans a yearly effort of raj. sinE money from the Market Area ~sinesses and farmers for marketinE and advert~sinE that unique area of downtown Roanoke the Historic Market Area. Please call me for any further information. ely, in D. Kimbrough Executive Director DOWNTOWN ROANOKE, iNCORPORATED 310 FIRST STREET. SW, ·ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:~4011 · (?03}342.2028 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 August 19, 1991 File #277-42 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30654-81291 authorizing a contract with Downtown Roanoke, Inc., to act as the City's agent in management of the City Market, at a monthly fee of $833.33 for a period of one year, said agreement may be renewed from term to term thereafter. Resolution No. 30654-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: Mr. Franklin D. Kimbrough, Executive Director, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., 310 First Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and Public Safety Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget Mr. Gary N. Fenton, Manager, Parks and Recreation Ms. Deborah J. Moses, Chief, Billings and Collections IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30654-81291. A RESOLUTION authorizing a contract with Downtown Roanoke, Inc. for the provision of certain services in the Roanoke City Market area. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, the requisite contract with Downtown Roanoke, Inc. ("DRI") providing for such firm to act as the City's agent in management of the City Market for a monthly fee of $833.33. 2. The term of the agreement shall be for one (1) year, and the agreement may be renewed from term to term thereafter. Either party shall have the right to cancel the agreement upon thirty (30) days' notice to the other party. 3. The agreement, which shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney, shall provide that DRI's accounting procedures for handling City funds shall be approved by the Director of Finance, that the DRI employee handling City funds shall be bonded, and that DRI shall obtain and maintain during the life of the agreement liability insurance of a nature and in amounts as specified by the City Manager. The agreement shall also contain such other provisions as the City Manager may deem appropriate. ATTEST: City Clerk. RECEIVEO .... CITY CLEF, ~ ~ ~"- .... '91 -7 :59 Roanoke, Virginia August 12, 1991 Honorable Mayor Noel C. Taylor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Taylor and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Agreement to Manage Roanoke City Market II. I. BACKGROUND: Agreement between the City and the Roanoke Area Market Association was authorized by Roanoke City Council on July 13, 1981, to manage the Roanoke City Market (Refer to Attachment "A"). Fee, which Council authorized as payment to Roanoke Area Market Association for services rendered, was established at $500.00 per month. Downtown Roanoke~ Inc. (DRI~ and Roanoke Area Market Association (RAMA~ merged on May 1, 1990, and DRI began overseeing the market operation, becoming the recipient of the $500.00 monthly fee, and the agent responsible for the hiring and supervision of the Market Clerk. Current agreement specifies "RAMA" rather than "DRI". Market Clerk resigned earlier this year. DRI began the "search process" for a new Clerk, but failed to secure a reliable candidate willing to take on the responsibilities of the job for only $500.00 per month. CURRENT SITUATION: DRI negotiated with and temporarily hired a Market Clerk April 1, 1991, at a rate of $833.33/month, in order to provide uninterrupted operations of the market. Financial limitations prohibit DRI from continuing this $333.33 monthly subsidy of the Market Clerk's salary. Request was received from DRI that monthly payment be raised from $500.00 to $833.33. This would enable DRI to permanently increase the Market Clerk salary, established in 1981, to a more appropriate, 1991 level. (Refer to Attachment "B"). Mayor and Members of Council Page 2 August 12, 1991 Co Aggressive curbage collection efforts, under DRI's supervision during the final quarter of FY90-91 helped the City to exceed its projected annual revenue estimate of $12,000 by $3,984.00. At the current curbage rates, it is projected that actual collections in FY91-92 will again exceed projections by at least the same amount. III. ISSUES: A. Daily Management of Market Operations B. Term of Agreement C. Costs to the City D. Legal Liabilities IV. ALTERNATIVES: Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with DRI to act as the City's agent to manage the daily operations of the City Market. Said agreement shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney and shall contain accounting procedures prescribed by the Director of Finance. Daily manaKament of the Market Operations will be achieved by an organization that has a vested interest in the success of the entire downtown area. Term of the Agreement will be for one year and will automatically renew unless either party expresses its intent to terminate the arrangements with thirty-day written notice. Costs to the City for services rendered will be $833.33 per month. Projected revenue collections from curbage rental fees will be sufficient to pay for this service. Legal liabilities will be handled by requiring DRI to bond its employees who will perform collection duties. Bodily injure and property damage insurance will also be required. Mayor and Members of Council Page 3 August 12, 1991 B. Do not authorize an agreement. Daily management of the market operations would revert back to the City. 2. Term of the agreement would not be an issue. Cost to the City: The City may lose the valuable cooperation which has been developed between the farmers, general merchants, and DRI. The maintenance of these relationships is what has created the "market atmosphere" which attracts visitors and shoppers to the downtown market district. Legal liabilities related to market operations will revert to the City. Vo RECOMMENDATION: City Council concur with Alternative "A", and authorize the City Manager to execute an Agreement with DRI for a term of one (1) year with provision for automatic renewal unless terminated upon thirty (30) days written notice, authorizing DRI to oversee market operations on behalf of the City and specifying the payment of a monthly fee of $833.33. Said agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney with accounting procedures prescribed by the Director of Finance. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRIi/hw Attachment cc: City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Administration and Public Safety Director of Public Works Manager, Office of Management and Budget Manager, Parks and Recreation Executive Director, Downtown Roanoke, Inc, ATTACHMENT "A" IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 13th day of July, 1981. No. 25682. AN ORDINANCE authorizing the appropriate City officials, on the City's behalf, to enter into a contract with Roanoke Area Market~ Association, Inc., for the management of the Roanoke City Market and providing for an emergency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager is hereby authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City, and the City Clerk is authorized to attest, the requisite contract, on such form as approved by the City Attorney, with Roanoke Area Market Associa- tion, Inc., (RAMA) providing for the latter's management of the Market, as the City's agent, for a monthly fee of $500.00. The term of the agreement shall be one (1) year, with each party retaining the right to cancel the agreement upon thirty (30) days notice to the other. The agreement shall provide that RAMA may execute for the City monthly rental contracts only with the prior written approval of the City Manager, that the RAMA employee handling City funds shall be bonded, that RAMA's accounting procedures for hand- ling City funds shall be such as are approved by the Director of Finance, and that llAMA shall obtain and maintain during the life of the agyeement liability insurance of a nature and in amounts as specified by the City Manager. The agreement may also contain such other provisions~ as the City Manager may require. 2. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. ATTEST: Clerk. OFFICERS ANO nlRECTOR$ $?EPt-~EN iq F~AR~ON Mr. Gary Fenton Director of Parks & Recreation City of Roanok~ 210 Reserve Avenue ~'Roanoke, V~ 24016 Dear Gary: Thank you for taking the time Tuesday afternoon to candidly speak with Amy and me about the changes being proposed with regard to the management of the Farmer's Market area downtown. We are encouraged and hopeful that DRI will be able to play a greater role in the overall operation of the Historic Market Area. Our Board of Directors and the businesses located there - most notably the individual farmers - are confident that, when this agreement is in place, the Market Area will evolve into a more visible and more unified operation. Needless to say we want to make sure that the close working relationship and open communications with the City staff continue. Let me take a moment ko outline our understandings from the Tuesday meeting. Specifically we hope to achieve the following: Reimbursement to DRI by the City of $833.33 per month beginning July 1, 1991, and every month thereafter until the necessary ordinance changes and management contract between DR/ and the City are in place. This increase is necessary in order to retain the quality and capable individual who is currently performing the Market Clerk's duties according to the contract. You will be forwarding to us prior to July 1 a revised curbage rental contract - hopefully using the language we proposed on Tuesday - for use by DRI when renting stalls to the farmers. Prior to July i, 1991, you a~/or the City Attorney's office will let us k~ow in writing what procedure we should follow to begin collecting the additional prcmotional fees as part of the da~ ly, primary and secondly curbage fees. We need this information as soon as possible so we can distribute a written notice of the rate change ASAP to the farmers. These a~{tional dollars will be used solely for promotion of the Market Area. This increase was at the request of the farmers and was prc~ised to start by the beginning of our fiscal year on July 1, 1991, in order to generate enough money to pay for a fall proaDtional DOWNTOWN ROANOKE. INCORPORATED 310 FIRST STREET. S.W. ,, ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24011 · (703) 342-2028 A, TTAC H,',A T You and your staff will continue to work with the City Attorney's office to affect the proposed ordJ_nance changes relative to our operation of tb~ Farmer's Market. As a parallel item to that, a new contract between DR/ and the City will be drawn incorporating all of our previous conversations, written proposals, and intents to properly add~ess the new relationship being proposed. In both cases you will keep us informed as to how we raight assist you and/or expedite the process. Please let Amy or me know if this recollection is not the same as yours. Gary, I'm sure you realize that time is of the essence in this situation. For the first time in many years, the market farmers are cor~mmnicating through us as an organized, cohesive group, and are excited and eager about witnessing their requests becc~J_ng realities. With these objectives achieved, the disgruntlement and distrust we have sensed between the farmers and the City in g~neral should significantly diminish, and I think a new climate of trust and cooperation will develop. As w~ discussed, we must have it~us 1 throug~ 3 above in place before the end of the current fiscal year, in order to continue to make progress with and satisfy one of the most important elements of the Historic Market Area: the fazmers. We cannot continue under our current "arrangement" beyond June 30, 1991. I anxiously wait to hear frc~ you. On behalf of the Market Area farmers and my o~ganization, thanks again for the time you and your staff have put forth in helping to bring this idea to fruition. We truly appreciate your support and your confidence. ly, ~ranklin D. Kimbroug~ ExecLfcive Director cc: Lynn Vernon MT~RY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Vh'~nia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #122-169-261 SANDI~A H. EAI~N Deputy City Clerk Ms. Crystal McKenna "Attic Fair" Chairperson P. O. Box 2433 Roanoke, Virginia 24010 Dear Ms. McKenna: I am enclosing four copies of Resolution No. 30655-81291 authorizing use of the National Guard Armory on August 23 and 24, 1991, with waiver of the standard rentai fees, for the Roanoke Symphony Volunteer Association "Attic Fair", and further authorizing the Roanoke Symphony Society, or its designee, to operate concessions in conjunction with such event. Resolution No. 30655-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. You are requested to execute two copies of the enclosed Resolution and file a certificate of insurance, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence, with the City being named as an additional insured on such policy, subject to approval by the City's Risk Management Officer, with the undersigned by Wednesday, August 21, 1991. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and Public Safety Ms. Delores C. Daniels, Citizens Request for Service Ms. Lauren G. Eib, Risk Management Officer Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget Mr. Gary N. Fenton, Manager, Parks and Recreation IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30655-81291. A RESOLUTION waiving the standard rental fee for use of certain City facilities for the Roanoke Symphony Volunteer Association "Attic Fair" and granting concession rights in conjunction with such events. WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 24982, dated January 28, 1980, this Council established a policy with respect to waiver of rental fees for use of City facilities and property by certain organizations. WHEREAS, the Roanoke Symphony Society complies with the criteria for waiver of such fees set forth in Resolution No. 24982. WHEREAS, Council deems it appropriate to waive rental fees for the Roanoke Symphony Volunteer Association "Attic Fair," to be sponsored by the Roanoke Symphony Society and to grant concession rights in conjunction with such event. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The Roanoke Symphony Society shall be authorized use of the National Guard Armory, August 23, 1991 through August 24, 1991 with waiver of the standard rental fees Volunteer Association "Attic Fair." 2. The Roanoke Symphony Society for the Roanoke Symphony or its designee shall be authorized to operate concessions in conjunction with such event. 3. The applicant organization shall furnish public liability and property damage insurance contracts insuring the liability of such organization with regard to such events on the dates indicated above, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional insured on such policy of insurance, and a certificate of insurance, acceptable to the City's Risk Management Officer, reflecting such coverage shall be filed with the City Clerk prior to August 23, 1991, the beginning of the event sponsored by the Roanoke Symphony Society. 4. The applicant organization shall, and by execution of this resolution, does agree to indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, legal actions and Judgments advanced against the City and for expenses the City may incur in this regard, arising out of such organization's intentional acts or negligent acts or omissions related to use of City facilities and property. 5. The applicant organization shall comply with all applicable terms and conditions of Resolution No. 24982, dated January 28, 1980. ATTEST: ACCEPTED AND EXECUTED , 1991. ATTEST: City Clerk. by the undersigned this day of ROANOKE SYMPHONY SOCIETY By (title) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF ROANOKE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1991, by and , of the Roanoke Symphony Society. My Commission expires: Notary Public Roanoke, Virginia August 12, 1991 Honorable Mayor Noel C. Taylor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Taylor and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Roanoke Symphony Fund Raiser - waiver of ArmoryFees I. BACKGROUND: Roanoke Symphony Association of Volunteers, associated with the Roanoke Symphony Orchestra, sponsors a variety of programs and events for the Roanoke Community each year. Association's pro~ects include a Summer Music Institute for young area musicians, the granting of music scholarships, concerts for area school children in grades K-3, and the Roanoke Youth Symphony Program. Co Fund raisers are held to generate monies needed to support such projects. An "Attic Fair" is held annually by the Association as one of its fund raisers. National Guard Armory has been requested for use by Roanoke Symphony Association of Volunteers for the 1991 "Attic Fair". The waiver of the rental fee and the granting of concession rights and con~nission to the Association has also been requested. Refer to attached letter. II. CURRENT SITUATION: National Guard Armory is available on the dates and times requested by the Roanoke Symphony Association of Volunteers. City Council authorization is required to waive rental fees and to grant concession rights and commissions in accordance with Resolution No. 24982. General Liability Insurance must be provided by lessee to include bodily injury and property damage with limits to be one million ($1,000~000.00) dollars per occurrence and have the City named as additional insured. A certificate of insurance, acceptable to the Risk Management Officer, shall be deposited with the City Clerk prior to the event. Mayor and Members of Council Page 2 August 12, 1991 III. ISSUES: A. Availability: B. Compliance: C. Insurance: D. Rental Fee: E. Concession RiKhts and Commission: IV. ALTERNATIVES: Ao Waive rental fee and grant concession rights and commission to the Roanoke Symphony Association of Volunteers through the Roanoke Symphony Orchestra for use of the National Guard Armory on Friday and Saturday, August 23 and 24, 199. Availability of the National Guard Armory for this event has been confirmed. Compliance of the Roanoke Symphony Orchestra as an exempt, non-profit organization has been met. 3. Insurance requirements for the event will be met. Rental Fee for the National Guard Armory in the emount of $300.00 per day would be waived, however, the staff expenses of opening and closing the facility would be reimbursed. Concession Rights and Commission for the event would be assigned to the Roanoke Symphony Orchestra. Do not waive rental fees or grant concession rights and comm~ission to the Roanoke Symphony Orchestra. Availability of the National Guard Armory for the event would exist, however, the Roanoke Symphony Association of Volunteers may seek an alternate site for the event. Compliance of the Roanoke Symphony Orchestra as an exempt non-profit organization would not be considered. Mayor and Members of Council Page 3 August 12, 1991 3. Insurance issue would be moot. Rental Fee of $300.00 per day would be charged to a local, exempt, non-profit organization for the use of the National Guard Armory. Funds raised for Symphony projects would be reduced. Concession Rights and Commission would be separately contracted with the Roanoke Symphony receiving no proceeds. RECOMMENDATION: City Council concur with Alternative "A" to waive rental fee and grant concession rights and con~nission to the Roanoke Symphony Orchestra's Association of Volunteers for use of the National Guard Armory on Friday and Saturday, August 23 and 24, 1991. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/hw Attachment CC: Crystal McKenna, "Attic Fair" Chairperson City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Administration and Public Safety Citizen Request for Services Risk Management Officer Manager, Office of Management and Budget Manager, Parks and Recreation Roanoke Symphony Orchestra Robe~ N. Bradley George B. Cmtledge, Jr. Susan C.~ng ('/03) 343-6221 February 27, 1991 Mr. Gary Fenton Parks & Recreation Dept. 210 Reserve Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24016 Dear Mr. Fenton, I am writing on behalf of the Roanoke Symphony Association of Volunteers to request the use of the armory building for their annual "Attic Fair" August 23 - 24, 1991 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. The association sponsors this event as one of their fundraisers in order that they may raise funds for the many projects they sponsor throughout the year. Some of these projects include: The Roanoke Youth Symphony program which gives more than 80 students from Roanoke and the surrounding region an opportunity to perform in a semi professional orchestra setting a Summer Music Institute for young area musicians which offers an intensive week long training program including private lessons, small ensemble coaching and an orchestral repertoire Music Scholarship awards Kinder Konzerts for all City, County, and Salem area school students in grades K - 3. Senior Citizens also benefit from the money raised by the association in the form of outreach programs which offer full orchestra concerts/rehearsals to adults for $1. We would like to take this opportunity to ask that the Department of Parks and Recreation consider waiving the normal rental fee in order to allow this event to be an even greater success. The association would then be able to spend this amount on the many worthwhile projects outlined above in a year that has already been plagued by budget cuts and unexpected expenses. I would like to thank you in advance for your consideration of this request and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Colleen L. Hartis Executive Assistant MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CIT OF ROANOKF. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue. S.W.. Room 456 Roanoke. Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #236-323 SANDIIA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30657-81291 accepting a Library Services and Construction Act, Title I Grant, for the Roanoke City Public Library, in the amount of $7,615.00, to be used for expanded library services for the visually impaired and physically handicapped. Resolution No. 30657-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Ms. Beverly A. Bury, City Librarian IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30657-81291. A RESOLUTION accepting a Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA) Title I Grant for the Roanoke City Public Library. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The grant to the City of a Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA) Title I Grant in the amount of $7,615.00, to be used for expanded library service for the visually impaired and physically handicapped, is hereby ACCEPTED. 2. That W. Robert Herbert, City Manager, or Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Assistant City Manager, is hereby authorized to execute any and all requisite documents pertaining to the City's acceptance of this grant and to furnish such additional information as may be required in connection with the City's acceptance of the foregoing grant. ATTEST: City Clerk. 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 August 19, 1991 File #60-236-323 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30656-81291 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 Grant Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of funds in connection with acceptance of a Library Services and Construction Act, Title I, Subregional Library for the Blind Grant, in the amount of $7,615.00. Ordinance No. 30656-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc; Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Ms. Beverly A. Bury, City Librarian IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30656-81291. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain the 1991-92 Grant Fund emergency. WHEREAS, for the Government of the exist. Appropriations, VIRGINIA certain sections of and providing for an usual daily operation of the Municipal City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 1991-92 Grant Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Federal LSCA Title I Blind 5-92 (1-5) ............. $ 92,396 7,615 Parks, Recreation and Cultural Federal LSCA Title I Blind 5-92 (6) ............... $ 92,396 7,615 1) Temporary Employee Wages 2) FICA 3) Fees for Professional Services 4) Administrative Supplies 5) Training and Development 4) Federal LSCA Title I Blind '92 (035-054-5007-1004) (035-054-5007-1120) (035-054-5007-2010) (035-054-5007-2030) (035-054-5007-2044) (035-035-1234-7102) $ 1,496 115 2,389 2,915 700 7,615 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: this City Clerk. RECEIVED CITY ~ ~ ~ 91 AUG-2 A%~st 12, 1991 Roanoke, Virginia Honorable Mayor Noel C. Taylor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Mayor and Members of Council: SUBJECT: LIBRARY SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION ACT {LSCA) TITLE I, SUBREGIONAL LIBRARY FOR THE BLIND GRANT I. BACKGROUND A. Federal aid through an LSCA Title I Grant for ~7,615 has been approved for the Roanoke City Public Library by the Virginia State Library and Archives. B. City Library is a Subregional Library for the visually and physically impaired residents of the Fifth Planning District. 1. Virginia currently has nine subregional libraries. C. Grant will fund staff training~ supplies and extra help staff. II. CURRENT SITUATION A. Library seeks to provid~ and enhance accessibility to library resources for special populations through its Outreach Services Unit. B. Library Administration recommends that the Subregional Grant of $7~615 be used to: Purchase additional supplies needed for existing computer to automate circulation procedures and enable faster ship- ment of talking books to disabled patrons. Obtain staff training on the Reader Enrollment and Distribu- tion System (READS), the automated circulation system of the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handi- capped, The Library of Congress. Extend the hours of an existing part-time library page to as- sist in preparing the talking book collection for automation. 1 III. ISSUES A. Enhanced service t~o the visually and physically impaired. B. Budget concerns. C. Compliance with regulations. IV. ALTERNATIVES A. Accept the LSCA Title I Subregional Library for the Blind Grant and appropriate ~7,615 to accounts to be established in the Grant Fund. Enhanced service to the visually and physically impaired. Staff will be able to update and access more quickly files indicating what titles have been read, subject content pref- erence and reserve requests for talking book users. Budget concerns. Library budget will be increased without additional cost to the City. Compliance with regulations. Grant must be expended by May 1, 1992. B. Do not accept the LSCA Title I Subregional Library for the Blind Grant and do not appropriate $7,615 in the Grant Fund. Enhanced service to the visually and physically impaired. Service would remain at the present level. Manual files will become more time consuming to maintain, resulting in less time available for service to talking book users. 2. Budget concerns. Not an issue. Compliance with regulations. Not an issue. RECOMMENDATION City Council concur with Alternative A and accept the LSCA Title I Subregional Library for the Blind Grant in the amount of $7,615 and appropriate the funds to the following accounts to be established in the Grant Fund: 1. $ 700 2. $2,915 3. $1,496 4. $ 115 5. $2,389 to Training and Development, #035-054-5007-2044 to Administrative Supplies, #035-054-5007-2030 to Temporary Employee Wages, #035-054-5007-1004 to FICA, #035-054-5007-1120 to Fees for Professional Services #035-054-5007-2010 B. Establish ~ revenue estimate o~f $7~615 for the Subregional Grant in the Grant Fund. C. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the necessary documents accepting the Grant for the Roanoke City Public Library. Respectful~.~ly submitt~~ W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/JDR/BB/js CC: Wilburn C. Dibling, City Attorney Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Beverly A. Bury, City Librarian Authorization of Expenditure of Subregional Service Funds 1991-1992 The governmental entity of Roanoke City Public Library acknowledges receipt of notice of Subregional Service Funds and agrees that the amount of $7,614.82 may be expended and submitted for reimbursement by the Extension Services Department according to the instructions of the Virginia State Library for the Visually and Physically Handicapped. Signature of Authorized Representative Title Date Please return completed copy by August 1, 1991 to: Mary Ruth Halapatz Library Director Virginia State Library for the Visually and Physically Handicapped 1901 Roane Street Richmond, Virginia 23222-4898 SUBAUTH 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 August 19, 1991 File #236-323 ,~N'DRA H. EAKIN Deput~ Ciw Clerk Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution 30659-81291 accepting a Library Services and Construction Act, Title I Grant, for the Roanoke City Public Library, in the amount of $13,399.00, to be used for enhancement of interlibrary loan and reference services. Resolution No. 30659-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, . Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Ms. Beverly A. Bury, City Librarian IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30659-81291. A RESOLUTION accepting a Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA) Title I Grant for the Roanoke City Public Library. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The grant to the City of a Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA) Title I Grant in the amount of $13,399.00, to be used for the enhancement of interlibrary loan and reference services, is hereby ACCEPTED. 2. That W. Robert Herbert, City Manager, or Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Assistant City Manager, is hereby authorized to execute any and all requisite documents pertaining to the City's acceptance of this grant and to furnish such additional information as may be required in connection with the City's acceptance of the foregoing grant. ATTEST: City Clerk. 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 August 19, 1991 File #60-236-323 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30658-81298 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 Grant Fund Appropriations, providing for apppropriation of funds in connection with acceptance of a Library Services and Construction Act, Title I, Metropolitan Libraries Grant, in the amount of $13,399.00. Ordinance No. 30658-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Ms. Beverly A. Bury, City Librarian IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINI& The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30658-81291. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1991-92 Grant Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 1991-92 Grant Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: A ro riations Parks, Recreation and Cultural $ 84,781 Federal LSCA Title I Metropolitan 5-92 (1-3) ...... 13,399 Revenue Parks, Recreation and Cultural Federal LSCA Title I Metropolitan 5-92 1) Equipment Over $500 2) Administrative Supplies 3) Maintenance Contracts 4) Federal LSCA Title I Metro '92 (4) ........ (035-054-5008-9005) $11,213 (035-054-5008-2030) 350 (035-054-5008-2005) 1,836 (035-035-1234-7099) 13,399 $ 84,781 13,399 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: this City Clerk. RECEIVEO CITY r'~ ~ ~c:~CE AUG-2 AS:~(~gust 12, 1991 Roanoke, VA 24011 Honorable Mayor Noel C. Taylor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Mayor and Members of Council: SUBJECT: LIBRARY SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION ACT {LSCA) TITLE I, METROPOLITAN LIBRARIES GRANT I. BACKGROUND Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA) Title I Grant ~ $13,~h-~ be-~ awarded to the Roanoke City Public Library. Bo Grant is for enhancing interlibrary loan and reference services. II. CURRENT SITUATION Library reference collection is the most extensive and in-depth of all public libraries in Southwest Virginia. Library reference staff respond to requests for infor- mation from local residents as well as other libraries in Southwest Virginia. o Library lends materials to and borrows materials from libraries throughout Virginia as well as the United States for use by local clientele through its membership in the Online Computer Library Center {OCLC). Library Administration recommends the Metropolitan Grant ~ }13,3~-~~ for the purchase of equipment, supplies and telecommunication costs. III. ISSUES A. quality of interlibrary loan and reference services. B. Budget concerns. C. Compliance with regulations. 1 IV. ALTERNATIVES Accept the Metropolitan Grant for the Roanoke City Public Library and appropriate ~99 to accounts to be established in the Grant Fund. quality of interlibrary loan and reference services. Response time to requests for materials and information will be shortened and access to information enhanced. Budget concerns. The Library's budget will be increased without additional cost to the City. Compliance with regulations. Grant must be expended by May 15, 1992. Do not accept the Metropolitan Grant for the Roanoke City Public Library and do not appropriate $13~399 in the Grant Fund. Quality of interlibrary loan and reference service. Waiting time for library users to obtain requested materials and to access needed information will be increased. 2. Budget concerns. Not an issue. Compliance with regulations. Not an issue. RECOMMENDATION City Council concur with Alternative A and accept the Metropolitan Grant in the amount of'$~3~399 and appro- priate the funds to the following accounts in the Grant Fund: $11,213 $ 350 $ 1,836 to Equipment over $500, #035-054-5008-9005 to Administrative Supplies #035-054-5008-2030 to Maintenance Contracts #035-054-5008-2005 Bo Establish a revenue estimate of }13~399 for this federal grant in the Grant Fund. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the necessary documents accepting the grant for the Roanoke City Public Library. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/JDR/BAB/js CC: Wilburn C. Dibling, City Attorney Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Beverly A. Bury, City Librarian 3 MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CIT OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue. S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981.2541 August 19, 1991 File #60-246 SANDI~, H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30660-81291 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 Consortium Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of funds in connection with additional funds awarded to the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium, in the amount of $943,628.00, in order to serve clients under Title II-A , Implementation Strategy, and Title III Implementation Strategy, for Program Year 1991. Ordinance No. 30660-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991 Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Ms. Carolyn H. Barrett, Administrator, Fifth District Employment Training Consortium and AN 1991-92 emergency. WHEREAS, Government of exist. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30660-81291. ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections Consortium Fund Appropriations, and providing of the for an for the usual daily operation of the Municipal the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 1991-92 Consortium Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: ~ions Fifth District Employment & Training Consortium - FY92 Title IIA 78% (1-14) Fifth District Employment & Training Consortium - FY92 Title IIA 78% (20-21) /1) Alleghany Highlands Public School 2) Dabney S. Lancaster Comm. College 3) Roanoke City Schools Alternative Ed. 4) Roanoke City Schools Teen Parent (034-054-9261-8158 $ 28,781 (034-054-9261-8150) 16,461 (034-054-9261-8156) 42,519 (034-054-9261-8159) 10,000 $ 954,597 830,047 113,581 $ 954,597 830,047 113,581 5) Scheneman and Spencer 6} TAP Project Success 7) Dabney S. Lancaster Comm. College 8) TAP ABE/GED 9) RADAR 10) College of Health Sciences 11) Dominion Business School 12) Roanoke City School of Nursing 13) VA. Western Comm. College 14) Funding Authority 15) College of Health Sciences 16) Dabney S. Lancaster Comm. College 17) Dominion Business School 18) VA. Western Comm. College 19) Funding Authority 20) Title IIA 21) Title IIA 22) Title III (034-054-9261-8155) (034-054-9261-8152) (034-054-9261-8170) (034-054-9261-8172) (034-054-9261-8210} (034-054-9261-8234) (034-054-9261-8197) (034-054-9261-8194) (034-054-9261-8192) (034-054-9261-9990) (034-054-9281-8234) (034-054-9281-8201) (034-054-9281-8197) (034-054-9281-8192) (034-054-9281-9990) (034-034-1234-9260) (034-034-1234-9261) (034-034-1234-9281) $140,100 107,100 56,747 149,949 12,083 180 1,171 510 1,745 262,701 3,379 22,045 2,400 10,565 75,192 124,507 705,540 113,581 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. existing, this City Clerk. RECEIVED 'gl AUG -7 All :59 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia August 12, 1991 R~anoke, Virginia Members of Council: Funding for the Fifth District Employment and Training Consort itm~ .Fifth District Employment and Trainir~ Consortit~n (FDETC) submitted its Fiscal Year 1991, Title II-A, Implementation Strategy, to the Governor's Pmployment and Training DepOt (GETD), to serve the economically disadvantaged persons in the cc~i~.mity. Planned Progrm~s include o~.-the-job training, job related education, classroom trainzng, customized training, work experience, job placement activities and remedial education. Transportation services will be provided to those eligible. .Fifth District E~pl~o~_.t and Training Consorti~ (FI~TC) submitted its Fiscal Year 1991, Title III, Implementation Strategy, to the Governor's Employment and Training Department (GE%D), to serve dislocated residents or persons who have been laid off from work. ?.lanne.d Prosrams include on-the-job training, job related education, classro~n training, customized training, work experience, job placement activities and remedial education. Transportation services will be provided to those eligible. City of Roanoke is the grant recipient for Consorti~n funding. City Council must appropriate the funding for all grants the Consortitm~ recezves. II. CURRENT SI/I~TION t~"zu has informed the Consortiun of its Notice of Award #92-03-01 in ~--amount of $830~047.00 for program year 1991 to serve Title II~A clients. U,:iu has infolded the Consorti~ of its Notice of Award ~E-92-113-03 in the amount of $113,581.00 for progrsm year 1991 to serve Title III clients. III. ISSUES A. Prosr~n Operations B. Funding City Council Report August 12, 1991 Page 2 IV. AL'I'~{NATIVES iA~n ropriate the Consortium's additional fundir~ of $943~628.00 and crease the revenue estimate by$943~628.00~ in accounts to established by the Director of Finance. Pro,ran Operation - Plm~,ed progr~ will be ~l~manted and new progrm~s will be initiated by the Consortium's Policy Board and Private Industry Council. Consortium staffing levels will be maintained. Fundin8 - Increased funding is available from the grantor agency at no cost to the city. 3. Timing - Immediate action will allow progr~ to be ~mple~ented and cc~uleted in planned timefr~nes. Do not appropriate the Consortium's additional fundin~ of $943 ~ 628 . 00 and increase the revenue estimate by $943~628.00~ in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance. Progr~n Operation- Planned and additional progrmns to serve participants would be curtailed. Consortium staffing would be reduced. 2. Funding- Not a factor 3. Timid- Delay will cause late start-up of progrs~n and underexpenditure of available funds. V. RECC~fl~DATION Ao~rOve Alternative A: Appropriate the Consortiun's additional fundin8 $943~628.00 and increase the revenue estimate by $943~628.00~ in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance. JDR:ta cc: Director of Finance City Attorney Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Fmnager 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 August 12, 1991 File #60-246 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance 30661-81291 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 Consortium Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of funds in connection with additional funds awarded to the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium, in the amount of $96,611.00, with regard to Operation Bootstrap project management, administration, administrative and program training expenditures. Ordinance No. 30661-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Ms. Carolyn H. Barrett, Administrator, Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30661-81291. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1991-92 Consortium Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 1991-92 Consortium Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Fifth District Employment & Training Consortium - FY91 Title IIA (1-5) ......... Fi tn Distriot Employment ' iiAiA '&AAAA iA '- FY92 Operation Bootstrap (6) ....................... Rev~ue Fifth District Employment & Training Consortium - FY91 Title IIA (7-8) ............................... Fifth District Employment & Training Consortium - FY92 Operation Bootstrap (9) ....................... 1) TAP/Customized Training - 6% (91-92) 2) Roanoke County Schools 3) Harris - Teeter (034-054-9161-8131) $45,000 (034-054-9161-8202) 9,317 (034-054-9161-8141) 735 $ 2,200,661 1,146,121 10,969 10,969 $ 2,200,661 1,146,121 10,969 10,969 4) Anderson News of Virginia 5) Funding Authority 6) Funding Authority 7) Title IIA 8) Title IIA 9) CDBG - Operation Bootstrap (034-054-9161-8127) $ 312 (034-054-9161-9990) 30,278 (034-054-9286-9990) 10,969 (034-034-1234-9160) 25,693 (034-034-1234-9161) 59,949 (034-034-1234-9286) 10,969 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. RECEIVED CITY CLEF?,!~ ~F?,CE '~1 RUG -'7 Rtl :59 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia August 12, 1991 Roanoke, Virginia Mmmbers of Council: ~hnding for the Fifth District Employment and ~'~aining Consortium Operation Bootstrap, is a progrmn established to enable very low 'income families in the city of Roanoke to become economically self-sufficient, through the cooperative efforts of the public and private sectors. The Fifth District Employment and Training Consor- tium (FDETC) is responsible for the overall project marmgement and administration. The Consortium was awarded Incentive funds from the Governor's ~mployment and Training Department (GETD), based upon exceptional performance for the year July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991. City of Roanoke is the grant recipient for Consortium funding. Only City Council can appropriate the funding for all grants the Consor- tium receives. II. CURRENT SITt~TION Ae City of Roanoke has awarded the FDETC funding for project marm_gement and administration in the mnount of $10~969.00 for Operation Boot- strap, from FY 91-92 Community Devalo~nt Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Notice of Award (NOA) ~91-03-03 has been received from the t~"lD, in the amount of $85,642.00 for administrative and program training expenditures, for the period Dec~mber 15, 1990 - June 30, 1992. III. ISSUES A. Program O~erations City Council Report August 12, 1991 Page 2 IV. AL'r~2~ATIV~S Appropriate the Consortit~n's net fundin~ from the CD~G end Incentive ftmds totallin~ $96~611.00 end increase the revenue estimate by $96~611.00 in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance. Progrmn Operation - Existing progr~ns will continue, planned prograrm will be implemented and new progrmms will be initiated by Consortiom's Policy Board end Private Industry Council. Funding - City ~h~.s awarded FDETC $10~969.00 in CDBG funds. The re~aining Incentive funds of $85~642.00, are available from the grentor agency at no additional cost to the city. 3. ~ - Immediate action.will allow progrmns to continue end be c~leted in planned tnneframes. Do not appropriate the Consortiom's net fundin8 from the CD~G end Incentive funds totallin~ $96~611.00 end increase the revenue '~s~im~te by $96~611.00 in accotmts to be established by the Director of Finance. 1. Program Operation - Planned programs to serve participants would be delayed. 2. Fundir~ - Not a factor. 3. T~__~_~ - Delay will cause late start-up of program and under- expenditure of available funds. RECC~MNI~TION A~rove Alternative A: Appropriate the Censortit~n's net funding from the CDBG end Incentive funds totallin~ $96~611.00 end increase the revenue estimate by .$96 ~ 611. 00 in accot~ts to be established by the Director of Finance. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager JDR:nd cc: Director of Finance City Attorney MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CIT OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 12, 1991 File #60-72 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30662-81291 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 General Fund Appropriations, transfering $8,000.00 in existing funds and appropriating revenue of $32,000.00, in order to match funding allocated by the State Department of Social Services to provide for additional services to eligible clients. Ordinance No. 30662-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Ms. Corinne B. Gott, Superintendent of Sociai Services the IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKEv VIRGINIA The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30662-81291. A~ ORDIN~d~CE to amend and reordain certain sections 1991-92 General Fund Appropriatione, and providing for emergency. WHEREAS, Government of the exist. THEREFORE, BE Roanoke that certain Appropriations, be, and the reordained to read as follows, of for the usual daily operation of the Municipal City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of sections of the 1991-92 General Fund same are hereby, amended and in part: Health and Welfare Income Maintenance (1) ......................... Social Services - Services (2) ................. $14,035,571 3,684,734 6,190,724 Reve~e Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth Welfare (3) .................................... 1) Emergency Relief 2) Purchased Services 3) Other Purchased Services (001-054-5313-3145) $(8,000) (001-054-5314-3160) 40,000 (001-020-1234-0683) 32,000 $52,323,497 8,400,777 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. RECEtYED CITY CL£P~S ,:~F!CE August 12, 1991 A9:25 The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Mayor and Members of Council: SUBJECT: P~trgST TO TP~NS~ EXISTING FUNDS TO MATCH FL%IDING ~n~C,A-r~ BY 'rm~ STATE DEPAI/'D~ OF SOCIAL S~VIC~ II. III. IV. mo BACKGROUND The State Department of Social Services hasp since the adoption of the FY 91-92 budget~ allocated $40~000 to the local Social Services Department to provide services for eligible clients. B. Allocation will provide funds for following services: 1. Home Based Services - $25,000 to approximately 10 citizens at $225 each month to allow these individuals to live in their own home, rather than a nursing home. 2. Prevention Services - $15~000 for providing certain services to individuals and families to stabilize the home situation and prevent disruption of families through purchase of emergency shelter and other needs in time of crisis. CURRENT SITUATION A. State regulations require that 20 percent be provided from local funds. B. City Council is requested to transfer existing local funds to match funds allocated by the State Department of Social Services. ISSUES A. Services to citizens. B. Funding. ALTERNATIVES A. Approve the transfer of $8,000 and appropriate revenue of $32~000 to provide additional services to eligible citizens. 1. Services to citizens will be available to enable them to remain in their own homes and to prevent disruption of families. Page Two 2. Funding to provide the required 20 percent match is available in the Social Service Account #001-054-5313-3145. B. Do not approve the transfer of the required matching funds for these services. 1. Services to citizens cannot be provided. 2. Funding. Not an issue. V. RECOMMENDATION City Council concur in the implementation of Alternative A and authorize the following: A. Transfer $8~000 from the Social Services Account #001-054-5313-3145, to Account #001-054-5314-3160. B. Increase Revenue Estimate of funds received from the State Department of Social Services Account #001-020-1234-0683 and corresponding increase in Expenditure Account #001-054-5314-3160 by $32,000. Respectfully submitted, City Manager Wilburn C. Dibling, City Attorney Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Corinne B. Gott, Superintendent of Social Services CC MARY F. PARKER Cit~ Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, V'u'gi.nia 24011 Telephone: (?03)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #60-246-72 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy Cit~ Clerk Mr. Joel M. Schianger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear My. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30663-81291 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 General Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of $219,500.00 in additional funds allocated by the State Department of Social Services in connection with purchase of employment services from the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium, to be used for work experience and adult basic education, as well as on-the-job training for certain individuals participating in the JOBS Training Program. Ordinance No. 30663-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd po: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Ms. Corinne B. Gott, Superintendent of Social Services Ms. Carolyn H. Barrett, Administrator, Fifth District Training Consortium Employment and IN ?H~ ~OI])ICIL OF ~lil~ CII"/ OF I~)A)IoI~]~, lrIEll(IA The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30663-81291. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections the 1991-92 General Fund Appropriations, and providing for emergency. WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist. of THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 1991-92 General Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Health and Welfare Employment Services (1-2) ......................... $14,184,921 795,870 Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth Welfare (3) ...................................... 1) Fees for Professional Services 2) Purchased Services 3) Employment Services (001-054-5316-2010) $ 24,000 (001-054-5316-3160) 195,500 (001-020-1234-0681) (219,500) $52,071,997 8,149,277 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST City Clerk. RECEIVED '9I AUG -2 A8:36 August 12, 1991 The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Mayor and Members of Council: SUBJECT: ~EQ~EST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS: JOBS II. I. BACKGROUND Job Opportunity and Basic Skills (JOBS) TraininK Program is funded by the Federal Government and is mandated for certain recipients of Aid to Dependent children and food Stamps. Primary goal of the program is to assist clients in becoming economically self-sufficient through education and job skills training. Local Department of Social Services purchases certain service~ from the Fifth District Emplo.y~nent and Training Consorti,,m to provide work experience and Adult Basic Education as well as on-the-job training for certain individuals to assist in obtaining and retaining employment. CURRENT SITUATION The State Department of Social Services hasT since the adoption of the F/Y 91-92 bud~et~ allocated $219~500 in additional funds for purchase of these employment services. III. ISSUES Local Department of Social Services is reimbursed at 100% of cost of funds allotted. A. Funding. B. Legal. IV. ALTERNATIVE Appropriate revenue of $219~500 for purchasing employment services for certain individuals. Funding is 100% reimbursed by the State Department of Social Services, and is available at the State budget level. Page Two o Legal - Jobs Training Program is mandated by Federal regulations. Bo Do not appropriate revenue to provide for purchasing employment services. 1. Fundin~ - Not an issue. o Legal - Jobs Training Program is mandated by Federal Regulations for certain individuals. V. RECOMMENDATION City Council concur in the implementation of Alternative A and increase Revenue estimates of funds received from the State Department of Social Services in Account #001-020-1234-0681 and increase the following Expenditure Accounts: #001-054-5316-2010 #001-054-5316-3160 Fees For Professional Services Purchased Services $ 24,000 195~500 $219,500 CC Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager Wilburn C. Dibling, City Attorney Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Corinne B. Gott, Superintendent of Social Services MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue. S.W. Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 2401! Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File //236-72-304 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30665-81291 authorizing execution of a grant agreement with the State Department of Criminal Justice Services on behalf of the City to accept a Demonstration Grant Award from the State Council on Community Services for Youth and Familles, in the total amount of $357,004.00. Resolution No. 30665-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, ~~_ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Ms. Corinne B. Gott, Superintendent of Social Services Mr. William A. Kelly, Director of Court Services Dr. Fred P. Roessel, Executive Director of Mental Health Services Dr. Frank P. Tota, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Donald R. Stern, Director, Roanoke City Health Department Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, /he 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30665-81291. A RESOLUTION authorizing execution of a Grant Agreement with the State Department of Criminal Justice Services on behalf of the City to accept a Demonstration Grant Award from the State Council on Community Services for Youth and Families and to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant and applicable laws, regulations, and requirements pertaining thereto. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the City Manager or the Assistant City Manager are hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the City, to execute the required Grant Agreement, and any other forms required by the State Department of Criminal Justice Service, in order for the City to accept a Demonstration Grant Award from the State Council on Community Services for Youth and Families, upon all of the terms, conditions and requirements pertaining to the grant, as set forth in the City Manager's report dated August 12, 1991. ATTEST: ~Z.~. City Clerk. MARY F. PAR[(ER City Clerk CIT OF ROANOKI - OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #60-236-72-304 SANDRA H. EAI(IN Deputy City Clerk Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30664-81291 amending and veordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 Grant and General Funds Appropriations, in connection with execution of a grant agreement with the State Department of Criminal Justice Services, on behaff of the City to accept a Demonstration Grant Award from the State Council on Community Services for Youth and Families, in the total amount of $357,004.00. Ordinance No. 30664-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Ms. Cox~inne B. Gott, Superintendent of Social Services Mr. William A. Kelly, Director of Court Services Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Gl'ants Monitoring Administrator ZN THE COUNCZL OF THE CZTY OF RO~OKE~ VZRGZNZA The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30664-81291. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1991-92 Grant and General Funds Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 1991-92 Grant and General Funds Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: GNan~Fun4 A ro 'at'ons Health and Welfare Demonstration Grant Revenue Health and Welfare Demonstration Grant (1-12) ........................ (13-14) ....................... $ 895,201 357,004 $ 895,201 357,004 Non-Departmental Transfers to Other Funds (15) ..................... Health and Welfare Social Services-Services (16) ....................... $12,017,561 10,636,384 13,942,856 6,127,235 1) Regular Employee Salaries 2) ICMA-RC Retirement 3) FICA 4) Hospitalization Insurance 5) Dental Insurance 6) Life Insurance 7) Training and Development 8) Maintenance Contracts 9) Fees for Prof. Services 10) Administrative Supplies 11) Management Services 12) Insurance 13) State Grant Receipts 14) Local Match 15) Transfer to Grant Fund 16) Foster Care (50%) (035-054-5151-1002) $131,320 (035-054-5151-1115) 15,903 (035-054-5151-1120) 10,046 (035-054-5151-1125) 4,280 (035-054-5151-1126) 340 (035-054-5151-1130) 1,339 (035-054-5151-2044) 11,880 (035-054-5151-2005) 1,200 (035-054-5151-2010) 171,188 (035-054-5151-2030) 6,048 (035-054-5151-7015) 960 (035-054-5151-3020) 2,500 (035-035-1234-7100) 334,439 (035-035-1234-7101) 22,565 (001-004-9310-9535) 22,565 (001-054-5314-3140) (~22,565) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. RECEIVED CITY C! August 12, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of City Council: Subject: Demonstration Grant Award from State Council on Community Services for Youth and Families I. Background: A. Two Hundred Twenty-Two (222) Roanoke City Youth were placed in residential care facilities in 1988'. 1. State treatment facilities (hospitals) 2. Residential schools for handicapped 3. Correctional facilities *(most recent year for data) B. Monthly cost per child in residential care ranges from $550 to $14~000. C. Inappropriate referral to residential care facilities sometimes occurs because of: 1. Insufficient resources locally to address the child's needs; 2. Insufficient coordination among local service agencies to provide "holistic" approach; and 3. Inability of family to handle problem. D. Treatment of disfunctional family or younger siblings is not addressed by just removing troubled child from family. II. Current Situation: City applied for demonstration grant to State Council on Community Services for Youth and Families on September 27, 1990 on behalf of multi-agency task force comprised of Roanoke Social Services, Court Service Unit, Community Services Board (Mental Health Services), and Roanoke City Health Department, and Roanoke City Schools. B. Demonstration program, i.e. Project Focus, will provid~ 1. Better coordination of service agencies to provide better screening and referral of cases. 2. Emphasis on care and treatment of whole family. 3. Increased local alternatives for child placement and treatment. Members of City Council '9age 2 Program goal is to reduce the number of Roanoke children referred to residential treatment each year, and to increase the number of returned to the community from residential care. youth Roanoke City received a demonstration grant award totalling $401,641. over two fiscal years; $67,202 was awarded for FY 91, and 5334,439 for FY 92. City is one of six {6) localities in Virginia to receive such a grant. City Council authorization is needed for City Manager to execute grant agreement with State Department of Criminal Justice Services, which serving as fiscal agent for the grant program. III. Issues: is A. Cost to City B. Services to Roanoke children in need C. Long-term savings to City IV. Alternatives: Authorize City Manager to execute attached grant agreement with State Department of Criminal Justice Services and appropriate 5334~439 in state grant funds with Roanoke City paying $22,565 as a local cash match for a total grant of $357,004. 1. Cost to City would be 53187107 in local in-kind services and a local cash match of $22,565 for FY92. a. City's in-kind services consist solely of staff time of current staff and office space donated by the Roanoke City School Board. The local match is available in Social Service State/local foster care funds. These funds can be transferred because of potential savings to Foster Care if Project FOCUS grant program is successful. Services to Roanoke children in need would be improved through better coordination and referral, more local services, and family-oriented approach to treatment. Long-term savings to City would be realized if project is successful through fewer children being referred to residential treatment, and shorter stays for those who are referred. Do not authorize City Manager to execute attached grant agreement with State Department of Criminal Justice Services and do not appropriate ~334~439 to grant fund. Continue providing services to children in need as has been done for past several years. Members of City Council ~' :~ge 3 1. Cost to City would be nothing except lost opportunity cost. 2. Services to Roanoke children in need would be provided, but improvements to system would be delayed at best. 3. Long term savings to City would not be realized. V. Recon~endations: Recommend that City Council concur in Alternative A thereby authorizing City Manager to execute attached grant agreement with State department of Criminal Justice Services and appropriatin~ $357~004 to accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the grant fund with a corresponding revenue estimate. Transfer $22,565 in local matching funds from the General Fund Account 001-054-5314-3140 to the Grant Fund revenue account. Respectful ly submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/FD:gr CC: Wilburn C. Dibling, City Attorney Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Corinne B. Gott, Superintendent of Social Services William A. Kelly, Director of Court Services Dr. Fred Roessel, Director of Mental Health Services Frank B. Tota, Superintendent, Roanoke City Schools Dr. Donald R. Stern, Director, Roanoke City Health Department Marie Pontias, Grants Monitoring Administrator MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOK OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue. S.W.. Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #207 SANDRA H. FAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30666-81291 providing for recordation of the Deed of Restriction setting out the restrictive covenants for approximately 140 acres of land purchased by the City from A. Wade Douthat within the addition to the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology. Ordinance No. 30666-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, . Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: gd pc: Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30666-81291. VIRGINIA AN ORDINANCE authorizing the application covenants to the addition to the Roanoke Centre Technology; and providing for an emergency. of restrictive for Industry and WHEREAS, the City now owns approximately 140 acres of developable land to be included as an addition to the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to ensure orderly development of the Centre and to ensure that development within the Centre is harmonious with existing development, the environment, and the Master Plan for the Centre; and WHEREAS, Council is proud of the City's achievements in creating the Roanke Centre for Industry and Technology; THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The Mayor and the City Clerk are authorized, respectively, to execute and to attest, for and on behalf of the City, and to provide for the recordation of the Deed of Restriction setting out the restrictive covenants for the approximately 140 acres of land within the addition to the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology, as such covenants have been submitted to Council by a report from the City Manager dated August 12, 1991, and subject to any amendments to form that might be deemed necessary by the City Attorney prior to the recordation of the Deed. 2. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. RECEJYED CITY CLERKS OFFICE R -8 P4:27 August 12, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Council Members: Subject: Application of restrictive covenants for the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology (RCIT) to the RCIT addition (former Wade Douthat property). I. BACKGROUND RCIT originally consisted of approximately 300 acres purchased by the City in 1983. Ordinance No. 26794 dated December 5, 1983 authorized the recordation of restrictive covenants (Deed of Restrictions) to be applicable to the RCIT to ensure orderly development of the Centre. II. CURRENT SITUATION RCIT Addition consisting of approximately 140 acres was purchased by the City from Wade Douthat on October 10, 1989. Deed of Restrictions need to be extended to the RCIT Addition as no development standards currently exist to ensure orderly development of this property. III. ISSUE~ A. Leqal. B. Economic Development. IV. ALTERNATIVES ao City Council adopt an ordinance authorizing City Attorney to prepare and record the Deed of Restrictions for the RCIT to the approximately 140 acres purchased from Wade Douthat (RCIT Addition). Legal requirements will be satisfied by recordation of Deed of Restrictions by the City Attorney. (Proposed document attached). Economic Development will be enhanced in the City by the assurance that development within the Council Members August 12, 1991 Page 2 Centre Addition will be orderly and harmonious with existing development, the environment, and the Master Plan for the Centre. city Council not adopt an ordinance authorizing City Attorney to prepare and record the Deed of Restrictions for the RCIT to the RCIT Addition. 1. LeGal requirements will not be an issue. Economic development could be harmed in the City since no development standards will be in effect to ensure orderly development of the Centre Addition. V. RECOMMENDATION City Council pass an ordinance authorizing the application of the Deed of Restrictions for the RCIT to the approximately 140 acres purchased from Wade Douthat (RCIT Addition). Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/EDC:kds cc: City Attorney Director of Public Works Director of Utilities and Operations City Engineer Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator ROANOKE CENTRE FOR INDUSTRY AND TECHNOLOGY The City of Roanoke, Virginia (hereinafter the City), a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as attested by the undersigned signature of its Mayor, does of its own free will impose the following restrictive covenants upon any and all sites and lots located withathe Roanoke Centre For Industry and Technology (hereinafter the Centre), such sites and lots now owned by the City, and being more particularly described and shown on the Subdivision of the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology, prepared by , such plat having been recorded on , 19 , in Plat Book , I , Pages ~_ ~' , in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and as shown on the plat of survey showing the subdivision of 8 tracts of land belonging to Anderson Wade Douthat, III dated September 28, 1989, prepared by Mattern & Craig, Consulting Engineers-Surveyors, which plat is recorded ia Deed Book , Page__, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke, Virginia. The following restrictive covenants are hereby created, declared and established, and made for and in consideration of the mutual covenants existing or hereinafter to exist by and bet- ween the City and the grantee or grantees of any site or lot lying within the boundaries of the Centre, and are made with the express intent of ensuring the orderly development of the Centre and ensuring that new site development is harmonious with existing development, the environment, and the ~ster Plan for the Centre. 1. Permitted ~rincipal uses and structures. Those principal uses and structures permitted by the zoning district regulations appli- cable to the Centre property will be permitted. The City, however, expressly reserves the right to limit or restrict the use of a par- ticular site or lot or particular sites or lots. The City also-expressly reserves the right to request the recommenda- tion of the City of Roanoke Economic Development CommisSion as the appropriateness of a proposed principal use or structure. 2. Prohibited uses. No use of any Site, lot or building shall be made which, in the opinion of the City, causes or creates, or is likely to cause or create, a hazard or nuisance to adjacent pro- perties, or which would violate the zoning Performance standards of the City. 3. Approval Of site development plan-. Before commencing de- velopment involving a new structure, building or use, or involving an addition, alteration or change to an existing structure, build- ing or use on or to any site or lot in the Centre, the property owner shall first s~]tmit site development plans to the City for review in accordance with the City's site plan review zoning regula- tions, and any additional provisions set out herein if such addi- tional provisions are in addition to or more stringent than those in the zoning site plan review regulations in effect at the time of the proposed development. 4. ~rocedure for site development plan review. (a) Three (3) copies of all required site development plans shall be submit=ed to the City, which shall have up to fourteen (14) days to review the plans and to notify the applicant of the action taken with respect =o the plan, which may include approval, approval subject to conditions, or disapproval. In case of conditional approval, the applicant shall make the necessary changes and submit three (3) copies of the revised site plan for approval. - 2 - (b)' An approved si:e developmen: plan shall expire and be null and void unless a building permit for the construction of subs:an:ial elements of the site plan has been issued within a period of one year after approval. (c) If it becomes ment plan to be changed, proval of the City. necessary for an approved site develop- such change may be made with the ap- 5. Required site plan development ~lan contene. Site develc9- ment plans shall include the following; all drawings shall be drawn a scale of not less :hah one inch equalling one hundred (100) feet: (a) A plat of the property to be developed, showing the dimensions and shape of the property, required setback lines, the exact sizes, location and height of all existing structures (including signs, fences and walls) and buildings, and of all proposed structures (including signs, fences and walls) and buildings, or additions or alterations to existing structures (includ- ing signs', additions, fences and walls) and buildings, including any alterations, or expansions for which plans have bu~ are not expected to be implemented immediate- (b) The topography of the contour intervals of five area to be developed, with (5) feet or less, showing existing physical features, including all existing trees of six (6) inches or greater in caliper, and all wa=er- courses. - 3 - (c) An architectural plan, indicating proposed eleva- tions, building materials, building covers and signage. (d) The location and size of all exisDing and pro- posed streets, alleys, sidewalks, pedestrian ways, curbs and curb cu=s, gu%~ers, parking and loading areas (indicating the number of parking spaces), open space, and outdoor storage areas that are within the site to be developed. (e) The location and size of all existing and propospd sanitary and s=orm sewers and culverts, and wa~er, gas, telephone, elec=ric and other utility lines that are within or which serve ~he site to be developed. Ease- men=s existing or proposed for such installations shall he shown. (f) The location, height, type and material of all plantings, landscaping, screening, walls, fences, signs, outdoor lighting systems, required or otherwise. (g) The nature and manner of any and all exca- vations and grading proposed for the site, including fill, compaction, and slope planting and treatment. (h) The lo=ation of all dumpsters or other outdoor trash receptacles. (i) A tabulation of the total square footage of the property tc be developed, showing what percentage and number of square feet is proposed to be devoted to uses, including of~ street parking or loading areas, open or landscaped areas and other major uses. - 4 - (j) For all developments: (11 The specific use to which each building or structure will be put, the.square foe=age of floor area =o be put to eauh such use, ~nd the estimated number of employees who will work =herein, and =he shifts =hey will work. (2) The type of was=es or by-products, if any, to be genera=ed and the proposed me=hod of dis- posal of such. (3) Any other information required by =he City in order =o de=eL-mine the impact of a particular use and its conformity with =he City's zoning performance standards. (k) Where erosion and sediment controls for the develop- ment are required by =he provisions of ~_he Code of =he City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, an erosion and sediment con- trol plan as required by the Code shall be filed concurrent- ly with =he site plan and the other requirements of the Code shall be complied with. 6. Development standards. Ail structures, buildings and im- provements within the Centre shall be constructed and maintained in conformance with the following standards, unless =he City proves a specific exception, in writing. (a) General standards. All development shall be in conformance with the building, zoning, su~ivis£on, property maintenance and other ordinances and regu- - $ - lations of the City, have been granted. (b) Building groups. unless appropriate variances Multiple strut.tufas, includ- ing accessory building, planned for one lot or'site shall be designed in a unified architectural style and be unified spatially. (c) Setbacks. No building or structure shall be erected nearer than seventy-five (75) feet-from the right-of-way of a primary road in the Centre (a pri- mary road being a public right-of-way sixty (60) feet or more in width), or nearer than fifty (50) feet from a secondary road or street, or nearer than thirty (30) feet from any side or rear boundary line of the lot or site. The areas between the property and build- ing lines are to be used only for landscaping, lawns, walks, driveways and approved identification signs. No off-street parking shall be permitted within these areas, except with the written permission of the City. (d) Landscaping. All sites and lots shall be land- scaped between all property and building lines within ninety (90) days of completion of construction or as weather permits. Landscaping may include lawns, trees and shrubs. All landscaping must be approved by the City as being in conformance with the Master Plan for the Centre. ~f landscaping materials are destroyed or die, they shall be replaced as soon as practicable during the next suitable planting season. - 6 - (e) Site coverage ratio. To insure th, attractiveness of =he Centre and =o provide for adequate space street parking, buildings, structures and parking areas shall no= cover ~ore =hen sixty percent (60%) Of the site or (f) Cons=ruction standards. Ail buildings, structures and improvements shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the following standards, u~less an cep=ion is approved in writing by the City: (2] Exterior walls of all structures and build- ings shall be finished with brick, tilt-up con- crete, concrete panels, or their equivalent. Exterior me=al walls are permitted, subject approval of =he City, but such metal walls shall no= be ins=ailed on sides of structures or build- ings facing primary or secondary roads wi=bin the Centre except when used in an architecturally suit- able manner in conjunction wi~h other approved ma=.rials. (3) The color of all exteFio= walls, including ~hoee ~hat are r,surfaced or repa£nte~, must be approved by the City. (g) Parkin~ and storage of mots= vehicles and e~uiDment. Owners of property within the Centre shall no= permit their employees or tenants ~o park on public streets within the Centre except within spaces duly designated by the City for parking. PrOperty oWners must provide suitable concrete, asphalt, bituminous or similarly sur- faced off-street parking spaces and driveways in conformance with the zoning regulations of the City. To enhance =he appearance of the Centre, whenever possible parking and service areas shall be located on those sides of each building which do not'front on a street. (h) Loading areas. No loading docks or areas shall be constructed or located fzDnting on any street or proposed street, or within any required setback areas. (i) _Outside storage. No new materials, supplies, waste or rubbish shall be stored in any area except inside an enclosed building,unless screened by a wall, or other appropriate screen six (6} feet in height or rising two (~) feet above ~he stored material, whichever il higher. Storage of products produced on the site shall conform to =he City's zoning regulations. (il Erosion ~ontrolf sediment control and storm drain facilities. Erosion and sediment controls shall be in- stalled as required by the Code of the City of ~oanoke (1979}, as amended. Each owner shall be required to provide adequate drainage facilities, including on-site ponds and/or controls of stormwater runoff resulting from precipitation. The amount of ~nding and/or con- - 8 - trols shall be ac least sufficient to accommodate the estimated change in rate of S=ormwater runoff for =he ten (10) year storm resulting from =he placement of buildings and parking areas, and shall be discharged in a manner consistent with commonly accepted engineering practices. (k) Signs. Plans and specifications for the construc- tion, installation, alteration, and illumination of all outdoor signs must be approved in writing by =he City. The City reserves the right to limit the number and size of signs within the Centre. Signs shall identify only the corporate name, trademark and/or trade name of the owner, and shall not otherwise be used for advertising purposes. (1) Drains .and Sewers. All connections of drains and sewers with the public sewers of the City shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 26, ~pwers and Sewerage Dis~osal, of the Code of ~he City of Roanoke (1979), as amended. (.m) Telephone and electrical servic-. All secondary tele- phone and elec~rical service lines shall be underground be=ween ~he primary lines and the structures or buildings erected on any site developed within the Centre. 7. Maintenance. The owner, lessee or occupant of any lot or site wikl be responsible for the maintenance and clean and safe condition of the land, buildings, landscaping, exterior lighting, - 9 - parking areas and all ocher improvements, including prompt removal Of all =rash, lawnmowing, =rea and plan= =ri~ings. During cons=rut=ion i= shall be =he responsibility of each land owner =o ensure =ha= public streets and cons=r/trion si=es are kept free of unsightly accumulations of rubbish and scrap materials, and =ha= cons=ruction materials, =railers, and =he like are kept in a near and orderly manner. In =he even= any owner, lessee, or occupant fails =o comply with any of irs responsibilities for property maintenance, -then =he City shall have =ha right, privilege and license =o es=er upon =he premises and taka any and all maasures necessary =o main=sin =he property =o mee~ =he standards se= ou~ he=sin, and ~o charge ~he o~er o~ th. pro~==y for ~e expenses incited in so doing. 8. O~tion =o re~urchasa in event of no construction. If, after =ha expiration of =brae (3} years from =ha dare of purchase of =he property in =ha Can=re from =ha City, the then record pro- perty owner shall not have begun in good faith =he actual cons=rut- =ion of a building acceptable to =ha Cl~y upon ~ha property, =hen, in ~ha= avant, the City shall have the right and option to refund =o said record proper~y owner =he amount of =he original purchase price paid to =he City for =ha property; whareupon, =ha said record property owner shall forthwith convey =he property back =o =he City. In =ha even= =hat ~he record property owner for any reason fails or refuses =o convey title back to the C£=y as required herein, =hen, in =ha= even=, =he city shall have =he righ~ to es=er into and =aka possession of said property, along with all rights and causes of acaion necessary to have ti=la to the property conveyed back to the City. 9. Option =o purchase. In the event that any owner o~ unim- proved property in the Centre or any portion thereof shall desire to sell all or a portion thereof in accordance with the terms of these Restrictive Covenants, the City shall have the first right and option to purchase said property at the same purchase price paid to the City by the original purchaser. Prior to such sale, the property owner shall notify the City by registered or certified mail of its intentions tO sell the pro~erty or any portion thereof. Said notice shaX1 describe the exact parcel intended to be sold. The City shall have sixty (60) days from receipt of said notice in which to exercise the option. Set- tlement shall take place within sixty ($0) days after such exercise. 10. Warranties. In the event that the City exercises any of its rights specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 hereof to reaoquire the property, the then record property owner shall convey the pro- perry to the City by General Warranty deed with English Covenants of Title, free and clear of liens and encumbrances. 11. Enforcement. Each of the foregoing Restrictive Cove- nants shall run with the land and & breach of any one of them may be enjoined, abated or remedied by the City or the grantee or grantees of any site or lot lying within the Centre, - 11 - their sucessors or assigns~ in law or in equity. It is by such remedies as are provided for understood, however, that the breacm of any of the foregoing Restrictive Covenants shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any mortgage on the ~roperty made in good faith and for value and shall not prevent the foreclosure sale of the property or any part thereof' provided, however, that each and all of the foregoing Restrictive Covenants shall at all times remain in full force and effect against the property, or any part thereof, title to which is obtained by foreclosure or any mortgage or other lien. 12. Subdivisions and lesser. NO owner of property in the Centre shall subdivide such property except in accordance with the subdivision regulations of the City, and with the written consent of the City. No purchaser fro~ the City of property in the Centre shall lease such property without ~he prior written consent of the City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. 13. Amendments. Except as herein provided, each of the foregoing Restrictive Covenants may as to all persons and property be waived, released, rescinded, m~dified, altered or amended by the City at the request of and with the consent of the owners or lessees from the City of property for terms of five ($) years or more of more than fifty percent (50%), in area, of the lots or sites within the Centre which have been sold by the City for development. 14. Invalidit~ of provisions. Should any proceedings at law or in equity decree that any one or part of any one of the foregoing Restrictive Covenants he declared invalid, the same will not invalidate all or any part of the remaining covenants. - 12 - 15. Duration. These Restrictive Covenants are made covenants running with the land and shall be binding on all lot owners, their heirs, devisees or assigns for a period of ten (10) years frofa the date hereof, after which time said extended for successive periods of ment, signed by the then owners of covenants shall be automatically ten (10) years unless an instru- two-thirds of the area of the lots or sites within the Centre, exclusive of public rights-of-way, has been recorded agreeing to change said covenants in whole or in part. EXECUTED at Roanoke, Virginia, as authorized by Ordinance No. the City of Roanoke on this day of , 1991. , adopted by the Council of , 1991. ATTEST CITY OF ROANOKE, By 5{ary F. Parker, City Clerk Noel C. Taylor, Mayor STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF ROANOKE The foregoing day of Parker, instrument was acknowledged before me this , 19__, by Noel C. Taylor, Mayor and Mary F. City Clerk, City of Roanoke. My Commission expires: Notary Public - 13- State Tax: City Tax: Clerk's Fee: Transfer: Total: Roanoke, Virsinia, this instrument with chi Certificate Tester PATSY TESTEEMAN, Clerk In she Clerk's Office of the C£rcui= Court of =he City of of Clerk MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CIT OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #178-236 SANDRA H. F.A~N Deputy City Clerk Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30667-81291 authorizing execution of a written agreement with the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority relating to the performance of certain community development block grant program activities to be undertaken by the City during Program Year 1991-92. Resolution No. 30667- 81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: Mr. Herbert D. McBride, Executive Director, City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Mr. H. Daniel Poliock, Jr., Housing Development Coordinator Mr. Brian J. Wishneff, Chief, Economic Development Mr. John R. Marlies, Chief, Community Development Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator Ms. Stephanie A. Cicero, Coordinator, Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30667-81291. A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of a written agreement with the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority relating to the performance of certain Community Development Block Grant program activities to be undertaken by the City during Program Year 1991-1992. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager is hereby authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City, a written agreement, more particularly described in the report of the City Manager dated August 12, 1991, and providing for the provision of certain administrative services under the City's Community Development Block Grant for the 1991-1992 Program Year, between the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority and the City of Roanoke, and providing for the services to be rendered by said Authority to the City in implementing certain program activities identified in the City's application and budget for the aforesaid Grant, along with certain terms and conditions described in the aforesaid report, including the compensation to be paid to the Authority. 2. The form of the contract between the City and the Authority shall be approved by the City Attorney. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia August 12, 1991 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Contract for Services with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority I. Background: City Council appropriated Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds on June 24, 1991 by Ordinance No. 30589-62491 CDBG funds for Fiscal Year 1991-92 total $2,282,090 including $1,767,000 new entitlement and $515,090 in program income. Additionally, $348,541 was transferred from older projects to projects included in the FY 1991-92 CDBG program. Roanoke Redevelopment and Housin~ Authority (RRHA) historically has administered certain portions of CDBG programs for the City, including housing rehabilitation and economic development activities. II. Current Situation: ae Funds budgeted for RRHA's services in FY 91-92 total $433,562 for administration and support of five (5) Economic Development programs, six (6) Housing programs and one (1) neighborhood redevelopment project. Project funds to be administered by RRHA, and covered by this contract, total $920,025 in CDBG funds. Total value of contract - administration plus project funds - is $1,353,587. (Please see Appendix 1) Total value of projects to be administered by RRHA through this contract exceeds $2.5 million including CDBG funds, other HUD funds, and State funds (Please see Appendix 2) Administrative A~reement between the City and the RRHA is necessary before the RRHA can perform and receive payment for administrative activities regarding CDBG- funded or assisted programs. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Page 2 III. IsSues: A. Cost to the City B. Funding C. Administrative Capability D. Timing IV. Alternatives: Authorize the City Manager to execute an Agreement with the RRHA for the administration and implementation of various community development activities. Cost to the City, for implementation and administration, of designated projects will be $1,353,587 in CDBG funds. No other City funds will be expended. Funding is available in CDBG accounts listed in Appendix 1. Administrative capability to perform the services specified is possessed by the RRHA. The RRHA is experienced in and knowledgeable of the programs specified, having performed similar responsibili- ties in previous years. Timing is important since previous contract expired on June 30, 1991 and several programs are ongoing and should be continued. B. Do not authorize the execution of the attached Agreement with the RRHA for the administration of various community development activities. Cost to the City would depend on the cost of performing the activities directly with existing and additional City staff, o__r of contracting for services from private agents. Funding for administration and projects would be available in CDBG accounts shown in Appendix 1. Administrative capability to perform the various activities is available in some cases with existing City staff. However, other capability would have to be obtained by hiring additional CDBG-funded staff and/or contracting with private agencies. Some projects may be limited without the RRHA's redevelopment and acquisition authority. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Page 3 e Timing would delay the implementation of many program activities, until necessary staff could be hired and trained or until other arrangements could be made. Ve Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council concur in Alternative A and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached Agreement with the RRHA for the performance of various community development activities. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager Attachments WRH: vlp CC: Assistant City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Public Works Director of Human Resources Chief of Economic Development & Grants Chief of Community Planning Housing Development Coordinator Grants Monitoring Administrator Neighborhood Partnership Coordinator Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment & Housing Authority Account Number 035-091-9120-5101 035-091-9110-5036 035-089-8920-5101 035-090-9020-5101 CITY OF ROANOKE SUMMARY OF FUNDING FOR RRHA For 7/1/91 - 6/30/92 Account Name Limited Critical Repair Limited Critical Support APPENDIX 1 Total Project Admin & CDBG Funding Support Funding $ 36,874 $ 36,874 $136,980 $ 136,980 Critical Home Repair $ 68,574 Critical Home Repair 41,062 68,574 41,062 035-091-9120-5078 035-091-9110-5072 Neigh Stabil & Enhanc $195,000 $ 195,000 Neighborhood Stabil Supp $ 72,095 72,095 035-091-9110-5073 Mod Rehab SRO Support $ 26,445 $ 26,445 035-090-9020-5102 035-091-9120-5102 035-091-9110-5048 Operation Paintbrush Operation Paintbrush Operation Paintbrush Supp $ 13,377 $ 13,377 30,000 30,000 $ 26,440 26,440 035-089-8920-5105 035-089-8920-5113 035-090-9020-5113 035-089-8920-5115 035-091-9120-5115 035-091-9110-5034 Private Loan Program $ 520 Private Loan Subsidy $ 8,843 Private Loan Subsidy 61,837 Home Purchase Loan Prog $128,993 $ Home Ownership Asst Prog $100,000 $ Home Ownership Asst Supp $ 24,035 $ 520 $ 8,843 61,837 128,993 100,000 24,035 035-089-8920-5172 035-090-9020-5172 035-090-9020-5205 Fairfax Ave Clearance $17,419 Fairfax Ave Clearance 5,000 319 Harrison Ave $ 419 17,419 5,000 $ 419 035-089-8930-5157 Deanwood Addition $ 12,764 $ 12,764 035-089-8930-5144 035-089-8930-5156 Henry Street $ 2,431 Henry Street - CIT 462 2,431 462 035-091-9110-5074 Church Ave Garage Supp $ 54,746 $ 54,746 APPENDIX 1 035-089-8930-5145 035-091-9130-5145 035-091-9110-5047 Shaffers Crossing Shaffers Crossing Shaffers Crossing Supp $ 57,900 138,000 26,965 $ 57,900 138,000 26,965 035-089-8930-5138 Marketing & Disposition $ 550 $ 550 035-091-9110-5035 RRHA General Admin TOTALS 65,856 $ 65,856 $ 920,025 $433,562 $1,353,587 o o (cD o THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this __day of 1991, by and between the following parties: the Grantee: city of Roanoke 215 Church Avenue S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 and the Subgrantee City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority 2624 Salem Turnpike, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 It is the intent of the Grantee to entrust the Subgrantee with the implementation of certain projects and activities relating to community development and neighborhood revitalization, including, but not limited to, projects outlined in the Grantee's 1991-92 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. II. The Grantee and Subgrantee agree as set forth below: The Subgrantee shall implement certain projects and activities as set forth in Part I of the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement. The Grantee shall compensate the Subgrantee as set forth in Part II of the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement. T~a~/~S AND CONDITIONS OF AGREemENT Part I - Sco~e of Services: The Subgrantee shall, in a satisfactory and proper manner, as determined by the Grantee, and within the scope of the 1991-92 Grant Programs Funds Appropriations for CDBG provided for the services included herein and approved by the Roanoke City Council, perform the following tasks: 1 A. Rehabilitation an~ Revitalization of Residential Areas: Limited Critical Repair Program - The Subgrantee shall administer portions of the Limited Critical Repair Program in accordance with written guidelines as set forth in Attachment A__. Essentially, the Limited Critical Repair Program consists of limited grants or loans to qualified homeowners and landlords to repair or replace seriously substandard components of the owner's structure, using CDBG funds and funds allocated by the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) from the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund (VHPF). The total of all such grants/loans to be made in Fiscal Year 1991-92 shall not exceed $146,510 of CDBG funds, plus $14,000 in State funds. Program delivery costs for this program, including salaries shall not exceed $136,980. Total program cost is $297,490, including State funds. Operation Paintbrush - The Subgrantee shall administer an exterior home painting and minor repair program in accordance with written guidelines as set forth in Attachment B, using funds made available by the Grantee. The general purpose of Operation Paintbrush is to make a strong visual statement about the viability of the neighborhood by dramatically improving a selected area through painting the exterior of homes. The Subgrantee shall procure contractors to paint the homes according to standard procurement procedures. Regulations concerning lead-based paint shall be complied with. The total of all such grants to be made in Fiscal Year 2 1991-92 shall not exceed $43,377 of CDBG funds. Program delivery costs, including salaries, shall not exceed $26,440, for a total program cost of $69,817. Rental Rehabilitation Program - The Subgrantee shall administer the Rental Rehabilitation Program as developed by the Grantee and Subgrantee and approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) and the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) as outlined in Attachment C-1. Such Program shall consist of rehabilitation subsidies loaned by the Subgrantee to rental property owners, from funds allocated to the Program by HUD from Rental Rehabilitation Program funds. In addition, the Subgrantee will continue administration of the 1989 and 1990 funded Rental Rehabilitation programs. The Subgrantee shall oversee the rehabilitation, hold the deeds of trust, service those loans made from HUD funds, and monitor the projects after rehabilitation. HUD Rental Rehabiltation funds in the amount of $49,000 for FY 1991 will be used for rehabilitation subsidies during the contract year. The Subgrantee shall assist the Grantee in the administration of the Neighborhood Stabilization and Enhancement Program (NSEPtion) in accordance with the general guidelines of the 1990 Rental Rehabilitation Program as described in Attachment C-2, except that Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are substituted for Rental Rehabilitation funds. Specifically, the Subgrantee shall make the loans and hold 4e Be the deeds of trust on properties improved with CDBG funds, and oversee rehabilitation work undertaken in conjunction with the Program, regardless of the funding source. The Grantee shall have responsibility for marketing the Program, outreach, property assessment, and financial packaging. The Subgrantee shall provide rehabilitation work write-ups, make CDBG loans, service those loans and monitor rehabilitation work while in progress. The total of all such NSEPtion loans shall not exceed $195,000 in CDBG funds, plus $125,000 in State monies. Program delivery costs for the NSEPtion program and Rental Rehab, including salaries shall not exceed $72~095. Total program cost for NSEPtion is $392,095, including State funds. It is expected that approximately 22 units will be renovated under this Program. Section 312 Rehabilitation Loan Pro~ram - The Subgrantee shall continue to administer the rehabilitation loan program using Section 312 funds as made available by HUD, specifically to the completion of rehabilitation projects committed and begun in this and previous years. In the event HUD makes any additional Section 312 funds available, the Subgrantee shall administer such funds only in consultation with and with the approval of such use by the Grantee. Mod Rehab Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Program - The Subgrantee shall administer the Mod Rehab SRO Project as approved and funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This Project will provide HUD subsidized single occupancy units for homeless men and women. Program delivery costs for this Project shall not exceed $26,445. Home Ownership Assistance - The Subgrantee shall assist the Grantee in the administration of the Home Ownership Assistance Program as outlined in Attachment D. Specifically, the Subgrantee shall prepare detailed work write-ups and cost estimates on candidate houses, verify applicant's eligibility, package loan applications for review and approval by DHCD and/or VHDA, as well as bid and oversee rehabilitation. The Subgrantee shall not be responsible for servicing any loans under this Program. Approximately 30 houses are expected to be assisted through this Program during FY 1991-92. The total of all such loans to be made in Fiscal Year 1991-92 shall not exceed $300,193 of CDBG funds, and $200,000 in DHCD/VHDA funds. Program delivery costs, including salaries shall not exceed $24,035. Total CDBG program cost is $324,228, plus $200,000 in State funds. Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation - The Subgrantee shall administer the Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Loan Program, as approved and funded by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. This Program makes loans for qualifying rehabilitation of low and moderate income owner- occupied houses not meeting Building Maintenance Code and Housing Quality Standards. The Program will be administered in accordance with the guidelines in Attachment E, 5 supplemented by the program operations manual provided by DHCD. Loans made under the Program will be made directly from DHCD or VHDA to the borrower, with the Subgrantee assisting in the packaging of the loans and monitoring of the rehabilitation. The total of all such loans will not exceed $100,000. No CDBG funds are involved. Technical Assistance, Counseling and Services - The Subgrantee shall assist the Grantee in providing advice and counseling to citizens, individually or in groups, concerning community development and housing concerns. Such assistance and services will be provided as requested by citizens and shall include but not be limited to: a. Property inspections and technical advice concerning repair, remodeling, rehabilitation and maintenance; b. Guidance and counseling concerning possible financial arrangements for purchase or rehabilitation, including possible options available in the private financing market. c. Providing technical assistance to the Grantee's Housing Development Office relative to long-term housing and education/information programs in accordance with guidelines set forth in Attachment F. Marketin~ - The subgrantee shall play a principal role in assisting the Grantee in publicizing and marketing housing programs, rehabilitation and neighborhood revitalization generally. Included in this role will be arranging for the 10. 11. placement of signs, supplied by the Grantee, on the site of rehabilitation projects assisted under programs described herein. Relocation Assistance and Counselinq - The Subgrantee shall assume responsibility for the relocation assistance and guidance to be provided to residents and businesses displaced by community development projects and activities of the Grantee, in accordance with HUD regulations and guidelines. In addition, the Subgrantee shall participate with the Grantee in updating the City-wide housing resource summary and a plan to meet the total relocation needs for the program year. Outstanding Loans and Grants; Foreclosures - The Subgrantee shall continue to service outstanding loans, forgivable and/or deferred payment loans, grants, etc., made in previous years as appropriate and in accordance with guidelines of the specific programs. The subgrantee shall provide counseling to parties delinquent in their repayments in a reasonable effort to avoid foreclosure. However, where delinquencies persist, the Subgrantee shall institute appropriate foreclosure procedures. The Subgrantee shall maintain and protect properties on which it has foreclosed, and in consultation with the Grantee, shall arrange for resale, assumption of loan, or other disposition of the property. 7 Gainsboro Conservation/Redevelopment Plan: The Subgrantee shall implement the Gainsboro Conservation/ Redevelopment Plan (Amendment No. 2), coordinating its activities with the Gainsboro Project Area Committee (PAC) and the Gainsboro Neighborhood Development Corporation (GNDC). The Subgrantee may also contract with PAC and GNDC to provide services in addition to the duties to be performed by the Subgrantee under the Conservation/Redevelopment plan, provided that any such contract for additional services funded by the Grantee shall be approved in writing by the City Manager before execution by the Subgrantee. Fairfax Avenue Clearance - As part of the Gainsboro Conservation/Redevelopment plan, the Subgrantee shall continue with the Fairfax Avenue Clearance project as detailed in Attachment G. The Grantee shall provide funds for the Subgrantee to acquire remaining properties and relocate occupants as necessary, within the funding limitations listed below. The Subgrantee shall closely coordinate all work with the Grantee, and the Gainsboro Neighborhood Development Corporation (GNDC) will be adequately informed. Costs associated with the project shall not exceed $22,419. 319 Harrison Acquisition - The Subgrantee shall rent or offer for sale under a lease-to-purchase program the house located at 319 Harrison Avenue, NW. Costs associated with this project shall not exceed $419. 8 co~unity Interactions The Subgrantee shall assist the Grantee in the performance of certain basic community-oriented tasks which include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Planning, organization and implementation of neighborhood meetings. 2. Development and distribution of materials necessary to inform the public regarding neighborhood revitalization activities performed by the Subgrantee pursuant to this contract. 3. Planning, organization and implementation of the CDBG public workshops and/or hearings incidental to the Grantee's annual application process. 4. The Subgrantee shall provide information monthly to the Grantee concerning the status and activity of the various housing programs, which the Grantee then may distribute to community organizations or representatives, as the Grantee sees appropriate. De Commercial/Industrial Development: 1. Deanwood Redevelopment - The Subgrantee shall continue to implement Redevelopment Plan (1975), as amended by Amendment No. 2, by Resolution No. 27751, adopted by City Council on August 16, 1985, to include additional property within the redevelopment area. Within this expanded area, the Subgrantee shall perform, during the term of this Agreement, relocation of signage and limited site development. Funds are available to the Subgrantee for the area known as the Deanwood Addition, that ten-parcel tract fronting on Orange 9 e Avenue, in the amount of $12,764. Ail work shall proceed with the assistance of the Grantee's City Engineer and Chief of Economic Development who shall approve all requests for proposals, final plans and change orders for this project within ten working days, except for issues requiring action by City Council. All expenses related to Deanwood property acquisition, disposition, site clearance/improvements, maintenance, engineering and plan development shall be charged directly to the Deanwood account and not to the Subgrantee's general program administration. Henry Street Redevelopment - The Subgrantee shall implement the Gainsboro Conservation/Redevelopment Plan (Amendment No. 2), in the "Henry Street" area of the Gainsboro Project area in accordance with such Plan, and in accordance with any amendment or supplement to the Plan relating to the "Henry Street" area after its adoption by Grantee's City Council and the Subgrantee's Board of Commissioners. Funds available to the Subgrantee for these activities shall not exceed $2,893. All expenditures shall be approved in advance by the Grantee. The subgrantee shall arrange for and oversee the operation of two (2) parking lots on Centre Avenue and First Street in the "Henry Street" redevelopment area. Downtown East Parking Garage - The Subgrantee shall continue its administration and oversight of the construction of the Downtown East Parking Garage as outlined in the contract for services between the Grantee and the Subgrantee, entered into 10 in December 1990. (This parking facility will replace parking which has been displaced by the construction of the Norfolk and Southern office building in downtown east). Program delivery costs for this activity shall not exceed $54,746. Downtown East Parking Lots - The Subgrantee shall continue to arrange for and oversee the operation of three (3) parking lots in the Downtown East area. The Subgrantee shall participate actively with the Grantee to expedite the sale of these properties and shall provide any information required by the Grantee or HUD relative to the close-out of the Urban Renewal program. Redevelopment Plans - Preparation and Amendment - The Subgrantee shall produce and amend as needed Redevelopment Plans for areas within the City. Property Marketing and Disposition - The Subgrantee shall continue to promote and sell parcels available in all Redevelopment Areas, including but not limited to the Kimball, Downtown East, Deanwood and Gainsboro areas. All contacts with potential developers shall be coordinated between the Grantee's Chief of Economic Development and the Subgrantee's Director of Land Planning. Each of these parties or his representative shall be afforded the opportunity to be present at any showing of any available site by either the Grantee or the Subgrantee. Negotiations incidental to land sales will also be 11 coordinated between the aforementioned parties. Expenditures for Urban Renewal disposition costs shall not exceed $550 unless additional funds are otherwise approved. Expenses related to land disposition shall be charged directly to the affected program account and not charged to the Subgrantee's general program administration. Shaffer's Crossin~ Redevelopment - The Subgrantee shall continue to implement Phase I of the Shaffer's Crossing Redevelopment Plan (1985), within the financial limits of the funds appropriated by City Council. All work shall proceed with the assistance of the Grantee's City Engineer and Chief of Economic Development, who shall approve all requests for proposals, contracts regarding site design and development, final plans and change orders for this project within ten (10) working days, except for issues requiring action by City Council. All expenses relating to property acquisition, disposition, site clearance/improvements, maintenance, engineering and plan development shall be charged directly to the Shaffer's Crossing Project account. Activities to be completed during the term of this Agreement primarily include demolition and site work, as funds permit. Funds are available to the Subgrantee for these activities in the amount of $195,900. Program support costs shall not exceed $26,965, for a total program cost of $222,865. Property Maintenance: The Subgrantee shall be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance 12 Fe of all properties acquired by the Subgrantee as a result of CDBG activities. The cost of these activities shall be charged directly to the applicable program account and not to the Subgrantee's general program administration. All equipment purchases, as part of this activity, must receive prior approval of the Grantee. Pro,ram Coordination: Appropriate staff of the Subgrantee shall meet and consult regularly and as needed as determined by either party, with appropriate staff of the Grantee. Such staff of the Grantee may include, but are not limited to, the City Manager, Assistance City Manager, Director of Public Works, Building Commissioner, Housing Development Coordinator, Chief of Economic Development and Grants, and Grants Monitoring Administrator. The intent of such meetings and consultations shall be to facilitate the efficient and effective implementation of program services listed above, and consider the need for and planning of other activities of the Grantee, Subgrantee, or both, consistent with the general purpose of community development and neighborhood revitalization. PART II - CO~PENSATION ~ ~r~OD OF PA~: A. Pro~ram Funds: The following funds, as detailed in Table I, shall be made available to the Subgrantee for program activities: (See Table I following). 13 ProgrmmInQome: "Program income" means net income received by the Grantee or Subgrantee directly generated from the use of CDBG funds. Program income from any and all sources shall be submitted to the City on a quarterly basis. Limits of Funding Sources: Payments to the Subgrantee may be made from any active CDBG project and general administration accounts up to the amount designated by Roanoke City Council; however, the total payments, from all sources, to the Subgrantee for program support and general administration of the identified program activities shall not exceed $433,562 for the 1991-92 program year, unless increased by amendment to this agreement. Disbursement Procedures: The Subgrantee shall file the necessary papers with the Director of Finance ten (10) working days prior to the date that actual disbursements are needed. Cash advances shall be reasonably estimated, therefore, excess advances will not be allowed. Cash advances will be recorded as Accounts Receivable due from the Subqrantee. The Subgrantee shall submit, by the fifth working day of each month, a monthly report to the Director of Finance, indicating the actual expenditures incurred against all cash advances not previously reported to the Director of Finance. Expenditures reported will be deducted from the Accounts Receivable balance due from the Subgrantee. The Subgrantee also shall submit time sheets, by the tenth working day of each month, 14 to the Grants Monitoring Administrator, which indicate Subgrantee's staff time committed to each project. No additional cash advances shall be made to the Subgrantee until these reports are submitted. Monthly financial status reports issued by the Director of Finance shall be reviewed by the Subgrantee and any discrepancies reported in writing within ten (10) working days of receipt of said report. Annual Audit and Monitoring: The Subgrantee shall provide for an independent audit of all CDBG expenditures in accordance with Circular A-128 for the contract period covered by this Agreement as set forth in Part IV, Section A. Two copies of said audit report shall be furnished to the Grantee within 30 days after completion of the audit. In addition, it is the intention of the Grantee to perform quarterly monitoring visits to verify the Subgrantee's performance from a financial and compliance auditing perspective during the contract period covered by this Agreement. PART III - GP~'£~E RESPONSIBILITIES: A. General Guidance: The Grantee shall provide general guidance and direction to the Subgrantee concerning the intent and operation of programs developed by the Grantee to be administered by the Subgrantee under this Agreement. Reports prepared by the Grantee's staff for presentation to City Council relating to matters covered by this Agreement shall be 15 provided to the Subgrantee for review and comment as early as possible before the day of the Council meeting. Existing Data: The Grantee shall make available existing reports, maps, records or other existing data that may assist the Subgrantee's performance of services covered under this Agreement. Ce Pro~ect Planning: Within a Redevelopment Area, public improvements, such as streets, curb and gutter, public utilities, etc., unless otherwise approved by the Grantee, shall be the responsibility of the Grantee. Copies of the project plans may be obtained by the Subgrantee upon request to the Grantee's City Engineer. Non-Personnel Costs - Pro,ram Development: Expenses relating to the development of a new program or the continuation of an existing program not contained in Part I of this Agreement may be furnished by the Grantee. Said expenses shall not be incurred by the Subgrantee without written approval of the Grantee. PART IV - PERFOI~ANCE AND RECORD ~RRDING: A. Time Period: The Subgrantee shall commence the provision of the services described in Part I of this Agreement as of July 1, 1991, and continue through June 30, 1992. Reporting requirements and annual audit shall cover the full program year period from July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1992. 16 ReDortin~ Re~uirements: The Subgrantee shall report monthly, by the tenth (10th) working day of each month, the progress of each activity covered by this Agreement, using a reporting format acceptable to the Grantee's Grants Monitoring Administrator. Such monthly reports shall include, but not be limited to the following: 1. Activity report for each conservation area and rehabilitation district, identifying units completed, dollars spent, applications on file and applications being reviewed for each program. 2. The general property maintenance activities undertaken by project area. 3. List of gross program income receipts from all sources and itemized disposition expenses on a quarterly basis. 4. List of loans delinquent and foreclosed, identifying property by street address, total repayments made, outstanding loan balance and amount of grant, if any. 5. Staff time expended on each program, as specified in Part II D above. 6. Number and type of contacts for housing counseling, outreach activities and workshops, seminars, meetings, etc. PART V - THIRD PARTY CO~TKACTS AND BIDS: The Grantee shall not be obligated or liable hereunder to any party other than the Subgrantee. However, unless otherwise directed by the City Manager, all bid documents, contracts, contract amendments and change orders between the Subgrantee and a third party which relate to 17 construction or consultant services to be performed by the Subgrantee hereunder, must receive written authorization from the Grantee prior to execution. The Grantee shall complete its review of documents furnished by the Subgrantee within ten (10) working days of their receipt. PART VI - PERSONNEL: The Subgrantee represents that it has, or will secure (limited to the funds provided under this Agreement) all personnel required in performing the services under this Agreement. Such employees shall not be employees of or have any contractual relationship with the Grantee. All of the services required hereunder will be performed by the Subgrantee or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be fully qualified to perform such services. Should any position(s) funded in whole with CDBG funds become vacant, the Subgrantee must provide the Grantee with written notification prior to advertisement for new applicants and/or filling said vacant position(s). PART VII - UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE RE~UII~EMENTS: The Subgrantee agrees to abide by the HUD conditions for CDBG programs as set forth in Attachment H, those described in 24 CFR 570.502, and all other applicable federal regulations relating to specific programs performed hereunder. The Subgrantee shall submit all plans and specifications for projects located in the Southwest Historic District in which there are any federal funds involved, to the Grantee's Grants Monitoring Administrator for review and approval as to impact on the historic 18 character of the District. All proposals for CDBG-assisted rehabilitation in the City will be reviewed by the Grantee's Grants Monitoring Administrator to determine the structure's eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. PART VIII - COnFLICT OF I~'£~ST: No employee, agent, consultant, officer or appointed official of the Subgrantee, who is in a position to participate in a decision-making process or gain inside information with regard to any CDBG activities, may obtain a personal or financial interest in or benefit from any of the activities, or have an interest in any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or in the proceeds thereunder, either for themselves, their family or business associates, during their tenure or for one (1) year thereafter. PART IX - INDE~4NITY PROVISION: The Subgrantee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Grantee, its officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, legal actions and judgments advanced against the Grantee and for expenses the Grantee may incur in this regard, arising out of the Subgrantee's intentional acts and negligent acts or omissions with respect to the rights or privileges granted by the Grantee to the Subgrantee in this Agreement. PART X - AMENDMENTS: Either party to this Agreement may, from time to time, require changes in the scope of services to be performed hereunder. Such changes which are mutually agreed upon by and between the parties to this Agreement shall be incorporated into written amendment to this Agreement. 19 PART XI - TERMINATION OF AG~R~MBNT FOR CAUSE: If either party to this Agreement should fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, either party shall thereupon have the right to terminate this agreement by giving thirty (30) calendar days written notice of such termination to the affected party and specifying the effective date thereof. PART XII - REVERSION OF ASSETS: Upon expiration of this Agreement, Grantee any CDBG funds on hand at accounts receivable attributable to the Subgrantee shall transfer to the the time of expiration and any the use of CDBG funds. PART XIII: - GO~/~RING LAW: This Agreement shall be governed by laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantee and Subgrantee have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. Attest: City of Roanoke, Virginia (Grantee) City Clerk W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Witness: City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (Subgrantee) Herbert D. McBride Executive Director 2O O~ o o o o o ATTACHMENT A - ATTACHMENT B - ATTACHMENT C-1 - ATTACHMENT C-2 - ATTACHMENT D - ATTACHMENT E - ATTACHMENT F - ATTACHMENT G - ATTACHMENT H - ATTACHMENTS Limited Critical Repair Program Guidelines Operation Paintbrush Program Guidelines 1991 Rental Rehabilitation Program Guidelines 1990 Rental Rehabilitation Program Guidelines Home Ownership Assistance Program Guidelines Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Program Guidelines Technical Assistance, Counseling and Services Fairfax Avenue Clearance Program Guidelines Required Federal Regulations ATTACHMENT A LIMITED CRITICAL REPAIR PROGRAM 1991 Program Guidelines July, 1991 GENERAL The Limited Critical Repair Program is a flexible subsidy program of grants and/or loans. These subsidies pay for limited but badly needed repairs to keep houses occupied by low-moderate income residents fundamentally liveable. The program provides subsidies for owner-occupied and rental units upon certain conditions. Depending upon the income of the resident, whether the resident is the owner or a tenant, and other circumstances, the subsidy may be a loan, a grant, or a combination, and may require a matching contribution from the rental owner. Eligible repairs will also depend on these and other factors. The Limited Critical Repair Program is distinguished from other rehabilita- tion subsidy programs by its purpose and extent of repairs intended. The Program intends to stabilize the existing building's conditions, prevent or delay further deterioration, improve its current health, safety and decency standards, without necessarily answering all existing Building Maintenance Code violations. The Program is a combination of several previous individual programs, par- ticularly the Critical Home Repair Program, the Quick Response to Emergencies Program, and the Emergency Home Repair Program. The Operation Paintbrush Program is also relevant to the combination. The new arrangement is expected to allow administrative flexibility however, and to provide a more complete and continuous form of assistance to remedy or prevent unsafe or unhealthy structural livin§ conditions by low-moderate income citizens. II. GENERAL DESIGN The Program will be administered in separate but closely related parts, generally identifiable with the predecessor programs of Critical Home Repair, Quick Response to Emergencies, and Emergency Repair. All com- ponents will be available City-wide. A. Critical Home Repair Component will be administered by the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Basic Eligibility -- Owner-occupants of homes in truly critical need of significant but moderate repairs to the extent that lack of such repairs may make the house unliveable, but not in such bad condition that the Program cannot make the house basically safe and healthy. Previous recipients of assistance under the Critical Home Repair Program or the Gainsboro Grant Program will not be eligible again, except in exceptional circumstances as determined by the RRHA's Neighborhood Development Director. Form of Subsidy -- A qualifying homeowner may receive up to $6000 in critically needed repairs, necessary to keep the home liveable. In addition, upon the recommendation of the rehabilitation inspec- tor and approval of the Neighborhood Development Director, exterior painting or re-siding may be performed, the cost of which is not counted toward the $6000 maximum. Page 2 It the inspector determines that an applicant's house cannot be stabilized for the Program's $6000 maximum for critically needed repairs, but could be stabilized for an additional amount not to exceed $2000, the inspector may recommend, through RRHA's Neighborhood Development Director, that up to a total of $8000 may be committed to critical repairs to the house. This recommendation from the RRHA will be forwarded to the City's Housing Development Coordinator, with a complete description of the circumstances and the rationale for the request for the exception. The Housing Development Coordinator will review the request and prepare a recommendation to the City's Director of Public Works for final decision as to authorize the exception up to $8000. If the house would require more than $8000 of repairs to remedy the critical deficiencies, the owner will be allowed the opportunity to finance the cost beyond the Program's $8000 maximum. The owner may use other programs of the City and Housing Authority for this pur- pose. If the $8000 will not stabilize the house, and if the owner is unwilling or unable to commit additional resources to make the house liveable, the house and the applicant will be dropped from the Program. For applicants with incomes below 50% of the area median family income, the subsidy will be in the form of a grant, with no repayment expected. It is expected that most recipients will be in this income category. For other eligible applicants, the subsidy will be in the form of a loan secured only by a promissory note. The loan will be at 0% interest, with repayment over a rive-year period. The monthly payments, however, are not to exceed 10% ot the applicant's net income. (Net income is defined as gross income less immediate withholdings or deductions from the income for taxes, Social Security, mandatory insurance, retirement, or dues, over which the applicant has no control.) In a case in which monthly payments over a five-year term would exceed 10% of the applicant's net monthly income, the repayment term will be extended beyond the rive years. Application and Selection -= A brier application period will be scheduled and publicized by the RRHA and the City. The RRHA will receive applications during the time until a total of 75 are received or the scheduled period expires, whichever comes first. The RRHA will screen the applications to eliminate ones tot rental property, with reported income over 80% of median income, or other- wise apparently ineligible. Applicants ruled ineligible will be so notified promptly and reterred to other programs, e.g. the Emergency Home Repair component or the Owner-Occupied Rehab Loan Program. Applications clearing the initial screening will be distributed among the RRHA's rehabilitation inspectors. The inspectors will schedule an inspection of each house and evaluate the condition ot each using an objective scale of need. These applications will then be prioritized on level of need as indicated by the scale score. Page 3 The RRHA will inform the 16 top-rated applicants that, subject to verification of the information contained on their applications, they will receive a repair subsidy, whether it will be a grant or a loan, and what conditions (e.g. self-help, counseling classes, etc.) may apply. The RRHA will verify homeownership and income and will perform a detailed inspection and work write-up for each of the top 16. A number of applicants after the 16 will be notified of their standing and the possibility of their eligibility for later assistance. Lowest ranking applicants will be notified promptly of their ineli- gibility and will be informed of other options that may be available to assist with repairs. The RRHA will obtain a credit report on each applicant due to receive a loan~ at the applicant's expense, to use to evaluate cre- ditworthiness. The applicant also will furnish information to the RRHA concerning amounts and sources of income and debt. In the interest of expediency, the RRHA will not seek independent verifications of this information, but will rely on the applicanPs certification. No loan for critical repairs will be made to an applicant who has declared bankruptcy within the last two years, or has more than two debts with credit ratings of 5 or worse, or has more than two outstanding judgements, or whose debt to adjusted income ratio (including the Program loan) is more than 50%. When the RRHA determines that the applicant satisfies all criteria for its Program loan, and all related information is collected (rehabilitation cost bids, etc.), the applicant will execute a pro- missory note for repayment of the Program loan on terms as provided above. No rehabilitation work will be authorized until this note is signed. In the event of default on the loan from the RRHA, collection may be pursued through established legal mechanisms, including judge- ment awarded by a court, but will not extend to foreclosure on the recipient's home. Eligible Improvements -- The program will finance repairs or installations critically needed to keep the house habitable, or to render it habitable, principally: a. Structural repairs; b. Roofing and chimney repairs or replacement, including prudent repair or replacement of gutters and downspouts; c. Electrical system repair, replacement, or installation; d. Plumbing system repair, replacement, or installation; Heating system repair, replacement, or installation; Exterior siding or porch repair or replacement, but only if major health or safety hazards are present. (Exception: If exterior painting or sldinl¢ is undertaken, appropriate repair work may b~ includecI.) - Page Conditions which are deteriorating and are likely to become criti- cal within six months may be corrected under the Program. Program benefits may be used to provide elements of the house not previously existing but necessary to the basic habitability of the house, such as indoor bathroom or septic system. In all cases, Program benefits may pay only for those repairs, etc. without which the property may be condemned or vacated. Self-Help -- In most cases, an applicant receiving a grant or loan will be expected to perform certain improvements or repairs to his/her property as a condition to the award of Program funds. Examples are: a. Exterior painting and cosmetics; b. Cleaning of yard; c. Removal of junked vehicles; d. Removal of improper open storage; e. Demolition of dilapidated out-buildings; Payment to a private contractor for the self-help home repairs. These are intended to be tasks that would be of low cost to the owner if performed by him (e.g., painting house) or even if per- formed by others for pay (e.g., cleaning yard, demolishing dilapi- dated out-buildings). The maximum impact is to be sought within the reasonable physical and financial capabilities of the appli- cant, in exchange for the benefits of the Program. For the top-ranked applicants, the Inspector will encourage the applicant to begin self-help activities immediately, since in most cases the repairs covered by the grant will not be done until the self-help is completed. Therefore, the sooner the applicant begins and completes the self-help, the sooner the program-funded work can be performed. In negotiating the self-help contribution required of the owner- occupant, the Rehabilitation Inspector will exercise discretion, flexibility, and latitude. The self-help contribution required of each owner-occupant must be reasonable and consistent with those required of others in similar circumstances. In negotiating and approving the self-help contribution each applicant is to accomplish, the Inspector will consider the applicant's: a. Physical abilities; b. Financial condition; Possibility of receiving help from other sources, including family and neighborhood organizations, and; Past conscientiousness in maintaining the home. Page 5 There may be situations in which it would be equitable not to require any self-help contribution by the owner-occupant, con- sidering the four criteria given. In cases where the owner reasonably is unable to undertake painting of the house, siding or exterior painting and associated minor exterior repairs may be undertaken. Such improvements will be made upon the authorization of the RRHA's Neighborhood Development Director~ and may be required as a condition of receiving the Program subsidy e.g. in the case of a house of poor outside appearance having a significant negative influence on the surrounding area. The RRHA will use discretion and judgement in allowing or requiring exterior improvements and the relation to possible required self-help by the owners. Self-help contribution by the applicant is to be accomplished in a timely fashion. When the self-help contribution is agreed upon, the applicant will be expected to accomplish this work within the time agreed or forfeit eligibility and the reservation of funds for major repairs. In unusual circumstances, this time period may be extended depending on a case-to-case determination by the RRHA. In extreme cases, some critical repairs may be made concurrent with or before the owner-occupant performs his responsibilities (e.g., replacing an inoperative furnace in the winter, with the remaining repairs delayed until the applicant paints and cleans in the spring). In all cases, the Authority will ensure that the intent of the Program is served. A written agreement between the homeowner and the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) will specify the self- help input items and the date of completion. It shall further con- tain the initial violation listing which will be the items to be completed by the RRHA under the Program. Counseling and Education -- In the interest of helping recipients of assistance maintain their homes over a long term such that the need for other repairs will be minimized, and to keep these houses from deteriorating again into a critical state, each recipient for assistance will be required to attend Sovran Bank's Community Home Buyer's Program, or a course provided by the RRHA as approved by the City's Housing Development Office, concerning basic home repair and preventive maintenance. Before repairs are begun on any house approved for the Program, the owner(s) will sign an agreement with the RRHA agreeing to par- ticipate in the classes. To the extent possible, the class will begin prior to rehab work beginning on the houses selected for the year. However, development of the course will not delay provision of the critically needed repairs. Page 6 Quick Response to Emergencies Component is to be administered by the RRHA. The general intent of this component is to provide emergency assistance to low-moderate income homeowners encountering sudden emergency situations, requiring a costly repair that would threaten the habitability of the house if not addressed and for which the homeowner cannot wait several months for the processing of a loan application. 1. Basic Eligibility -- Same as for the Critical Home Repair component. 2. Form of Subsidy -- Same as for the Critical Home Repair component. Application and Selection -- There will be no open application period for this component. Instead, low-moderate income homeowners may apply to the RRHA at any time and be considered for assistance. The RRHA will receive requests for assistance under the Program. An inspector will visit the home within 8 working hours, evaluate whether an eligible emergency or other eligible need exists, determine what work is necessary, and receive eligibility information, e.g. evidence of income and homeownership. This information will be verified by the quickest means possible, so as not to delay having the repairs made. The RRHA will obtain a credit report on each applicant due to receive a loan, at the applicant's expense, to use to evaluate creditworthiness. The applicant will also furnish information to the RRH^ concerning amounts and sources of income and debt. In the interest of expedien- cy, the RRHA will not seek independent verifications of this infor- mation, but will rely on the applicant's certification. No loan for emergency repairs will be made to an applicant who has declared bankruptcy within the last two years, or has more than two debts with credit ratings of 5 or worse, or has more than two outstanding judgements, or whose debt to adjusted income ratio (including the Program loan) is more than 50%. When the RRHA determines that the applicant satisfies all criteria for its Program loan, and all related information is collected (rehabilitation cost bids, etc.), the applicant will execute a pro- missory note for repayment of the Program loan on terms as provided above. No rehabilitation work will be authorized until this note is signed. In the event of default on the loan from the RRHA, collection may be pursued through established legal mechanisms, including judgement awarded by a court, but will not extend to foreclosure on the reci- pient's home. Eligible Improvements -- This component may finance repair of con- ditions having just arisen, as contrasted to conditions developing over time. Generally these will be conditions that should be repaired within 2~-72 hours lest the house be vacated or suffer serious damage. Examples include: a. Overflowing or unworkable septic systems. b. Broken pipes. Page 7 c. Inoperative heating systems. d. Inoperative electric systems. e. Inoperative water pumps. f. Significant fire damage not covered by insurance. An exception to this rule is roof replacement, which is specifi- cally included as an eligible qualifying repair item, even though the condition may not be suddenly occurring. The cost of repairs may not exceed $6000, unless waived by the City's Director of Public Works in accordance with the procedures described above in the Critical Home Repair component. In some cases, the inspector may determine that the house is an exceptionally attractive candidate for exterior painting or siding, even though such improvements are not the primary intent of the Quick Response component. In such cases, the inspector may recom- mend to the RRHA Neighborhood Development Director that the house be painted or sided. As with the Critical Home Repair component, the cost of such exterior cosmetics will not be subject to the $6000 limit. Unless waived by the City's Housing Development Coordinator however, a condition of such improvement will be the participation of the owner in the homeownership and maintenance program described above, and/or some self-help by the owner on the exterior. If the house would require more than $6000 of repairs to remedy the emergency deficiencies, established procedures may be followed to subsidize up to $8000. The owner will be allowed the opportunity to finance the cost beyond the Program's maximun subsidy, from some other source, as long as such supplemental financing can be arranged in a timely manner in keeping with the emergency. If the subsidy will not stabilize the house, and if the owner is unwilling or unable to commit additional resources to make the house liveable, the house and the applicant will be dropped from consideration. Construction -- As soon as eligibility is verified, the RRHA inspector will attempt to contact a minimum of three contractors for bids on the required work, and for indication as to when the work can be performed. Each of the three contractors need not bid, but at least three should be invited to do so. Because the primary concern is repair in the shortest time possible, the job will be awarded to the bidder able to perform within the shortest time at a reasonable cost, compared to the other bidders. Files will be documented carefully to reflect the time of performance of the bids. Counseling and Education -- Because of the need to make the fun- damental repairs quickly, the owner will not be required to attend training classes prior to the repairs, except in the case of exterior painting or siding. However, the RRHA will strongly encourage the owner to register for and attend a round of Elasses Page 8 regarding home maintenance and repair. If the exterior is to be sided or painted in conjunction with the Program, then the owner must attend appropriate classes before the exterior improvements are made. Emergency Home Repair Component will be administered by the Total Action Against Poverty (TAP). The general intent of this component is to provide limited assistance for the repair of critical deficiencies in rental units occupied by low-moderate income tenants. Improvements to make the unit handicapped-accessible for existing tenants are also eligible. Basic Eligibility -- Low-moderate income tenants in rental units with serious health or safety deficiencies for which the unit may be or become condemnable. As a condition of funding of repairs under this component, the owner must agree to not increase the rent charged to the tenant because of the public subsidy for at least one year, and in most cases must provide matching funds for the repairs. Form of Subsidy -- This component includes funds allocated to the Program by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development from the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund's (VHPF) Emergency Home Repair Program; CDBG funds; (not to exceed $2000 per unit) and matching funds supplied by the property owners. Both types of public funds are in the form of grants. Funds from the VHPF will be administered in accordance with the program manual provided by DHCD. As a rule, VHPF funds may not exceed $500 (or $1000 if handicapped accessibility improvements are included.) Those funds require matching funds from other sources, either CDBG or from the owner. The property owner is expected to at least match CDBG funds. However, upon the discretion of the Housing Development Office, the match requirement may be reduced or waived. Application and Selection -- Potential candidate tenants or units typically wi]] be discovered from complaints and code enforcement inspections. The intent is to address units that are condemnable or in danger of becoming so, and to make those repairs necessary to remedy those items. Candidates will be referred to TAP for investigation of eligibility and expected cost of repairs. TAP will work in conjunction with inspectors of the Building Department and/or the Health Department in identifying necessary repairs. Upon verifying eligibility, TAP will contact the property owner to seek and obtain approval for the repairs and the owner's contribu- tion toward them. If the owner refuses to authorize the repairs, the Housing Development Office will be notified. If the owner seeks to reduce or eliminate the requirement for match~ TAP may recommend to the Housing Development Office that the requirement be modified. Page 9 Upon negotiation and agreement by all parties, TAP will enter into a contract with the owner whereby TAP agrees to make the repairs for the specified price, and the owner agrees to the repairs, to the match, and to not increase the rent or raise the rent based on the funds from the VHPF and CDBG. Construction -- TAP will be responsible for having the necessary work performed, either using their own personnel or subcontracting to others. TAP will also be responsible for obtaining all necessary building permits. Upon completion of the work, TAP will have the Housing Development Office inspect the work to verify its adequacy to avoid condem- nation. Upon approval by the Housing Development Office, TAP will submit an invoice to the Housing Development Office for payment, in accordance with the contract with TAP for administration of this activity. III. ALLOCATION OF FUNDING The Limited Critical Repair Program is funded in Fiscal Year 1991-92 at approximately $209,000 for subsidies, which includes $16,350 from VHPF for the Emergency Home Repair component. Initially the following allocations are made to the three components: Critical Home Repair Component Critical repairs $75,000 CDBG Quick Response to Emergencies Component Emergency repairs -- Exterior siding/painting -- $#2,000 CDBG 8,000 CDBG Emergency Home Repair Component Emergency repairs $25,000 CDBG 16,350 VHPP The distinct amounts between principal repairs and exterior cosmetics within the individual components is general. The RRHA is not to be bound to by these within-component allocations. All remaining funds appropriated to the Limited Critical Repair Program will be held in reserve by the Housing Development Office. Operation of the components will be monitored by that Office. As the year progresses and needs may be observed, funds from the reserve may be released to the individual components via contract amendments, if necessary. IV. PROGRAM AMENDMENTS These program guidelines may be modified by the City Manager, upon the recommendation of the City staff and in consultation with the agencies responsible for the administration of the components. ATTACHMENT B OPERATION PAIR'r~RUSH Program Guidelines I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION Operation Paintbrush is a program of grants for painting the exterior of homes and related minor repair up to a total of $4,000 per house. The Program is limited to iow and moderate income owners of homes referred by the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership. The general purpose of the Program is to make a strong visual statement about the viability of the neighborhood by dramatically improving a selected area through painting the exterior of homes. In addition, the Program encourages neighborhood volunteerism by involving neighborhood, civic and religious organizations, and local businesses in house painting projects on weekends. The Program is designed to improve the quality of life for neighborhood residents participating in the program by painting their houses and by making minor exterior repairs necessary for the painting job. II. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS A. The applicant must be an owner-occupant; and B. The applicant must be within HUD Income Guidelines, including from all sources; and The applicant's home must be referred to the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) by the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership. The applicant's home must be capable of being painted with minor repairs, as necessary, at a cost not to exceed $4,000. If the house is too large to be painted for $4,000, it will be rejected from the Program. (This provision may be waived under special circumstances by the Director of Public Works). III. APPLICATION AND SELECTION The Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership staff will accept referrals from selected neighborhood organizations to establish a list of houses to be considered for Operation Paintbrush. (These neighborhoods include: Gainsboro, Hurt Park, Melrose-Rugby, Mountain View and Southeast). Prior to referring applicants to RRHA, the Neighborhood Partnership will screen the referrals to eliminate requests for work on rental properties, persons with reported income over the HUD Income Guidelines, or otherwise apparently ineligible. ATTACHMENT B The Neighborhood Partnership will contact the applicant and request they fill out a full application. RRHA will verify homeownership and income and will perform a detailed inspection and work write-up for each of the applicants referred. No previous recipient of assistance under the Operation Paintbrush program will be eligible again, except in special circumstances as determined by RRHA's Neighborhood Development Director. IV. CONSTRUCTION AND PAINTING REQUIREMENTS The Program will finance only exterior painting and minor repairs, principally: ae Scraping, priming (if necessary), and painting (colors to be selected by the homeowner from a palette approved by RRHA); B. Caulking and glazing windows; Repairs necessary for the safety of the homeowner to include repairing or building new steps, replacing broken windows, adding stair rails, repairing or replacing porch floor boards, replacing or repairing entrance doors, and replacing a limited number of siding boards necessary to undertake the painting job. Exterior repairs shall not exceed $500 in value. No interior repairs or painting shall be performed by the crew. The owner will sign a release at completion of work, indicating that the job is complete and work was satisfactory. V. FORM OF SUBSIDY Painting and repair work subsidy will be in the form of a grant, not to exceed $4,000 (including all costs). No repayment is expected. VI. SELF-HELP In limited cases, an applicant may be referred to RRHA by the Neighborhood Partnership as a self-help project. In this instance, an estimate will be made by RRHA inspectors as to the amount of paint required to paint the house. After the applicant is screened under normal procedures by the RRHA, as to homeownership and income, the paint will be purchased by RRHA and delivered to the applicant. Applicant will sign an agreement that the house will be painted within six (6) months of receipt of materials or the paint will be returned. RRHA staff will confirm that painting has been completed. ATTACHMENT C-1 Rental Rehabilitation Program--1991 Background Roanoke is a city of approximately 100,000 citizens housed in at~,t~00 dwelling units. Like most cities, Roanoke has had periods of rapid growth and of stability. The' last t~0 years has been a time of maturation for the City. Compared to the Roanoke metropolitan area, the City's housing stock is relatively old, more likely to be rental property, and more likely to be in need of repair. Almost two-thirds of all housing units in the City are more than 30 years old. Approximately 28% are more than 50 years old. With age comes the need for substantial repairs or renovations and more diligent preventive main- tenance. Because of the expense, many owners have deferred taking these measures, without which the houses have tended to deteriorate at an acce- lerating pace. The too frequent result of this can be seen in the figures for vacant housing units (about 3,350) and values of single-family houses (~3% are valued at less than $50,000.) The City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority have administered a variety of neighborhood revitalization programs over recent years. Most of these programs and the funds allocated to them have been targeted toward the rehabilitation of owner-occupied houses in neigh- borhoods designated as Conservation Areas or Rehabilitation Districts under Virginia law. This concentration has begun to have a significant positive effect in these neighborhoods. Past and current programs for rehabilitation of rental property have included Section 8/Moderate Rehabilitation, Substantial Rehabilitation/ Public Housing, the HUD Rental Rehabilitation Program, and the Multi-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program of the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund. These programs and activities have operated in established residential neighborhoods. However, several plans and reports prepared over the last few years for the City have advocated that housing be developed in the downtown area. These include the Design '79 and Design '85 downtown development plans, the report of the 1986 "Downtown Housing Task Force") the 1985 Roanoke Vision Comprehensive Development Plan, and the 1988 report of the "Housing -- Development Strategic Plan Task Force". A substantial part of the reasoning for this consensual recommendation is the recognition that approximately 18,000 people work in the downtown area, many of whom are of low-moderate income. This includes retail personnel, clerks, secretaries, and entry-level office workers of all types, munici- pal, state and federal employees, maintenance workers, waiters and waitresses, etc. Having housing close to their places of employment would help some of these workers, without the expense of a car) as "Downtown housing provides a convenience to people in terms of walking to work, church, shopping) and hospital care that no other location in the Roanoke Roanoke Valley provides." (Downtown Housing Task Force report, p. 8) Rental Rehabilitation- 1991 Page 2 In addition, housing downtown is expected to have significant spin-off effects, specifically to "increase the vitality and attractiveness of downtown as a cu[turaJ, entertainment and retail center." (Roanoke Vision, p. 46) The Rental Rehabilitation Program described herein is designed to attract and subsidize private investment for the conversion to apartments of upper levels of existing commercial buildings in the downtown Roanoke area, on terms that will allow the units to be affordable to low-moderate income tenants. II. Program Design A. Form of Rehabilitation Subsidy The City's Rental Rehabilitation Program will supplement private funding to assist an owner of qualifying property to rehabilitate portions of a building for residential use, while receiving a fair return on investment. Financing by the Program will be flexible and will depend on the charac- teristics of the individual project. The most liberal terms considered will be: 1. Program funding will take no less than third mortgage position 2. Final debt including Program funding and all superior mortgages not exceed 100% of after-rehabilitation value 3. Program funding may amount to no more than 50% of rehabilitation cost, and may not exceed: $6500 for a one-bedroom unit, $7500 for a two-bedroom unit, $8500 for a three-bedroom unit or larger #. Project must project at least break-even cash flow 5. Program funds will be loaned and secured by a deed of trust, but interest may be as low as 0% 6. Repayable loan payments may be deferred for as long as 10 years, with a balloon payment due then. 7. In exceptional cases, loans may be forgiveable. Within these contraints, the City will consider the economics of each project and will negotiate financing terms to assist the project while allowing a reasonable return to the owner on his equity. Depending on the circumstances, terms of Program funding may relate to interest rate, principal amount, amortization term, proportion of total development cost or rehabilitation cost, loan-to-value ratio, return on equity, etc. The City's purpose in the Program is to help make the pro formas attractive enough to encourage developments and to reinforce the likely success of projects in a new, untested market. Beyond that goal, however, the priori- ties of the City in determining the financing terms to be offered will include repayment of principal (security of loan), number of projects that may be assisted (amount of subsidy), rapidity of funds revolving back to the City (amortization terms), and return on investment (interest rate). Rental Rehabilitation- 1991 Page 3 B. Matching Funds Funds to finance the portion of rehabilitation not covered by Program funds may come from any source. However, it is expected that the bulk will come from conventional lenders interested in development of housing downtown. Downtown Roanoke, Inc. is facilitating financing for this purpose and expects arrangements to be in place by the Fall of 1991. C. General Conditions of Eligibility 1. Each unit subsidized must be located in the downtown area designated as eligible. Each unit subsidized under the Program must be substandard according to either Section 8 Housing Quality Standards (HQS) or the City's Building Code. Each unit subsidized under the Program must be renovated to at least Section 8 HQS and be certified by the City Building Department to be safe to occupy according to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC). 4. Each unit must be maintained at least to Section 8 HQS and USBC standards for the term of the financing. 5. No unit rehabilitated under the Program may be converted to a condominium or cooperative for the term of the financing. There may be no discrimination against a prospective tenant specifically because of receipt of or eligibility for housing assistance~ or because of residence with a minor child, for the term of the financing. Each property owner will agree to comply with applicable require- ments for nondiscrimination and "affirmative marketing" of units rehabilitated under the Program for seven years after completion. Guidelines and procedures for property-owners have been developed jointly by the City and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, to insure that each owner is aware of his/her obligations in this regard. (See attachments to this Program Description. ) D. Area of Eligibility The downtown area eligible for inclusion in this phase of the Rental Rehabilitation Program is bounded generally by 1-581 on the east, Day Avenue on the south, 5th Street SW on the west and the railroad tracks on the north (map attached). This area includes almost all of the Downtown Service District and most of Census Tract 11. This area meets the criteria established by Federal Program regulations, as follows: Rental Rehabilitation- 199 l Page ~ Median income not exceeding 80% of median income for the Roanoke area. According to the 1980 Census, the median household income in the Roanoke SMA was $16,119, of which 80% was $12,895. The median income for the City of Roanoke was $13,272. The median income of th~ residents in Census Tract il, of which the target area is the bulk, was only $7,366, which in fact was only t~6% of the area median, and 56% of the City median. Seventy-three per cent (73%) of the households had annual incomes below $10,000, compared to a City-wide rate of 38%. In addition, the average salary of clerical workers downtown is estimated to be approximately $15,500. Considering the skewing effect of several large, relatively high- paying employers, e.g. Norfolk Southern, APCo, C & P Telephone, it is apparent there are many downtown workers who meet the definition of low-moderate income. Clearly the target area and its immediate vicinity is a low-income pocket of residents and workers. Rents affordable to lower income families. The 1980 Census reports that Census Tract 11 had a median gross contract rent of $137, compared to the City-wide median of $150. Little reliable informa- tion is available at this time concerning rents now received on the few housing units within the target area, but it is expected that new units produced under the Program will likely rent in the $325-$t~00 range, which is within current Fair Market Rents for one- and two-bedroom units. A $400 per month rent would amount to 23% of the monthly income of a family of three at only 50% of the area median income income of $17,350. Expected rent stability. The downtown market is largely untested, with the units produced to be in competition with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Those areas have large inventories of relatively low-cost rental units. Therefore it is expected that owners of the units to be produced under the Program will price their units to be attractive and competitive in the market. Market rental rates for standard quality units are expected to ramain generally stable and affordable for at least the next 5 years. E. Selection Criteria Generally it is expected that applications from the eligible area which meet the basic general conditions may be processed on a "first-come first-served" basis. However, in the event more applications are received than funding is available, they will be selected competitively based on a number of considerations. The 100-point evaluation scale, outlined below, will give priority to projects involving lower income or very low tenants, larger apartments~ efficient leveraging of other funds, strong financial projections, and handicapped accessibility. Rental Rehabilitation- 1991 · Page 5 EVALUATION SCALE Factor Score Current Occu'pancy: Very low income families Lower income tenant Vacant Tenant not of lower income (10) l0 3 0 Size of Unit(s): Three bedrooms or more Two bedrooms One bedroom (15) 15 10 0 3. Efficient Use of Program Funds (20} Leveraging of other funds (Program funds as percentage of total project cost) 25% or more 26% - #0% #1% - 50% (10) 10 5 0 Repayment terms Loan repayable over 10 years or less Loan with repayment deferred 5 years or longer Grant or forgiveable loan (10) 10 5 #. Financial Feasibility and Strength (20) Cash flow (ratio of projected net (10) operating income to total debt service payments) 1.25 or more 1.10 to 1.2t, 1.00 to 1.09 10 5 0 Loan to Final Value Ratio (with rehabilitation financing): 60% or less 61% - 85% 86% - 100% (10) 10 5 0 5. Location (15) In Core Zone Elsewhere in eligible area 15 0 6. Accessibility for handicapped (5) General Desirability (15) (Considering expected impact on surrounding area, visibility, unusually attractive return on Program funds, consistency with Program goals,, etc. ) 100 Rental Rehabilitation- 1991 Page 6 In some cases, the scoring of some factors will have to be "prorated." For example, a duplex with one two-bedroom unit and one single bedroom unit would be rated 5 in the Size of units category. In addition, as the Prbgram proposals are received and evaluated, it may be necessary to deviate somewhat from this Criteria in order to meet federal Program requirements, e.g. 70% of units to be 2-bedroom or larger. The Program design and use of the Evaluation Scale address several of the mandates of the Program, as follows: Lower income benefit: The Current Occupancy factor gives priority to units occupied by low and very low income tenants, or vacant units into which lower income tenants might locate after rehabilitation. In addition, owners making proposals for the Program will be told that units are expected to be rented to low income tenants upon completion. However, there is very limited experience with rental units in this downtown area. While it is expected that there will be ample prospective tenants of low-moderate income from the downtown employment base, it may be that some units proposed for rehabilitation will in fact be occupied by tenants not meeting the definition of low-moderate income at the time of application and rehabilitation. To provide a reasonable margin for error, the City requests reduction of the 100% lower income benefit standard of 70%. This is consistent with the terms of previous rounds of the Rental Rehabilitation Program, which were administered after consulting with various public groups. The principal association of downtown interests (Downtown Roanoke, Inc.) supports this reduction to 70% to allow for unforeseen contingencies. Housing for families: The Size of Unit(s) factor gives heavy priority to projects with two) three, or more bedrooms. This item too will be monitored as applications are processed) to insure that at least 70% of rehabilitation funds are used for units of 2 or more bedrooms. If it is found that smaller units are more appropriate for rehabilita- tion given the demand in this area and the characteristics of the supply of buildings, the City may ask HUD to relax this standard. Substandard units occupied by very low-income families: All units receiving assistance under the Program must be substandard. Those currently occupied by families of very low income are afforded greater weight by the Evaluation Scale (see "Lower income benefit" above in this section). Efficient use of Program funds= The Program design is expected to leverage approximately two dollars of non-HUD funds for rehabilitation for every dollar of HUD Rental Rehabilitation subsidy. In addition, HUD Program funds probably will revolve back to the City over 10 years, for reuse for rehabilitation of rental property or other eligible purposes. The terms and flexibility of the financing package expected to be offered will be attractive to investor owners. Rental Rehabilitation- 1.991 · Page 7 Financial feasibility: Each part of the rehabilitation financing package provided by the Program will be secured by a deed of trust on the property. The total of all indebtedness against the property may not exceed 100% of the appraised after-rehab value. All approved projects must also' show a positive cash flow with a margin for main- tenance, vacancy loss and contingencies. Priority will be given to properties with lower loan-to-value ratios and more comfortable cash flow margins~ thereby showing stronger financial feasibility and greater incentive to the property owner to adhere to the terms of the Program (e.g. maintenance of the property to Section 8 standards). Each applicant will be counseled that the Program design is such that the feasibility of the rehabilitation must be based on market, unsub- sidized rents~ and that if proiected cash flow is not sufficient without subsidized rents, the rehabilitation may not be feasible. III. Administrative Organization and Procedures: The Rental Rehabilitation Program will be administered by the City, prin- cipally through the Housing Development Office, and the Roanoke Redevelopment & Housing Authority, in cooperation with Downtown Roanoke, lnc · Program Publicity, Marketing~ and Outreach: Information about the Program will be provided by the Housing Development Office~ with assistance from Downtown Roanoke, Inc. and the RRHA. An initial application period will be scheduled. Receipt and Initial Screening of Applications: Loan applications received from interested owners will contain basic information about the proposal, such as the location, number and size of units to be rehabilitated, general description and estimation of cost of repairs, current indebtedness that will remain on the property, projected rental income and expenses, characteristics of current occupants, etc. Each application received will be reviewed immediately to determine completeness and basic eligibility. Prioritization-' If a surplus of applications is received such that the Evaluation Scale must be applied to select projects by priority, the Housing Development Office and RRHA will do so at this point to determine which proposals appear to be best suited to the intent and requirements of the Program. Tentative Commitment: After consultation with the Housing Development Office and Downtown Roanoke, Inc.~ the RRHA will notify the applicant of the tentative acceptance of the proposal, contingent on verifica- tions of information presented in the application. The RRHA inspector will conduct a rehabilitation inspection of the building and examine the work write-up and cost estimates included with the loan applicatio% to verify that the work proposed is eligible, appropriated and sufficient to correct Code violations cited and to bring the property to HQS, and that the estimate of costs or contractor's bid is reasonable. Rental Rehabilitation- 1991 Page 8 Negotiations: It is expected that all applicants for the Program will be seeking financing from funds arranged by Downtown Roanoke, Inc. from private lenders. The applicant will be required to provide information regarding income, debt, credit, etc. which is provided to the lender(s) for their processifig. Based on this information, the Housing Development Office and the RRHA may negotiate financing terms with the applicant to insure that maximum benefit is gained from Program funds. Verifications: Based on the information contained in the application that is deemed reasonable, and supplementary information furnished by the applicant, the RRHA will issue a tentative commitment for Program funding, conditional upon verifications of information and arrangement for other financing. It is expected that verifications obtained by the private lender(s) will suffice for these purposes, and the applicant will be asked to furnish them to the RRHA. Loan Closing: Upon documentation by the applicant that private financing has been committed, the RRHA will coordinate with the lender to close simultaneously the Program funding with the private financing. Rehabilitation and Disbursement: Arrangement for rehabilitation work to be performed primarily will be the responsibility of the applicant property owner. Periodic in-progress inspections will be made by the rehabilitation inspector, relative to compliance with the work write-up and workmanship standards, and by City building inspector(s), to assure compliance with Building Code requirements. Because Program funds will be subordinated to other financing and are drawn down from l-IUD as construction draws are needed, Program funds will not be escrowed and will only be disbursed after all superior financing has been disbursed. In most cases, Program funds will only be paid out upon completion of the project. Post-Rehabilitation Monitoring: Property owners will be asked to submit periodic reports of the status of each project, especially concerning rents and tenants. Blank report forms will be sent by the RRHA to the owner for completion and return. In addition, on at least an annual basis, an inspector from the RRHA will perform an on-site inspection to verify that each unit is maintained in accordance with the terms of the financing package. IV. Timetable: The tentative timetable for the Program is as follows: Approval of Program funding early August First proposa]s received and screened September First tentative commitments issued late October Supplemental financing arranged{ verifications received November Rental Rehabilitation- 1991 · Page 9 Hold first loan closings December Begin first rehabilitation January It is expected the Prbgram subsidy funds will be committed to specified projects according to the following schedule: First Quarter (July-September 1991) $ 0 Second Quarter (October-December 1991) 10,000 Third Quarter (January-March 1992) 20,000 Fourth Quarter (April-June 1992) 19~000 $#9,000 V. Certifications: A. Authority to Apply: The City is legally authorized to develop and administer housing rehabilitation and rent subsidy programs within the City, such as this Rental Rehabilitation Program. B. Public Consultation: The Rental Rehabilitation Program has been presented and discussed with representatives of business and resident organizations, public and private non-profit agencies concerned with housing issues, and organizations of rental property owners, as well as many individuals. This Program design reflects concerns, attitudes, and expectations expressed from these quarters. Also as a result of these public consultations, the City requests continued reduction of the lower income benefit standard to 70%, in order to avoid di,splacement of tenants in otherwise high priority projects, to provide for unexpected contingencies that cannot be foreseen in the rental property market of the target area~ and to allow for unexpectedly high leveraging ratios, resulting in more units being rehabilitated. C. Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity: The RRHA will provide detailed guidelines to applicant owners describing their obligations for fair housing practices. These may include procedures to notify the RRHA and other community or service agencies of vacancies, posting of Equal Housing Opportunity logotype on premises, public advertisement of vacancies, etc. These require- ments will be conditions of the deed of trust for the loan from HUB funds. Evidence of compliance will be examined by the City Office of Grants Compliance at least annually. Violation of fair housing and nondiscrimination provisions will be grounds for requiring immediate payment of the Rental Rehabilitation loan as specified in the deed of trust. Rental Rehabilitation- 1991 Page 10 D. Tenant Assistance Policy: All reasonable efforts will be made to avoid involuntary displacement of current tenants due to rent increases, especially current tenants of lower income. Tenants who would have to pay more than 30% of their adjusted income for rent after rehab will be referred to the Redevelopment and Housing Authority for possible rental assistance. Tenants who ~vould have to pay more than 50% of their income will receive high priority from the RRHA for Public Housing or Section 8 rental assistance. In no case will a very low income family be displaced involuntarily by a tenant not of very low income. Any current low- income tenant who is eligible for Section 8 or Housing Voucher assistance will be given preference for such assistance to stay in the renovated unit or to find adequate housing elsewhere. Each tenant in a unit to be rehabilitated under the Program will be notified of the impending rehabilitation and the effect on him/her. Any tenants in jeopardy of being displaced will be referred to the RRHA for counseling and assistance, including descriptions of alter- native housing opportunities, ways to search for suitable alternative arrangements, and tenant rights under the Federal Fair Housing law. Direct referrals to other apartments also may be made. No tenant offered decent, safe, and sanitary housing at an affordable rent (as defined in 2~ CFR 511.10(h)(l) will be considered to be displaced. E. Compliance with Applicable Regulations: Administration of the Rental Rehabilitation Program will comply with all applicable federal regulations and requirements, including but not limited to those concerning nondiscrimination and equal opportunity~ as identified in 2# CFR 511.10(m). F. Neighborhood Preservation: Operation of the Program in the downtown area is expected to dramati- cally enhance the viability of this area as a residential community, an element not currently present to any significant degree. In addition, the presence of residents will support continued commercial and cultural vitality in the area. This in turn will reinforce the attrac- tiveness of residential neighborhoods surrounding the downtown target area. RENTAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND NONDISCRIMINATION POLICIES AND GUIDELINES General Policy: It is the Policy of the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing' Authority to administer the Rental Rehabilitation Program so that individuals of similar income have similar available housing choices, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, familial status, presence of minor child, or receipt of or eligibility for housing assistance. Each property owner applying for participation in the Rental Rehabilitation Program shall agree to avoid any discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, familial status, presence of minor child, or receipt of or eligibility for housing assistance, and shall agree to market their vacant rental units in good faith to inform and attract eligible tenants from all racial, ethnic, and gender groups. A. The RRHA shall give a copy of these Policies and Guidelines to the following: 1. Applicant property owners. Current tenants of housing to be rehabilitated under the Program. Social service agencies, including Total Action Against Poverty (TAP), League of Older Americans (LOA), Legal Aid Society, and Roanoke Neighborhood Alliance. #. General public, upon request. In addition, all advertisements, press releases, information packages, application forms, and written communications prepared by the City or the RRHA relative to the Rental Rehabilitation Program shall include the Equal Housing Opportunity logo or statement. If the participating property owner wishes, the RRHA may refer holders of Section 8 certificates or housing vouchers to the rehabilitated pro- perty for possible occupancy. As provided in 2t~ CFR 511.10(m)(2), to the extent rent-subsidized tenants occupy Rental Rehabilitation units, other affirmative marketing procedures will not be required of the property owner. For any occupancy other than by tenants holding rental subsidy authorizations, the property owner must follow the procedures established in Section C (infra). Other than as allowed in Section B (supra), each participating property owner shall seek to attract tenants regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, familial status, presence of minor child, or eligibility for housing assistance, especially those unlikely to apply without special outreach, to units vacant after rehabilitation or that later become vacant. These marketing efforts shall include, at a minimum, the following: Page 2 Notification to the RRHA, TAP, and Downtown Roanoke, Inc. of any any and all vacancies. The RRHA may notify people on the Section 8, Housing Voucher, and public housing waiting lists of the vacancy. 2. Posting of Ec~ual Housing Opportunity poster, provided by the RRHA, on vacant premises and rental offices, if existing. If qualified prospective tenants are not otherwise available, the owner shall advertise any and all vacancies in the Roanoke Times and World News and the Roanoke Tribune, such advertisement to include the Equal Housing Opportunity logo or statement. Such advertisements will specify that vacant units are available for, but not limited to, Section 8 tenants. Documentation: Each participating property owner shall document affir- mative marketing~ such records to include the following: 1. Copies of all advertisements, notices, and other outreach for all vacancies. 2. A log of all contacts with potential tenants, including race, sex, approximate age, and reasons for not accepting as tenants. Quarterly reports to the RRHA, in a format provided by the RRHA~ regarding the occupancy of all assisted units and marketing activities for any vacancies. The RRHA shall keep records including the following: 1. A log of vacancies reported by owners. 2. Copies or other evidence of notices regarding the Program and vacancies sent to agencies and/or organizations by the RRHA. 3. Copies of advertisements placed by owners. Records of characteristics of tenants occupying units, including race, sex, and approximate age. Assessment: The RRHA shall use the quarterly reports filed by property owners to verify compliance with affirmative marketing and Equal Housing Opportunity requirements. In addition, the RRHA may make other periodic inspections of the property owner's records concerning tenants and marketing activities, or ask for other information about the same. Violations: Failure to comply with Equal Opportunity, Nondiscrimina- tion~ or Affirmative Marketing requirements will result in a written notice from the RRHA to the property owner that specific provisions of the Deed of Trust between the two parties have been violated, defining what corrective actions, if any~ are to be taken, and advising that further violations or failure to take the prescribed actions may require repayment of the Deferred Payment Loan and/or other financing provided. GILMER :LLS LMER iV& W$/ J_~AN~ETTE~ ATTACHMENT C-2 Rental Rehabilitation Program--1990 I. Background Roanoke is a city of approximately 100,000 citizens housed in ~2,500 dwelling units. Like most cities, Roanoke has had periods of rapid growth and of stability. The last 30 years has been a time of maturation for the City. Compared to the Roanoke metropolitan area, the City's housing stock is relatively old, more likely to be rental property, and more likely to be in need of repair. Two-thirds of all housing units in the City are more than 23 years old. Almost half are more than #5 years old. With age comes the need for substantial repairs or renovations and more diligent preventive main- tenance. Because of the expense, many owners have deferred taking these measures, without which the houses have tended to deteriorate at an acce- lerating pace. The too frequent result of this can be seen in the figures for vacant housing units (about 2,600) and values of single-family houses (20% are assessed at less than $20,000; 7% at less than $10,000.) ]'he City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority have administered a variety of neighborhood revitalization programs over recent years. Most of these programs and the funds allocated to them have been targeted toward the rehabilitation of owner-occupied houses in neigh- borhoods designated as Conservation Areas or Rehabilitation Districts under Virginia law. This concentration has begun to have a significant positive effect in these neighborhoods. However, a large proportion of the housing stock in the aforementioned areas is rental property (50%, compared to 39% City-wide), of which a sizable percentage are in fair to poor condition. ]'he incentive for pri- vate investments to be made in owner-occupied homes in these neighborhoods is weakened by nearby rental units in disrepair. It is obvious that the upgrading of deteriorated rental property must be a critical element of overall neighborhood revitalization. Past and current programs for rehabilitation of rental property have con- sisted of Section 8/Moderate Rehabilitation and Substantial Rehabilitation/ Public Housing. The Rental Rehabilitation Program described herein is designed to attract private investment while maintaining flexibility in an area's housing market, by the direct rehabilitation of approximately 15 rental housing units that may be occupied by lower income families. Indirectly, the improvement of these units will encourage maintenance and repair of other rental and owner-occupied buildings nearby. Specifically, the 1990 Rental Rehabilitation Program will be used in sup- port of the Neighborhood Stabilization and Enhancement Program (NSEPtion). The purpose of NSEPtion, as the name implies, is to concentrate effort in a small strategic residential neighborhood, in order to improve its overall condition and stabilize its market. The means to approach this rests on Rental Rehabilitation Program-1990 Page 2 Code Enforcement. Inspectors seek to perform Building Maintenance Code inspections on all rental and vacant units. The owners are notified of violations that must be corrected and are informed of rehabilitation sub- sidies that may be available to help. NSEPtion began in December 1999 in a part of the Mountain View neighborhood of the Hurt Park Conservation Area. The rehabilitation financing dedicated to that effort was $313,000 from the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund. Those funds are in the process of being committed, and it is apparent that more is needed to assist the renovation of the balance of the initial target area. II. Program Design A. Form of Rehabilitation Subsidy The City's Rental Rehabilitation Program will offer a rental property owner the opportunity of a complete financing package, blending Rental Rehabilitation Program funds with loan funds made available by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) from the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund*. Specifically, the arrangements will be as follows: Loans from allocations to Roanoke from the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund will be the source of up to two-thirds of the rehabilitation funds. At this time, the limits of this funding are $10,000 for a one-bedroom unit, $12,500 for a 2-Bedroom, and $15,000 for a 3-bedroom. Rental Rehabilitation Program funds from HUD's program allocation will finance the balance of the rehabilitation, up to one-half of the total rehabilitation costs or the per-unit maximum HUD allows. This supplement will be in the form of a 0% interest loan amortized over a 10-year term. Following are examples of the financing package based on a duplex of 2-bedroom units: Scenario A (Maximum subsidies allowed): $#0,000 total rehabilitation $25,000 loan from DHCD funds 0 7%, IS-yr. $15,000 loan from HUD funds 0 0%, 10-yr. After 10 years, payment goes to $225/month for 5 years. $225/month $125/month $350/month *A property-owner does not have to use funds from DHCD to match Rental Rehabilitation funds. As long as the owner can provide matching funds from con- ventional sources, his/her own funds, or any other source, he/she may apply for and receive HUD Rental Rehabilitation funds. Rental Rehabilitation Program-1990 Page 3 Scenario B: 330,000 total rehabilitation 320,000 loan from DHCD funds 0 7%, 13-yr. 310,000 loan from HUD funds 0 0%, 10-yr. After l0 years, payment goes to $180/month for 5 years. 3lS0/month 3 83/month $263/month With this financing package, Rental Rehabilitation Program funds from HUD revolve back to the City for reuse over a 10-year period, allowing the future rehabilitation of more substandard rental pro- perties. B. General Conditions Each unit subsidized must be located in an area designated as an NSEPtion area. Each unit subsidized under the Program must be substandard according to either Section 8 Housing Quality Standards (HQS) or the City's Building Code. Minimum loan underwriting criteria will be established for pro- jects to be financed under the Program, relating to: --Loan-to-Value ratios --income and cash flow --Personal financial condition of the applicant. Each unit subsidized under the Program must be renovated to at least Section 8 HQS and be certified by the City Building Department to be safe to occupy according to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC). As part of the rehabilitation, improvement of the exterior appearance of the building will be con- sidered a priority. Any unit rehabilitated under the Program must receive work costing at least 36,000. Each unit must be maintained at least to Section 8 HQS and USBC standards for the term of the financing, whether occupied by Section 8 tenants or not. For projects receiving funds from DHCD, a portion of the units in each project will be required to be reserved for low-income tenants after the repayment of the HUD funds until repayment of the DHCD financing, according to the requirements of the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund. Rental Rehabilitation Program-1990 Page ~ 8. No unit rehabilitated under the Program may be converted to a con- dominium or cooperative for the term of the financing. There may be no discrimination against a prospective tenant because of receipt of or eligibility for housing assistance, or because of residence with a minor child, for the term of the financing. 10. Each property owner will agree to comply with applicable require- ments for nondiscrimination and "affirmative marketing" of units rehabilitated under the Program for the term of the financing. Guide- lines and procedures for property-owners will be developed jointly by the City and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, to insure that each owner is aware of his/her obligations in this regard. (See Attachments to this Program Description.) C. Areas of Eligibility This phase of the Rental Rehabilitation Program will be offered only in conjunction with NSEPtion. Currently~ only a part of the Hurt Park Conservation Area is a designated NSEPtion area. This area has a high concentration of rental property. In conjunction with on-going code enforcement efforts, the rehabilitation subsidies provided by the Rental Rehabilitation Program are expected to make a valuable contribu- tion to the preservation and improvement of this historic neighborhood. The NSEPtion target area along Campbell Avenue, and any future NSEPtion areas using Rental Rehabilitation funds, meets the criteria established by program regulations, as follows: Median income not exceeding 80% of median income for the Roanoke area. According to the 1980 census, the median household income in the Roanoke SMSA was $16,119, of which 80% was $12,895. The median income of the Hurt Park Conservation Area (Census Tract 10) was $7,989, which in fact was less than 50% of the area median. Rents affordable to. lower income families. The 1980 Census reports that the Hurt Park Conservation Area had a median contract rent of $123~ compared to the City-wide median of $150. At the same time~ the Section 8 Fair Market Rents (including utility allowances) were $265 for a two-bedroom unit, and $306 for a three-bedroom unit. At this time, the prevailing rents, with utilities, in this area are in the $275-$350 range~ with few beyond this range. Expected rent stability. While the Mountain View neighborhood has experienced rehabilitation of some buildings in recent years, there is no evidence of significant "gentrification" or rapidly rising property values or rents~ or displacement that might be associated. /he conditions of the larger surrounding area indicate that any upward trend that may develop will be very gradual to allow for adjustment. Rental Rehabilitation Program Page 5 D. Selection Criteria Generally it is expected that applications from the NSEPtion area which meet the basic general conditions may be processed on a "first-come first-served" basis. However, in the event more applications are received than funding is available, they will be selected competitively based on a number of considerations. The 100-point evaluation scale, outlined below, will give priority to projects involving lower income or very low income tenants, larger apartments, and small buildings. Evaluation Scale Factor Score Current Occupancy: Very low income families Lower income tenant Vacant Tenant not of lower income (20) 20 lO tO 0 Size of Unit(s): Three bedrooms or more Two bedrooms One bedroom (15) 15 10 0 Number of Units in Building: Two to four units Single unit building Five to seven units (15) 15 5 0 Loan to Value Ratio (with rehabilitation financing): (15) 60% or less 15 61% - 85% 10 86% - 100% 0 Cash Flow--The proportion of debt service payments as a part of the projected feasible rental income (15) Less than 60% 15 60% - 70% 10 71% - 80% 0 General Desirability (considering impact on community revitalization, consistency with program goals, etc.) (20) 100 Accessibility for handicapped 5 Bonus Points Rental Rehabilitation Program-1990 Page 6 In some cases, the scoring o~ some factors will have to be "prorated." For example, a triplex with two two-bedroom units and one single bedroom unit would be rated 7 in the Size of Units category. The Program design and use of the Evaluation Scale address several of the mandates of the Program, as follows: Lower income benefit: The Current Occupancy factor gives priority to units occupied by ]ow or very low income tenants, or vacant units into which lower income tenants might locate after rehabilitation. [n addition, this will be monitored through the processing of applications to insure maximum feasible benefit to lower income. However, it is expected that some buildings whose rehabilitation would be valuable to the community as well as [ow income tenants may also have some units occupied by tenants not of lower income. The displacement of such tenants is to be avoided in the interest of neighborhood stability as well as fairness to the individual. To deal with such instances of high priority to a neighborhood and to allow for unforeseeable circumstances, the City requests reduction of the 100% lower income benefit standard to 70%. This request is pursuant to infor- mation and input received from resident organizations of affected neigh- borhoods, apartment owners, and agencies serving lower income clientele. (See also Section IV A.) Housing for families: The Size of Unit(s) factor gives heavy priority to projects with two, three, or more bedrooms. This item too will be moni- tored as applications are processed, to insure that at least 70% of rehabi- litation funds are used for units of 2 or more bedrooms. Characteristics of rental housing stock in the eligible neighborhoods indicate this stan- dard will be met. Substandard units occupied by very low-income families: All units receiving assistance under the Program must be substandard. Those currently occupied by families of very low income are afforded greater weight by the Evaluation Scale (see "Lower income benefit" above in this section). Efficient use of Program funds: The Program design is expected to leverage approximately two dollars of non-HUD funds for rehabilitation from the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund for every dollar of HUD Rental Rehabilitation subsidy. In addition, HUD Program funds will revolve back to the City over l0 years, for reuse for rehabilitation of rental property or other eligible purposes. Based on experience with Rental Rehabilitation and NSEPtion, the terms of the financing package are expected to be attrac- tive to investor owners. Financial feasibility: Each part of the rehabilitation financing package provided by the Program will be secured by a deed of trust on the property. The total of all indebtedness against the property may not exceed 100% of the appraised after-rehab value. All approved projects must also show a Rental Rehabilitation Program-1990 Page 7 positive cash flow with a margin for maintenance, vacancy loss and con- tingencies. Priority will be given to properties with lower loan-to-value ratios and more comfortable cash flow margins, thereby showing stronger financial feasibility and greater incentive to the property owner to adhere to the terms of the Program (e.g. maintenance of the property to Section g standards). Each applicant will be counseled that the Program design is such that the feasibility of the rehabilitation must be based on market, unsubsidized rents, and that if projected cash flow is not sufficient without subsidized rents, the rehabilitation may not be feasible. III. Administrative Organization and Procedures: The Rental Rehabilitation Program will be administered by the City, prin- cipally through the Housing Development Office, and the Roanoke Redevelop- ment and Housing Authority, with the assistance of the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development and the Virginia Housing Development Authority. The City will accept and process loan applications and oversee rehabilitation, the RRHA will actually make the loans from HUD funds, hold the deeds of trust, and conduct the post-rehabilitation monitoring. The RRHA has agreed to cooperate with the City also through the administration of Housing Voucher and/or the Section 8 rent subsidies that may be required by federal guidelines to assist tenants of selected units. Program Publicity~ Marketing~ and Outreach: Information about the Program will be provided by the Housing Development Office in conjunc- tion with Code inspections. Receipt and Initial Screening of Applications: Loan applications re- ceivedby the City from interested owners will contain basic information about the proposal, such as the location, number and size of units to be rehabilitated, general description and estimation of cost of repairs, current indebtedness that will remain on the property, projected rental income and expenses, characteristics of current occupants, etc. Each application received will be reviewed immediately to determine completeness and basic eligibility. Prioritizatiom If a surplus of applications is received such that the Evaluation Scale must be applied to select, the Housing Development Office will do so at this point to determine which proposals appear to be best suited to the intent of the Program, and which proposals are most in need of the subsidy provided. Tentative Commitment: The Housing Development Office will notify the applicant of the tentative acceptance of the proposal, contingent on verifications of information presented in the application. The inspec- tor will conduct a rehabilitation inspection of the building and exa- mine the work write-up and cost estimates included with the loan application, to verify that the work proposed is eligible, appropriate, and sufficient to correct Code violations cited and to bring the pro- perty up to HQS, and that the estimate of costs or contractor's bid is reasonable. Rental Rehabilitation Program-1990 Page g Verifications: The Housing Development Office will request the necessary verifications of income, debt, credit, etc. Upon receipt, the applicant will be asked to provide funds for the Office to order an appraisal of after-rehab value based on the work write-up and specifi- cations. When determined that the proposal meets the criteria for the Program, the loan package will be finalized by the Office and forwarded to DHCH and VHDA for underwriting of the loan from the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund. Loan Closing: Upon approval by DHCD/VHDA of the State financing, arrangements will be made to close both the loan from the State and from the RRHA of HUD Rental Rehabilitation funds simultaneously. Closing will be held by an attorney selected for the Program, rehabili- tation funds will be escrowed, and appropriate disbursements will be made. Rehabilitation: Arrangement for rehabilitation work to be performed primarily will be the responsibility of the applicant property owner. Periodic in-progress inspections will be made by the rehabilitation inspector, relative to compliance with the work write-up and work- manship standards, and by City building inspector(s), to assure compliance with code requirements. Final inspections will be performed to verify compliance with the original notice of Building Maintenance Code violations and HQS. Post-Rehabilitation Monitoring: Property owners will be asked to sub- mit periodic reports of the status of each project, especially concern- ing rents and tenants. Blank report forms will be sent by the RRHA to the owner for completion and return. In addition, on at least an annual basis, an inspector from the RRHA will perform an on-site inspection to verify that each unit is maintained in accordance with the terms of the financing package. ATTACHMENT D HO~EOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PURPOSE: The purpose of the Homeownership Assistance Program is to provide enhanced opportunities for homeownership within the City of Roanoke by providing a flexible pool of resources to meet the needs of first time homebuyers, especially those of low and moderate income, and to encourage rehabilitation and ongoing maintenance of existing homes. IMPORTANCE OF HOg~X)W~R~HIP: Roanoke's housing stock is a critical element in the status of our local economy, the quality of life of our citizens, the long term health and vitality of our neighborhoods, and the overall image of our City. Roanoke's housing stock is evolving. The rate of new residential construction is slowing, and the proportion of older homes and rental property is increasing. Current estimates indicate that approximately 63% of our homes are more than 30 years old, and approximately 45% of all houses are now used as rental property. Rental property owners frequently minimize property improvements and defer necessary property maintenance to increase rental profits. Tenants are unlikely to improve properties in which they have no vested interest. On the other hand, homeowners are more likely to invest in property improvements, and maintain their property to a higher, more attractive level to protect and enhance their investment. Homeownership strengthens our local economy through investment in materials and labor for property construction, rehabilitation and maintenance, as well as through increased tax revenues on improved properties. Homeowners generally enjoy a relatively high quality of life in attractive and well maintained homes with increasing equity and stabilized housing costs. Homeownership improves the health and vitality of neighborhoods as homeowners tend to be stable and to participate in neighborhood interests and issues. As homeowners enhance the appearance of their homes and neighborhoods, the overall image of the City is improved. BARRIERS TO HO~EOWNE~HIP: Roanoke's trend towards growing numbers of rental property and decreased participation in homeownership has been fueled by many barriers to purchasing a home. The majority of our housing stock is older homes which may require expensive improvements such as correction of structural deficiencies, roof replacement, electrical, plumbing and heating system upgrades, energy efficiency improvements, as well as interior and exterior cosmetic repairs in order for a property to be desirable to a homebuyer. In some markets, rental property investors aggressively compete with potential homebuyers for limited numbers of decent affordable homes. Increasing property costs, coupled with with relatively small increases in real Page - 1 personal income, especially among low and moderate income households, has contributed to making homeownership less attainable. Increasing downpayment requirements for purchasing a home have shut many potential homebuyers out of the market. Further, an absence of homeownership education and counseling in our public educational system fails to prepare individuals for purchasing and maintaining a home. Finally, federal subsidies to localities which can be utilized for the creation of homeownership opportunities have been steadily decreasing throughout the 1980's. The combination of these barriers has resulted in decreasing participation in homeownership, especially among low and moderate income families. OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOMEOWI~,Ed, r~RTP: Even as these barriers contribute to decreasing levels of homeownership, many opportunities for homebuyers, including low and moderate income families, currently exist. The average purchase price for a house in Roanoke is lower than the average price nationally and in neighboring communities. Many homes are priced such that monthly mortgage payments for a homebuyer would be comparable to monthly rental payments within the same area, even at current market interest rates. Additionally, Roanoke has approximately 1100 vacant houses. Although many of these structures require significant rehabilitation before they could be occupied, once repaired, they could provide opportunities for homeownership. Other properties also provide special opportunity for homeownership. These include foreclosed properties from VA, FHA, VHDA, and private mortgage lenders, as well as properties available through trustee's sales, tax sales and Escheat auctions. Many of these properties can be purchased for less than market value. Although federal allocations to localities have been decreasing, the City has been successful in targeting Community Development Block Grant funds for the creation of homeownership opportunities. Recent passage of the National Affordable Housing Act may generate additional federal dollars to provide homeownership opportunities in Roanoke. Additionally, State program funds offered through the Virginia Housing Partnership fund and the Virginia Housing Development Authority are currently available to assist in the creation of homeownership opportunities. Private lenders have begun to develop affordable homeownership programs for low and moderate income households in response to Community Reinvestment Act requirements. Private nonprofit organizations have also increased their interest and activities involving homeownership. F~.RKIBLE HOg~OWNE~SHIP ASSISTANCE wR-~OURCE POOL- The purpose of the Program is to provide a flexible mechanism to match existing resources with the needs of potential low and moderate income homebuyers in order to overcome the barriers they face in becoming homeowners. The key element in this Page 2 initiative is a $300,000 allocation of Community Development Block Grant funds targeted to the Homeownership Assistance Program. The CDBG funds will fill gaps encountered in matching and coordinating a "Homeownership Assistance Resource Pool" of Federal, State and private resources to facilitate homeownership throughout the City, as well as address the individual needs of low and moderate income homebuyers. COMPONENTS OF HOMEOW~u(SHIP ASSISTANCE RESOURCE POOL: The Homeownership Assistance Resource Pool for Roanoke's MY HOME Program is composed of the following elements: 1. ~irginia Housing Development Authority's Urban Homeownership Opportunity Program (UHOP) $450,000 reservation of 5% interest 30-year mortgages for qualifying first time homebuyers (incomes not exceeding 70% of the area median income) to buy newly built, substantially rehabilitated, or existing homes. 2. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development'- (HUD) Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 203K Mortgage Insurance Program Provides mortgage insurance for combined purchase and rehabilitation loans. The Program allows permanent mortgages to close and funds for rehabilitation to be available for construction to be completed. 3. virginia Housing Partnership Fund (VHPFI Rehabilitation Loan Program $100,000 (targeted from $400,000 available to the City) reservation of 4% interest 15-year loans, and forgiveable loans for qualifying energy conserving repairs for the rehabilitation of existing homes by qualifying households (incomes not exceeding 80% of area median income). 4. Sovran Mortgage Community Homebuyers Program provides a homebuyer's education course. Approximately $8 million in mortgage financing and closing cost assistance is available to program participants statewide. Program is available within certain targeted areas in Roanoke. 5. Sovran Mortgage Edge Program provides closing cost assistance (Sovran pays all closing costs in excess of $500) to homebuyers who successfully complete the Community Homebuyers Program, and process their mortgage application with Sovran. 6. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) $300,000 allocation in support of flexible mechanism to compliment existing and anticipated Federal, State, and private resources, or stand alone to provide homeownership opportunities to low and moderate income households. Potential uses include funds for: A. Permanent mortgages, (on purchase/rehab projects) Page - 3 B. Rehabilitation financing, C. Interim financing, D. Site development and, E. Downpayment and closing cost assistance. Terms may include loans with reduced interest rates, forgiveable loans, and grants. Funds may also be used for costs of supportive services from private industry, e.g. appraisals, legal work, inspections, etc. 7. Housing Counseling Provided by the City's Housing Development Office (or other agencies) to all participants in the Homeownership Assistance Program to assist clients with becoming homeowners. Individualized needs assessment of potential homebuyers will be available. Ail clients who receive Homeownership Assistance resources will also participate in Homeownership Maintenance Education Program offered through Sovran's Community Homebuyers Program. Depending upon availability of resources, additional components may be added to the pool while others may be omitted. Each of these components has its own set of requirements regarding client income, program area, eligible projects, underwriting criteria, etc. STrATeGIC PRIORITIES: The Homeownership Assistance Resource Pool will be utilized in providing a flexible programatic framework in support of the following strategic priorities: 1. Create homeownership opportunities within specific targeted areas. A. Strategically important neighborhoods, Conservation Areas and Rehabilitation District~ will be targeted for a high level of Homeownership Assistance Resources to encourage purchase and rehabilitation of properties by low to moderate income households (income not to exceed 80% of area median income) in these strategically important areas. Strategically important neighborhoods are identified by the Housing Development Office and targeted for concentrated programmatic activities, e.g. concentrated Building Maintenance Code and Zoning Ordinance enforcement, rental rehabilitation programs, multifamily rehabilitation programs, etc. B. City-wide homeownership opportunities will be enhanced for very low income households (income not to exceed 50% of area median income) through availabilty of Homeownership Assistance Resources. 2. Create homeownership opportunities on strategically important individual houses. Page - 4 A. Properties offered or sponsored for sale by th~ Housing Development Office are eligible to receive a very high level of Homeownership Assistance Resources. B. Blighting Houses and Properties of Special ODDortunit¥ - Blighting houses which present an eyesore and negatively affect surrounding properties may be eligible to receive a high level of Homeownership Assistance Resources to encourage purchase and rehabilitation of these properties. Properties of special opportunity as affordable purchase and rehabilitation projects, including VA, FHA, VHDA, or other foreclosures, and properties available through Escheat auction, trustee's sales, estate auctions, tax sales, and private donations may be eligible to receive a high level of Homeownership Assistance Resources. C. Other properties that require rehabilitation and can be purchased by low to moderate income households may be eligible to recieve Homeownership Assistance Resources. mr. IGIBILTY FOR HOMEO%~HIP ASSISTANCE ~m~J_U~c~_~ All clients must complete Sovran's Community Homebuyers Education Program or another similar education/counseling course to be eligible to receive Homeownership Assistance Resources. All clients must be low to moderate income households (household income does not exceed 80% of area median income) to be eligible to receive Homeownership Assistance Resources. HOMEO~SHIP ASSISTANCE RESOURCES AVAIL~mT.R I. Properties sponsored for sale by Housing Development Office Properties located in a strategically important neighborhood, Conservation Area, Rehabilitation District, and sponsored for sale through the Housing Development Office are eligible for homeownership assistance resources. Properties will be sponsored for sale through the Housing Development Office through two basic scenarios. Scenario I - Option to Purchase Agreement by City - The Housing Development Office will identify a particular property as being suitable for homeownership opportunity through the Homeownership Assistance Program. Staff will negotiate an Option to Purchase Agreement with the owner of the property. Property will be offered for sale with an appropriate level of Resources/Assistance. Qualified purchaser will be identified and City will assign Option to Purchase Agreement to qualified purchaser, who will then exercise the option. This provides for a direct transfer of the property from the seller to the qualified purchaser. Page - 5 Scenario II - Sponsored Non-Profit Organization Purchases Property - The Housing Development Office may identify properties that provide special opportunities for homeownership that cannot be offered for sale through a Option to Purchase Agreement (Example: properties for sale at auction). CDBG funds will be used to sponsor a Non- Profit organization (e.g. Roanoke Neighborhood Resources, Inc.) to purchase (and in some cases rehabilitate) the property. The property will then be offered for sale through the Program. Qualified purchaser will be identified, and the nonprofit organization will sell the property directly to the qualified purchaser. CDBG funds used in the interim financing will revolve back for use on other properties. Permanent financin~ 1. VHDA's Urban Homeownership Opportunity Program (UHOP) will provide 5% interest 30-year mortgages to buyers qualified under UHOP guidelines. 2. CDBG funds will provide 4% interest 15-year mortgages to qualified buyers of properties to be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation financinq 1. FHA 203K private mortgage insurance will allow the UHOP loans (including rehabilitation costs) to close, rehabilitation funds to be escrowed, and drawn upon to pay rehabilitation costs. 2. VHPF's Rehabilitation Loan Program will provide 4% interest 15-year financing for rehabilitation of single family homes by households qualified under VHPF guidelines. 3. VHPF's Energy Conservation forgiveable loans will provide up to 25% of the rehabilitation cost for qualifying repairs in coordination with the rehabilitation loans outlined above. 4. CDBG funds may be used for interim purchase and rehabilitation financing as in Scenario II above. DownDaYment and closin~ cost assistance CDBG funds will be used to provide downpayment and closing cost grants to low and moderate income homebuyers. Homebuyers must contribute one-half of the required downpayment and closing costs. Counselin~ and education 1. Staff will provide counseling to potential homebuyers to identify financing options most suitable to their needs. 2. Sovran Community Homebuyers Program will provide potential homebuyers with a homeownership and home maintenance education program. Page - 6 II. Conservation Areas and Rehabilitation Districts Other properties which potential homebuyers are interested in purchasing and rehabilitating may be eligible for homeownership assistance resources, provided that the properties meet the strategies outlined above, and are located within a Conservation Area or Rehabilitation District. III. City-wide opportunities for very low income households Very low income households (income not to exceed 50% of area median income) may be eligible for downpayment and closing cost assistance throughout the City, provided that they meet eligibility requirements. PROC, RAM ADmINISTrAtION Program administration and coordination will be the responsibility of the City's Housing Development Office. Responsibility for certain components and activities in the Program are outlined as follows: 1. Pro~ram Outreach and Marketin~ Housin~ Development Office will be responsible for Program outreach. Program information will be provided to participants in Sovran's Community Homebuyers Program. Program information will be distributed through flyers, the Vacant House Catalog, press releases, and through individual property marketing activities, such as open houses and classified advertising. Housin~ Development staff will promote the the Program to local Realtors, mortgage lenders, contractors, churches, and other agencies. 2. Intake/Prescreening/Counseling Applicants Housin~ Development staff and RRHA staff will identify potential homebuyers who may be eligible for the Program. Housin~ Development staff and RRHA staff will provide counseling to identify financing options which could assist eligible potential homebuyers in becoming homeowners. Housin~ Development staff and RRHA staff will prescreen applicants to determine eligibility for available resources/assistance. Housing Development staff and RRHA staff will refer applicants to appropriate lender, office or agency to process Program applications. RRHA staff will process applications for downpayment and closing cost assistance. 3. Homeownership/Maintenance Education Sovran Community Homebuyers Program will provide a homebuyer education course for potential homebuyers. Page - 7 Housin~ Development staff and RRHA staff will provide course registration information to potential homebuyers. 4. Property Identification/Approval Housin~ Development Office will identify properties that may be sponsored for sale. Potential homebuyers may submit properties which they wish to purchase/rehabilitate through the Program to Housin~ Development staff for approval. Selection and approval of these properties will be determined by the Housin~ Development Office in accordance with Strategies outlined above. 5. Property Inspection/Work Write Ups/Cost Estimates Initial property inspection to determine probable suitability for the program will be performed by the Housing Development Office. Properties will be referred to RRHA for detailed inspections, rehabilitation cost estimates, and preparation of work write-ups to identify required rehabilitation. Potential homebuyers or the sponsored non- profit may select contractors to submit cost estimates and work write-ups on homes they wish to purchase and rehabilitate. RRHA will review such to insure compliance with Program requirements. Property inspections by appraisers, HUD inspectors, etc., in order to meet financing underwriting criteria, or insure that property will meet requirements for approved financing may also be performed by appropriate person, firms and agencies. 6. Negotiation of A~reements Housin~ Development Office will negotiate Option/Purchase Agreements with individual property owners of homes to be sponsored for sale by the Housin~ Development Office. Housin~ Development Office may negotiate agreements for Roanoke Neighborhood Resources, Inc. (or other Nonprofit Organization) in the case of Scenario II above. In properties submitted by potential homebuyers for the Program, negotiation of agreements may take place between individual buyers and sellers, or through Realtors. 7. Marketin~ Properties Housin~ Development Office will market all properties sponsored for sale through the Program. Marketing efforts may include, but are not limited to press releases, flyers, feature stories through the media, public speaking engagements, classified advertising, "for sale" signs, open houses, etc. Realtors will be made aware of the Program to assist their customers who qualify for the Program with becoming homeowners. 8. Loan/Grant Packaging/Underwriting Page - 8 Private mortgage lenders (e.g. Sovran Mortgage, Mid- Atlantic Mortgage) will package (and underwrite) mortgage loans for Program participants who recieve permanent mortgage financing through conventional mortgage programs. Where specific lenders have mortgage, or private mortgage insurance programs that can be coordinated with Homeownership Assistance Resources to provide homeownership opportunities for program participants (e.g. Mid Atlantic Mortgage is only local lender processing FHA-203K loans), those lenders will package (and underwrite) the loans. RRHA may package Downpayment and Closing Cost Assistance applications, VHPF (DHCD) loan applications, VHDA (UHOP) loan applications, and CDBG loan applications in cases where conventional mortgage lenders are not involved in providing financing. 9. Rehabilitation Bids/Repairs Contractors selected by potential homeowners may submit work write ups, bids, and proposals for rehabilitation repairs. RRHA will review such to determine if work identified meets Program guidelines, and reasonableness of cost. In cases where potential homebuyers have not selected a contractor, RRHA will prepare work write-ups, cost estimates, and obtain bids/proposals from qualified contractors for the rehabilitation. RRHA will oversee rehabilitation of properties in the Program. 10. Loan Servicing Participating lenders will service loan products that they administer (e.g. VHDA will service UHOP and VHPF loans). CDBG loans will be serviced by a Mortgage lender under agreement with the City (currently Dominion Bankshares Mortgage Corp.). RRHA will not service any loans made through the Program. 11. Loan Closings/Escrow Agents Private attorneys selected by the Housing Development Office will provide loan closing services, and will act as escrow agent for homebuyer's rehabilitation funds. RRHA will authorize construction draws from escrow agent in accordance with applicable construction disbursement agreements. RRHAwill notify Housing Development Office as rehabilitation projects are completed. 12. Modifications The forgoing Program description is to be considered conceptual. Modifications of procedures and guidelines may be made by the City Manager, based on circumstances encountered, as amendments to this description. Page - 9 ATTACHMENT E OWNER-OCCUPIED REHABILITATION LOA~S PROGRAM GUIDELINES I. Introduction The Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Loan Program is designed to facilitate the rehabilitation of houses occupied by low-moderate income homeowners. In large part, it is intended to address the purpose served previously by HUD's Section 312 Rehabilitation Loan Program as it applied to such borrowers, and to supplement repairs made through the Critical Home Repair Program (CHRP). Funds allocated to the City by the Virginia Depar%ment of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) and to the Program by the City will be loaned to qualifying owners of homes not meeting Building Maintenance Code and Housing Quality Standards (HQS). Loan funds may be used to pay for repairs to eliminate code violations and make energy- conserving improvements. Assistance may be awarded on either single-family or multi-family houses. II. Financing Package Loans under the Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Loan Program will be'in two parts. First, funds for those repairs which qualify as energy conserving according to DHCD's guidelines will be loaned as a 0% interest loan with all payments conditionally deferred. Beginning in the 5th year of the loan, the principal will automatically be reduced by 25%, until the loan balance is eliminated after the 8th year. Second, funds for other repairs not qualifying as energy conserving will be loaned by DHCD @ 4% interest for a 15-year term, up to a maximum total loan from DHCD (including the energy conserving deferred payment loan) of $20,000 per house. If used in conjunction with the Limited Critical Repair Program (LCRP), those repairs considered critical will be financed using CDBG funds allocated to that program to the maximum the program allows. The balance of repairs classi- fied as energy conserving or necessary for the house to meet HQS will be financed through the DHCD-funded loans. III. Marketing and Application Procedures As of July 1, 1990, there was approximately $82,000 available to the Program. Some of this may to be used in conjunction with the CHRP in FY 1989-90. However, some may be used otherwise to repair homes of low-moderate income owners not participating in the CHRP or other programs. The RRHA, with the assistance and approval of the City, shall use prudent discretion in publicizing the availability of the limited amount of funds remaining after completion of the 1990-91 CHRP. The RRHA may offer the Program to those Page 2 applying for but not receiving assistance from the CHRP. Due to the necessity of coordinating these funds with other programs of the City, the RRHA will keep the City closely informed of applications received, and status of their processing, and whether the proposed project is single- family or multi-family. IV. Eligibility Determination Borrowing homeowners must be of low-moderate income (not exceeding 80% of the area median income established by HUD). Houses assisted may be either single-family or multi-family, as long as the owner occupies one of the units. At a minimum, applicants for rehabilitation financing from DHCD must meet the underwriting criteria of FHA Title I Property Imprqvement Loans and other requirements established by DHCD for their financing. V. Biddinq Competitive bidding of the rehabilitation work will be strongly encouraged but will not be required. If bidding is to occur, it will be arranged and overseen by the Rehabilitation.Specialists of the RRHA. VI. Loan Packaging and Underwriting The RRHA will perform the loan packaging, including requesting credit reports, appraisals, title reports, determining debt-to-income ratios, etc., as required by DHCD and the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA). Upon completion of the loan packaging, the RRHAwill ship the package to VHDA for their review and approval. (As soon as acceptable to DHCD and/or VHDA and the RRHA, approval of the State's loan maybe given locally by the RRHA, without sending to VHDA/DHCD for approval.) The total of all indebtedness against the property, i.e. any existing mortgages and the rehabilitation loan, may not exceed 100% of the pre-rehab tax assessed value, or 97% of the after-rehab appraised value based on the work write-up. The rehabilitation loan under this Program will be in no less than second position as a deed of trust, except in special circumstances approved case-by-case by DHCD/VHDA. VII. Loan Closing Upon approval of the loan, the rehabilitation loan from DHCD/VHDA will be closed by the RRRA. No origination fee is expected to be charged to the borrower, but payment by the borrower of other costs will be expected as incurred, e.g. cost of ordering credit report, appraisals, etc. This Page 3 procedure is followed for other loans made by the RRHA. of these costs may be financed in the loan however. VIII. Loan Disbursement Most Rehabilitation funds will be drawn from DHCD and placed in an escrow account with the attorney closing the loan for the Program, or directly with the RRHA. According to the disbursement agreement construction schedule set with the rehabilitation contractor and the borrowing homeowner, a series of draws from this account will be made as the contractor and Rehabilitation Specialist from the RRHA jointly determine that specific stages of completion are reached. IX. Loan Servicing Ail rehabilitation loans will be serviced by VHDA. Borrowers who become delinquent in their payments to VHDA may be counseled individually by the RRHA's Housing Counselor. Ail borrowers will be encouraged to participate in a training course, coordinated by the Housing Counselor in consultation with the City Housing Development Office, concerning majQr aspects of homeownership such as housekeeping and budgeting, but concentrating on on-going and preventive maintenance and repair. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COUNSELING AND SERVICES ATTACHMENT F In recognition of the immediate and long-term value of housing education and information, and the guidance many citizens need to improve or maintain their housing status, the City and the RRHA cooperatively shall provide advice and counseling to the public, including individuals, families, and groups, concerning housing concerns. Such assistance and services shall include but not be limited to the following: a. Assistance to tenants of condemned housing to find alternative shelter; b. Provision of general information concerning provisions of the Landlord-Tenant Act; c. Advice to citizens wishing to buy a home concerning approaches to do so, including finance and repair; Technical advice to homeowners concerning what repairs are of priority, what implications may be if repairs are not made, and ways to pay for repairs; e. Providing basic technical assistance classes to clients of various owner-occupied rehabilita- tion subsidy programs (e.g. Critical Home Repair, Private Rehab Loan Program) concerning implications of homeownership and maintenance, and how to care for the improvements in order to keep the house well-maintained. The RRHA shall make arrangements to provide some of these services in conjunction with Building Maintenance Code Enforcement activities of the City. When the City finds it necessary to cite Building Maintenance Code violations on a rental property, the tenants may be referred to the RRHA for assistance and counseling regarding alternatives. Such an approach will require close coordination between the City's Housing Development Office and the RRHA. As part of the strategic counseling and education activity, the RRHA shall cooperate closely with the City and other parties and participate in the design of one or more educational course(s) for one or several different audiences. Such audiences may include: --aspiring first-time homebuyers --homeowners interested in home maintenance --those just entering independently the housing market --recipients of assistance under a subsidy program. as: Page 2 --neighborhood groups and residents --public school students --subsidized housing recipients. Course(s) developed and offered may address such topics --responsibilities and rights of tenants --how to rent housing --preparing financially to buy and maintain a house --basic home alntenance and repair m ' --responsible and profitable management of rental property. The RRHA and the City, in consultation with other parties, shall develop a general plan of courses to be developed or arranged during the year. The RRHA shall cooperate in the preparation of an outline of subjects to be covered, and will share major responsibility with the City for the preparation and execution of a plan for presentation to intended target audiences. ATTACHMENT G Fairfax Avenue Clearance Project Program Description I. Problem Statement or Assessment of Need: One of the few remaining blighted areas of the Gainsboro neighborhood is the 400 block of Fairfax Avenue, N.W. In addition to the overgrown lots and dilapidated houses, the area has become a haven for drug dealers and their clients. The image of the area in general is not conducive to the redevelopment of the Gainsboro neighborhood. The neighborhood organization has been working for some time to get this area cleaned up and turned into an attractive area. Their hope is that, with acquisition and clearance of the blighting structures, the assembled parcel can be sold to a developer who will build townhouses on the site. (See map attached) The property must be bought and small lots assembled into a buildable parcel in order to be attractive to a builder. The Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority already owns two of the lots, and would be the logical entity to purchase the remaining lots. The project, as proposed, would entail the acquisition of eight vacant lots, two vacant structures, and one renter-occupied structure. The tenant would have to be relocated by the RRHA and the three structures demolished. Following demolition of the structures, the area (about 35,500 square feet, or less than an acre in total on both sides of the street) would be graded lightly, topsoil applied, and the surface seeded. By cleaning up this portion of a city block, the remaining, well- kept houses will increase in value, and the owners will be encouraged to maintain their property. Also, by removing the structures, the illegal drug business would have to move elsewhere. Ultimately, it is hoped that new housing will be built on the property. II. Program Objectives: By June 30, 1992, eight parcels will have been acquired by the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, three structures acquired and demolished, and one tenant relocated. B. By summer of 1992, the resulting assembled property will be graded and seeded. Long-term plans involve the RRHA offering the assembled parcel for sale to potential developers. The Gainsboro neighborhood organization will assist in the marketing of the parcel to a developer. When a developer is found, the RRHA will apply for vacation of the lot lines to make the parcel one lot. III. Methods: A. RRHA will have the titles of the lots searched to determine ownership, and the presence of any deed problems. RRHA will have the property appraised by an independent appraiser, and will offer the owners the market value to purchase the properties. C. The Housing Authority will undertake any condemnations, contested or otherwise. D. The tenants or owners, if any, will be relocated from any occupied property. (Only one relocation is anticipated). City Engineering Department will write specifications for the grading and seeding contract, bid the contract, and oversee site work. IV. Evaluation: The project will be a success if within twelve months the blighted properties have been removed, and the resulting parcels made attractive. ATTACHMENT H U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT GRANT AGREEMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SUBGRANTEES (CONTRACTS OVER $10,000) "Section 3" Compliance in the Provision of Training, Employment and Business Opportunities: The work to be performed under this contract is on a project assisted under a program providing direct Federal financial assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and is subject to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 170 lu. Section 3 requires that to the greatest extent feasible opportunities for training and employment be given lower income residents of the project area and contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the area of the project. B. The parties to this contract will comply with the provisions of said Section 3 and the regulations issued pursuant thereto by the Secretary of Housing and urban Development set forth in 24 CFR 135, and all appli- cable rules and orders of the Department issued thereunder prior to the execution of this contract. The parties to this contract certify and agree that they are under no contractual or other disability which would prevent them from complying with these requirements. C. The contractor will send to each labor organization or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, if any, a notice advising the said labor organization or workers' representative of his commitments under this Section 3 clause and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous pla- ces available to employees and applicants for employment or training. D. The contractor will include this Section 3 clause in every subcontract for work in connection with the project and will, at the direction of the applicant for or recipient of Federal financial assistance, take appropriate action pursuant to the subcontract upon a finding that the subcontractor is in violation of regulations issued by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 24 CFR Part 135. The contractor will not subcontract with any subcontractor where it has notice or knowledge that the latter has been found in violation of regulations under 24 CFR Part 135 and will not let any subcontract unless the subcontractor has first provided it with a preliminary statement of ability to comply with the requirements of these regulations. E. Compliance with the provisions of Section 3, the regulations set forth in 24 CFR Part 135, and all applicable rules and orders of the Department issued hereunder prior to the execution of the contract, shall be a condition of the federal financial assistance provided to the project, binding upon the applicant or recipient for such assistance, its successors and assigns. Failure to fulfill these requirements shall subject the applicant or recipient, its contractors and subcontractors, it successors and assigns to those sanctions specified by the grant or loan agreement or contract through which Federal assistance is provided, and to such sanctions as are specified by 24 CFR Part 135. ~qual Employment Opportunity: as amended: Such contracts ~pportunity regulations at 24 construction contracts. Contracts subject to Executive Order 11246, shall be subject to HUD Equal Employment CFR Part 130 applicable to HUD-assisted The Subgrantee shall cause or require to be inserted in full in any non- exempt contract and subcontract for construction work, or modification thereof as defined in said regulations, which is paid for in whole or in part with assistance provided under this Agreement, the following equal opportunity clause: "During the performance of this contract, the contrac- tor agrees as follows: The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and section for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. Bm The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a notice to be provided by the Contract Compliance Officer advising the said labor union or workers' repre- sentatives of the contractor's commitment under this section and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment. The contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and of the rules, regulations and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor. Fe The contractor will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by the rules, regula- tions and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his books, records and accounts by the Department and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations and orders. -2- In the event of the contractor's noncompliance with the non- discrimination clauses of this contract or with any of such rules, regu- lations or orders, this contract may be canceled, terminated or suspended in whole or in part, and the contractor may be declared ineli- gible for further Government contracts or Federally-assisted construc- tion contract procedures authorized in Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulation or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law. The contractor will include the portion of the sentence immediately pre- ceding paragraph (A) and the provisions of paragraphs (A) through (G) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regula- tions or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the Department may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance; provided, however, that in the event a contractor becomes involved in or is threatened with litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the Department, the contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interest of the United States." The Subgrantee further agrees that it will be bound by the above equal opportunity clause with respect to its own employment practices when it participates in Federally-assisted construction work; provided, that if the Subgrantee so participating is a State or local government, the above equal opportunity clause is not applicable to any agency, instru- mentality or subdivision of such government which does not participate in work on or under the contract. The Subgrantee agrees that it will assist and cooperate actively with the Department and the Secretary of Labor in obtaining the compliance of contractors and subcontractors with the equal opportunity clause and the rules, regulations and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor; that it will furnish the Department and the Secretary of Labor such compliance; and that it will otherwise assist the Department in the discharge of its primary responsibility for securing compliance. The Subgrantee further agrees that it will refrain from entering into any contract or contract modification subject to Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, with a contractor debarred from, or who has not demonstrated eligibility for, Government contracts and Federally- assisted construction contracts pursuant to the Executive Order and will carry out such sanctions and penalties for violation of the equal oppor- tunity clause as may be imposed upon contractors and subcontractors by the Department or the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Part II, Subpart D, of the Executive Order. In addition, the Subgrantee agrees that if it fails or refuses to comply with these undertakings, the Department may take any or all of the following actions: cancel, terminate or suspend in whole or in part the grant or loan guarantee; refrain from extending any further assistance to the Subgrantee under the Program with respect to which the failure or refusal occurred until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been received from such Subgrantee; and refer the cause to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal proceedings. -3- e Federal Labor Standards Provisions: Except with respect to the rehabilita- tion of residential property designed for residential use for fewer than eight families, the Subgrantee and all contractors engaged under contracts in excess of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for the construction, prosecu- tion, completion or repair of any building or work financed in whole or in part with assistance provided under this Agreement shall comply with HUD requirements pertaining to such contracts and the applicable requirements of the regulations of the Department of Labor under 29 CFR Parts 3 and 5, governing the payment of wages and the ratio of apprentices and trainees to journeymen; provided that if wage rates higher than those required under such regulations are imposed by State or local law, nothing hereunder is intended to relieve the Subgrantee of its obligation, if any, to require payment of the higher rates. The Subgrantee shall cause or require to be inserted in full in any such contracts subject to such regulations, provi- sions meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 5.5. No award of the contracts covered under this section of the Agreement shall be made to any contractor who is at the time ineligible under the provisions of any applicable regulations of the Department of Labor to receive an award of such contract. Nondiscrimination Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This Agreement is subject to the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) and HUD regulations with respect thereto, including the regulations under 24 CFR Part 1. In the sale, lease or other transfer of land acquired, cleared or improved with assistance provided under this Agreement, the Subgrantee shall cause or require a covenant running with the land to be inserted in the deed or lease for such transfer, prohibiting discrimination upon the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national ori- gin, in the sale, lease or rental, or in the use of occupancy of such land or any improvements erected or to be erected thereon, and providing that the Subgrantee and the United States are beneficiaries of and entitled to enforce such covenant. The Subgrantee, in undertaking its obligation in carrying out the program assisted hereunder, agrees to take such measures as are necessary to enforce such covenant and will not itself so discriminate. Obligations of Subgrantee with Respect to Certain Third-party ~e!ationships: The Subgrantee shall remain fully obligated under the provisions of the Agreement, notwithstanding its designation of any third party or parties for the undertaking of all or any part of the program with respect to which assistance is being provided under this Agreement to the Subgrantee. Any Subgrantee which is not the Applicant shall comply with all lawful require- ments of the Applicant necessary to insure that the program, with respect to which assistance is being provided under this Agreement to the Subgrantee, is carried out in accordance with the Applicant's Assurances and certifica- tions, including those with respect to the assumption of environmental responsibilities of the Applicant under Section 104(h) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Interest of Certain Federal Officials: No member of or delegate to the Congress of the United States, and no Resident Commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement or to any benefit to arise from the same. -4- Interest of Members~ Officersor Employees of Subgrante% Members of Local Government Bod~ or Other Public Officials: No member, officer or employee of the Subgrantee, or its designees or agents, no member of the governing body of the locality in which the program is situated, and no other public official of such locality or localities who exercises any functions or responsibilities with respect to the program during his tenure, or for one (1) year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or subcontract, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the program assisted under the Agreement. The Subgrantee shall incorporate, or cause to be incorporated, in all such contracts or subcontracts a provision prohibiting such interest pursuant to the purposes of this section. Prohibition Against Pa~Inents of Bonus or Commission: The assistance pro- vided under this Agreement shall not be used in the payment of any bonus or commission for the purpose of obtaining HUD approval of the application for such assistance, or HUD approval or applications for additional assistance, or any other approval or concurrence of HUD required under this Agreement, Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, or HUD regu- lations with respect thereto; provided, however, that reasonable fees or bona fide technical, consultant, managerial or other such services, other than actual solicitation, are not hereby prohibited if otherwise eligible as program costs. "Section log": This Agreement is subject to the requirements of Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d). No person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color, religion, sex or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds available under this title. 10. Access to Records and Site of Emplo~nent: This Agreement is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 11246, Executive Order 1375, Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Access shall be permitted during normal business hours to the premises for the purpose of conducting on-site compliance reviews and inspecting and copying such books, records, accounts, and other material as may be relevant to the matter under investigation and pertinent to compliance with the Order, and the rules and regulations promulgated pur- suant thereto by the Subgrantee. Information obtained in this manner shall be used only in connection with the administration of the Order, the admi- nistration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) and in furtherance of the purpose of the Order and that Act. -5- MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CIT OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #255-298 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30668-81291 establishing parking fees in the Tower Parking Garage, effective September 1, 1991, or on the date on which the City and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority accept and purchase said Tower Parking Garage and the City assumes the duty of operating the garage, whichever the later shall occur. Ordinance No. 30668-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc.' Mr. Herbert D. McBride, Executive Director, City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations 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 August 19, 1991 File #255-298 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. Stephen A. Mancuso Greater Roanoke Transit Company P. O. Box 13247 Roanoke, Virginia 24032 Dear Mr. Mancuso: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30668-81291 establishing parking fees in the Tower Parking Garage, effective September 1, 1991, or on the date on which the Citx' and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority accept and purchase sa~ Tower Parking Garage and the City assumes the duty of operating the garage, whichever the later shali occur. Ordinance No. 30668-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely,.~. ~ ~rker Mary F. , CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: gd IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 12th Day of August, 1991, No. 30668-81291. AN ORDINANCE providing for the contingent establishment of the fees charged at the Tower Parking Garage; and providing for an emergency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The parking fees in the Tower Parking Garage shall be established in accordance with the following schedule effective September 1, 1991, or the date on which the City and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority accept and purchase said Tower Parking Garage, and the City assumes the duty of operating said Tower Parking Garage, whichever the later shall occur: Element Monthly (un-reserved space) Monthly (reserved space) Short-term parking rates: 1/2 hour or portion thereof 1/2 hour to one hour One to two hours Two to three hours Three to four hours Four to five hours and longer per 24 hours After 6:00 p.m. and Sundays ~ate 55.00 60.5O $ .50 $ 1.oo $ 1.50 $ 2.25 $ 3.25 $ 4.25 Free City Manager may waive short-term rates for City sponsored festival events and holidays 2. In order to provide for the usual daily Operation of the municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect Upon its ~assage. ATTEST City Clerk. ECEP~O.~ A8:36 Roanoke, Virginia August 12, 1991 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Tower Parking Garage Parking Rates I. Background: City of Roanoke and City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority are authorized, under the terms of the Agreement for Real Estate Sale and Fee Acquistion of Parking Facility ("Agreement"), dated November 20, 1989, and executed by the City Manager pursuant to Ordinance No. 29857-12489, to enter into a Parking Lease which specifies, in part, that the City shall determine all parking rents for the Tower Parking Garage in accordance with a separate legal agreement between the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority and Faison Office Roanoke Limited Partnership; the pertinent portion of which is attached. The parties will not enter into the Parking Lease unless and until Faison Office Roanoke Limited Partnership meets all conditions to the acceptance of the Tower Parking Garage as set forth in the Agreement. City of Roanoke representative and Faison Office Roanoke Limited Partnership representatives have agreed, as required in the operating agreement, that "The Open-Space Fair Market Per-Space Monthly Rental" for the first lease year shall be $55.00, subject to the City's and the Housing Authority's acceptance of the Tower Parking Garage. II. Current Situation: mo Monthly and short-term parking rates for the Tower Parking Garage need to be formally established by City Council with the understanding that these rates will only apply providing the City and the Housing Authority accept the Tower Parking Garage pursuant to I(A) above. III. Issues: A. Reasonableness of rates B. Occupancy of garage C. Timing Page 2 IV. Alternatives: Council approve the following parkin~ rates for the Tower Parking Garage: Monthly parking rate (un-reserved space) $55.00 Monthly parking rate (reserved space) 60.50 Short-term parking rates: 1/2 hour or portion thereof $ .50 1/2 hour to one hour 1.00 One to two hours 1.50 Two to three hours 2.25 Three to four hours 3.25 Four to five hours and longer per 24 hours 4.25 After 6:00 p.m. and Sundays City Manager may waive short-term rates for City sponsored festival events and holidays Reasonableness of rates is evidenced by the parking rates charged for the Market Square Parking Garage, which is in the same general location as the Tower Parking Garage. The recommended short-term parking rates are very similar to the short-term rates charged at the Market Square Parking Garage, and the recommended un-reserved monthly parking rate is only $5.00 more than the rate charged at the Market Square Parking Garage. The recommended reserved monthly parking rate (at 110 percent of the un-reserved monthly parking rate) is also reasonable. The ratio of charge for reserved to un-reserved is provided in the Operating Agreement referenced in I (A). Occupancy of Rarage should not be affected adversely by the recommended rates as evidenced by the rates charged at the Market Square Parking Garage and the fact that there is presently a waiting list for this parking garage that is in excess of 200 people. Occupancy of the Tower Parking Garage is more likely to be dependent on how quickly the Tower offices become occupied. Timing will allow installation of the appropriate parking rate signs and accounting controls prior to the anticipated October 1, 1991, or earlier, garage opening, assuming the City and the Housing Authority accept the Tower Garage. B. Do not approve the rates recommended in Alternative "A". 1. Reasonableness of rates will not change. Page 3 Occupancy of RaraRe cannot occur until rates are established. Thereafter, occupancy of garage is still more likely to be dependent on how quickly the Tower offices become occupied than it is on th~ specific rates approved, assuming, of course, the latter are reasonable. Timin~ will delay installation of the appropriate parking rate signs and accounting controls until such time as Council might approve rates. V. Recom~nendat ion: It is recommended that Council adopt Alternative "A" and approve the parking rate denoted therein for the Tower Parking Garage contingent upon acceptance of the Tower Parking Garage by the City and the Housing Authority. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH:KBK:afm Attachment cc: City Attorney Director of Finance (b) The parking spaces within the RRHA Garage Space (being of the Designated Number) that will be subject to the Lease shall be referred to herein as "the Parking Spaces". Except as otherwise provided herein, the locations of the Parking spaces shall be undesignated (the "Open Parking Spaces"), it being agreed that tenants under Partnership's leases of the Open Parking Spaces shall use parking spaces in the RRHA Garage on a first-come, first-served basis. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Partnership shall have the right upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice to RRHA to require that the location Of up to twenty-five percent (25%) of the Parking Spaces be reserved (the "Reserved Parking Spaces") for the exclusive use Of Partnership or its designees. Section 2. Term (a) This Lease shall commence on the date ("the Commencement Date") on which the REA is recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of City ("the Clerk's Office'). This Lease shall terminate upon the termination of the REA. (b) "Lease Year", as used herein, shall mean the period of twelve calendar months starting on the Commencement Date (or, if the Commencement Date is other than the first day of a calendar month, the period of time from the Commencement Date until the first day of the. calendar month immediately following the Commencement Date plu~ the subsequent twelve-month period), and each subsequent twelve month period. Section 3. Rent. (a) Partnership shall pay all rent and other charges reserved hereunder in advance, without offset, abatement, counterclaim or deduction, and without previous demand therefor. Such charges shall be paid to City at the address set forth in Sectio~ 8 hereof for as long as the Operating Agreement is in effect. Upon notice to Partnership that the Operating Agreement has terminated, partnership shall pay such charges to RRHA at the address set forth in Section 8 hereof. (b) Partnership covenants and agrees to pay for the Parking Spaces, and ~ hereby reserves, monthly rental ("the Rent") equal to the sum of the Open Space Fair Market Per-Space Monthly Rental multiplied by the Designated Number of Open Parking Spaces plus the Reserved Space Fair Market Per-Space Monthly Rental multiplied by the Designated Number of Reserved_ ~arking Spaces. The Open Space Fair Narket Per-Space Monthly\ [Rental for the first Lease Year and for each subsequent Lease I I Year shall mean the fair market rental of an unreserved parking I ~ space in a structured parking garage in the area o£ City in whic~ I ~ the Parking Spaces are located and at the time of theJ ~ommencement of such Lease Year; provided, however, that in no ~-event shall the par-space Rent paid by the Partnership hereunder exceed or be less than the lowest monthly rental rate (the -3- "Actual Open Space Rate") actually charged members of the general public (to wit: anyone other than an elected official or representative, or employee of City or RRHA) by RRHA or City for any unreserved parking space in the Parking Garage inclusive Of any and all rebates, credits or other incentives offered with respect to any unreserved parking space in the Parking Garage. The Reserved Space Fair Market Per-Space Monthly Rental for the first Lease Year and for each subsequent Lease Year shall mean one hundred ten percent (110%) of the Open Space Pair Market Per- Space Monthly Rental applicable to that Lease Year; provided however, that in no event shall the per-space Rent paid by the Partnership hereunder exceed or be less than the lowest monthly rental rate (the "Actual Reserved Space Rate") actually charged members of the general public (as defined above) by RRHA or City for any reserved parking space in the Parking Garage inclusive of any and all rebates, credits or other incentives offered with respect to any reserved parking space in the Parking Garage. Reductions in the applicable "Actual Open-Space Rate" and/or "Actual Reserved Space Rate" shall be reflected in the Rent due from the Partnership herein for the calendar month immediately following the calendar month in which the Actual Rate was reduced. The Open-Space Fair Market Per-Space Monthly Rental for the first Lease Year shall be Dollars. RRHA shall determine, and shall give Partnership notice of, the. Fair Market Per-Space Monthly Rental for each subsequent Lease Year no later than two months prior to the commencement of such Lease Year. (c) The Rent shall be payable in advance in equal monthly installments. If the Commencement Date shall be other than the first day of a calendar month, the Rent for the partial month between the Commencement Date and the first day of the following calendar month shall be prorated on the basis of a thirty (30) day month. (d) Subject to the provisions of this subparagraph, the Rent shall be net of any sales tax, use tax or other tax imposed on the Rent. If any such tax is imposed by federal, state, or local authorities, Partnership shall pay such tax ~n addition to the Rent reserved herein at the same time and in the same manner as the Rent provided (1) the City and RRHA pass such tax through to all occupants or users of parking spaces in the Parking Garage that are not included within the Parking Spaces, and (2) a majority of the owners and operators of other structured parking garages located in the area of City in which the Parking Spaces are located in fact pass through such tax to their customers so that Partnership is not at a competit..ve disadvantage in trying to lease the Parking Spaces to its tena~ts and others. Section 4. Hours of Operation. The Parking Spaces shall be held available for the use of Partnership twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week throughout the term of this Lease. -4- 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 August 19, 1991 File #60-67 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30669-81291 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 Capital Fund Appropriations, transferring $8,300.00 from Capital Improvement Reserve, Streets and Bridges, to Norwich Park Path Improvements, in connection with a contractual agreement to be entered into by the City Manager with L. H. Sawyer Paving Company, Inc., for path improvements to Norwich Park. Ordinance No. 30869-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, /~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and Public Safety Mr. Gary N. Fenton, Manager, Parks and Recreation Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Ms. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROI~OKE, VIRGINIA The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30669-81291. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1991-92 Capital Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Roanoke that certain sections of the Appropriations, be, and the reordained to read as follows, same are in part: Council of the City of 1991-92 Capital Fund hereby, amended and Parks and Recreation Norwich Park Path Improvements (1) ................ Capital Improvement Reserve Capital Improvement Reserve (2) ................... $ 800,300 8,300 (7,614,292) 678,338 1) Appropriations from General Revenue 2) Streets and Bridges (008-050-9635-9003) $ 8,300 (008-052-9575-9181) (8,300) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. RECEIVEO CITY CLEP? OFF!CE AUG -7 ~1:58 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Bid Committee Report Norwich Park Path Improvements for City of Roanoke Roanoke, Virginia Roanoke, Virginia August 12, 1991 I concur with the recommendations of the attached Bid Committee Report. WRH/DLL/fm Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager Attachment cc: City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Public Works City Engineer Construction Cost Technician RECEFvEO C)TY C) !?,~ CFF!CE AUkS -7 N1:58 ~onorable Ma~or and Members of Councik Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: SUBJECT: NORWICH PARK PATH IMPROVEMENTS FOR CITY OF ROANOKE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Roanoke, Virginia August 12, 1991 I. Background: November~ 1989, an ordinance was passed to close and transfer this street right of way to the Department of Parks and Recreation. It was based on the premise that the area would be improved as a pedestrian way to Norwich Park. Office of General Services, on June 28, 1991, at 2:00 p.m. opened and read aloud bids received for Path Improvements in Norwich Park, Roanoke, Virginia. Three (3) bids were received with L. H. Sawyer Paving Company, Inc., of Salem, Virginia, submitting the low bid in the amount of $7,578.00 and thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. Work consists of preparing and restoring the public right-of-way, which extends from Mountain View Terrace, S.W., along the south- westerly boundary of tax no. 1322109 and Norwich Park, to a standard acceptable for public use as a pedestrian accessway. This includes grading and surface treating a 10' wide path within the right-of-way extending into Norwich Park. II. Issues: A. Compliance of the bidders with the requirements of the Contract Documents. B. Amount of the low bid. C. Fundin$ for the project. D. Time of completion. Page 2 III. Alternatives are: A. Award a lump sum contract to L. H. Sawyer Paving Company, Inc., of Salem, Virginia, in the amount of $7~578.00 and establish a contin- gency amount of $722.00 with thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. Contract is for Path Improvements to Norwich Park, Roanoke, Virginia, in accordance with the Contract Documents as prepared by the City of Roanoke. 1. Compliance of the bidders with the requirements of the Contract Documents was met. 2. Amount of the low bid is acceptable. 3. Funding of this project is available in the Capital Improvement Reserve Account No. 008-052-9575-9181. 4. Time of completion is thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. B. Reject all bids and do not award a contract at this time. 1. Compliance of the bidders with the requirements of the Contract Documents would not be an issue. 2. Amount of the low bid would probably increase if re-bid at a later date. 3. Fundin~ would not be encumbered at this time. 4. Time of completion would be jeopardized. IV. Recommendation is that City Council take the following action: A. Concur with the implementation of Alternative A. Be Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contractual agreement, in a form aproved by the City Attorney, with L. H. Sawyer Paving Company, Inc., of Salem, Virginia, for Norwich Park Path Improvements accord- ing to the Contract Documents as prepared by the City of Roanoke in the amount of $7~578.00 and establish a contingency amount of $722.00 with thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. Page 3 Transfer $8~$00.00 from Account Number 008-052-9575-9181, Capital Improvement Reserve Account, and authorize the Director of Finance to establish a new account to be titled Norwich Park Path Improvements. D. Reject the other bids received. Respectfully submitted, WFC/DLL/fm William F. Clark ~Snead, Jr. Attachment: Tablulation of Bids City Attorney Director of Finance City Engineer Construction Cost Technician TABULATION OF BIDS NORWICH PARK PATH IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CITY OF ROANOKE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Bids opened by Office of General Services on June 28, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. BIDDER BID BOND L. H. Sawyer Paving Company, Inc. $ 7,578.00 Yes S. R. Draper Paving Company $13,728.00 Yes Virginia Asphalt Paving Company, Inc. $24,844.00 Yes Estimated Cost: $9,000.00 Project to be completed within thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. William F. Clark / G~rge (~Snead, Jr. ," Gar~ N. Fenton Office of the City Engineer Roanoke, Virginia August 12, 1991 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE CiTY OF ROANOKE. VA. August 12, 1991 i UG-8 I 9:22 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Status of the Financial Condition of the City of Roanoke - Fiscal Year 1991 The July 15, 1991 issue of "Business Week" stated tongue in cheek "American business and consumers can rest easy now. The White House has declared that the 1990 - 1991 recession is over .... However, don't sit back and put your feet up yet. It's still not clear if the economy's batteries are strong enough to keep the recovery going - let alone power a vigorous one." What does happen when a recession ends?? History relates that there is a modest uptick in jobs - companies usually wait to hire until they have hard evidence that orders are growing. As business starts to improve, workweeks lengthen - production crews earn overtime - and then hiring expands. There is usually a sharp run- up of inflation during the first three to six months of recovery. Short-term interest rates usually rise a little while long-term rates usually move up one to two percentage points, but since rates never plunged to start with, any recovery should not send Treasuries or mortgage rates any higher. Stocks usually lead the way and rally before anyone is sure a recession is over. Housing usually is up and running before the broad economy is. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 12, 1991 Page 2 No wonder all the experts are confused! Nothing is happening like history tells us it would. If there is a recovery, and whether it is weak or strong, it will be the first that is not led by government policy. There is limited monetary expansion to fuel the economy in Washington to provide any fiscal stimulus. We all experienced the tough decisions made to balance the City's current budget. Do we really expect the State's economy to improve so much that the State will be able to provide adequate funding in FY 19937 well, so that the funding in FY 19937 Do we expect the City's economy to improve as City will also be able to provide adequate Based on the fiscal year ending June 30, 1991 and on what we see for the immediate future, I believe the answer to both questions is NO!! This is the fifteenth (15th) year that I have "closed the books" on the City of Roanoke's finances and never before have I found the financial climate to be so threatening. With the cost of doing business rising - and our customer (the public) faced with job layoffs, high debt, social service agency cutbacks, unstable banking environment, higher taxes and fees at all governmental levels, and on and on... the next twelve to eighteen months may prove to be more of the same. I hope I am proven wrong. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 12, 1991 Page 3 Due to City Council's unprecedented decisive actions taken early in the fiscal year, cutting back expenditures and setting a new path for the Administration to travel on, we have ended the fiscal year in the black. Our revenue estimate from all sources within the General Fund for FY 1991 was $153,538,527, while our actual collections were $153,579,251, a difference of only $40,724 or a difference of 0.~$% (three one-hundredths of one percent). Below is a history of actual revenues: Fiscal Year our revenue estimates as compared to Revenue Actual of Est. Estimate Co~ed Collected 1991 $153,538,527 1990 142,769,710 1989 134,070,796 1988 126,565,141 1987 118,553,342 1986 115,757,175 1985 108,932,645 1984 101,078,296 1983 93,036,248 1982 90,477,757 1981 89,195,401 1980 84,798,168 1979 79,145,325 $153,579 251 144,287 606 138,480 460 129,885 334 119,797 842 115,900 340 108,816 426 103,170 691 95,031 100 91,253.175 89,124.125 84,051.017 78,886285 100.03% 101.06% 103.29% 102.62% 101.05% 100.12% 99.89% 102.12% 102.14% 100.85% 100.08% 99.12% 99.67% Also attached for your review are the UNAUDITE____~D financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1991. These figures are subject to change during the course of our external annual audit. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 12, 1991 Page 4 Per the requirements established in Ordinance No. 26292, passed by City Council on December 6, 1982, setting up a reserve for Capital Improvements and Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement (CMERP), the amount designated for FY 1991 is $1,447,957, the smallest amount available for CMERP since FY 1986. Of this amount, the following allocation has been calculated: Designated CMERP - city Administration $617,202 School Administration 830,755 This leaves n__o undesignated funds at year end. (In order to have fulfilled the objective of Ordinance No. 26292, the sum of $7,603,907 would had to have been available before having any undesignated funds.) This year's CMERP represents 0.094% of the General Fund Budget compared to 1.55% last fiscal year and 3.7% for the year ending June 30, 1989. General Fund Statement of Revenues On page 11 there is a summary of the major categories of revenues and the specific variances between actual (unaudited) and estimated. It also provides specific information on school related revenues which are included in the major categories. Following is a brief explanation of variances in major categories. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 12, 1991 Page 5 General Property Taxes This category includes real estate, personal property, public service, and penalties and interest. The total estimated revenue for this category was $49,116,705 and actual collections were $49,163,955, a difference of +$47.250 or a 0.10% variance (1/10th of 1%). Real Estate collections increased 5.49% over FY 1990 and only $9.082 over our estimate (an undeterminable percent) (See page 15) Personal Property taxes realized a 10.67% increase over FY 1990 due mostly to proration. We collected 100.74% of our estimate in this category. (See page 16) Other Local Taxes This category includes sales tax, utility tax, business and occupational licenses, admissions tax, prepared food and beverage taxes and other miscellaneous local taxes. The total estimate for this category was $38,305,000 and our actual collections were $38,435,539 or a positive 0.34% variance. For the second year in a row sales tax was disappointing and reflected the mood of the consumer. This major source of revenue increased only 1.66% over last year and we actually fell short of our revenue estimate by 1.1%. This is the second fiscal year in a row that sales tax has grown less than 2%, a disturbing but realistic trend in this type of economic environment. (See page 17) Honorable Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council August 12, 1991 Page 6 Utility tax appears to have done very well with a 18.7% actual growth over the previous fiscal year but one must remember that the additional 2% increase for the flood reduction project was implemented on March 1, 1990 and that the additional funds are dedicated to the Capital Fund for that project leaving little growth for General Fund activities. Our revenue estimate again was accurate as we collected 100.89% of our estimate in this entire category. (See page 18) Business Licenses continue to perform well showing a small but steady growth of 4.87% over last fiscal year and exceeded our estimate by 2.48%. (See page 19) Our prepared food and beverage tax was very sluggish showing only a 0.43% growth over last fiscal year and falling short of our estimate by 2.17% - again showing the mood of the consumer and a full year of the closing of the Hotel Roanoke which not only affected direct taxes from the Hotel itself, but the direct spinoff the Hotel had to downtown restaurants. (See page 20) Admissions tax grew only 0.12% and fell short of our estimate by 1.33% (See page 21) and Motor Vehicles Licenses had its smallest growth for the past three fiscal years of only .38% but exceeding our revenue estimate by 1.38%. (See page 22) Transient Room tax fell a dramatic 10.3% under our revenue estimate, again showing the impact of the closing of the Hotel Roanoke. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 12, 1991 Page 7 Local taxes are merely a reflection of our local consumers' confidence in the economy and their own financial position. They appear to be following the national trend. We expect continual limited growth in this entire category in the upcoming fiscal year and we will be continually monitoring this category to see if changes in the trend occur (for the better we hope). Permits. Fees and Licenses This category includes dog licenses and building, electrical, plumbing, heating, and elevator inspection fees. The actual revenue received was 11.2~ less than our original estimate. This reflects the general decline in building related activities common to this type of financial environment. Ail other categories in the General Fund are reflected on page 11 with no significant unexpected variances. ExPenditures Total expenditures and encumbrances for FY 1991 were $157,504,743 which was 1.03% less than City Council had authorized. (See page 12) Many of our citizens ask where their tax dollars are spent. Some interesting figures in the City Administration side of the General Fund Budget are listed below. Sometimes it is very difficult to realize the size of this organization, but hopefully Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 12, 1991 Page 8 as you compare these figures with your own household budget, it will provide you with an insight into the magnitude of our operation. The following are an a~reaate of the General Fund, Water Fund, Sewer Fund, Civic Center and Internal Service Fund: $44,195,165 was spent on permanent full-time employees' salaries with an additional $1,284,939 on temporary wages and $955,722 in overtime. $5,592,139 was contributed to the City of Roanoke Pension Plan per the actuarial rate and $3,439,429 was contributed on behalf of all employees for employer Social Security. Our life insurance premium this year was $389,130 while $684,918 was paid out for Worker's Compensation wages and medical bills. $2,582,070 was the employer's share hospitalization and $143,005 was the City's dental insurance. of group share for · $678,155 was for our telephone bill. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 12, 1991 Page 9 EntermriseFunds A detailed analysis of $3,068,665 was for our electric bill. $283,212 was for our natural gas bill. $472,927 was for our gasoline bill. $1,059,749 was for landfill fees. $445,050 was paid for food for individuals held in the custody of the City. $197,060 was paid for postage. $8,381,700 was our mortgage payment (debt service). each of our enterprise funds will be provided to you upon completion of our current audit. I hope that this brief analysis provides you with an insight of the year gone by. Let me reiterate to you that the figures as related above are unaudited and subject to change. They are being released to you today for Dlannin~ DUrDOSeS only. The audited figures will be available in late September at which time I will report them to you so that you will be able to take whatever actions you feel are in the best interest of our City. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 12, 1991 Page 10 The next several years will be difficult. Difficult because of the demands for services by your citizenry. Demands for lowering the cost of the product and the tough and prudent decisions that you will be asked to make to maintain the delicate balance between services desired and their related costs. I want to sincerely thank all my staff for their professionalism and expertise and the many hours of hard work that so many times go unrecognized. If it were not for them, this information would not be available in such a timely and accurate manner. JMS:s Attachments CC: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney George C. Snead, Director, Administration and Public Safety Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations William F. Clark, Director, Public Works James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Resources CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA GENERAL FUND REVENUES YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1991 (UNAUDITED) Page 11 General Property Tax Other Local Taxes Permits, Fees, and Licenses Fines and Fodeitures Revenue From Use of Money and Property Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth Grants*in-Aid Federal Government Charges for Current Services Miscellaneous Revenue Total Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth State Sales Tax Grants-in-Aid Federal Government Other Revenue Estimate Actual 49,116,705 $ 49,163,955 38,305,000 38,435,539 570,218 506,405 593,000 675,056 1,596,170 1,409,735 54,154,952 54,051,687 1,513,416 1,691,690 6,997,691 7,070,542 691.37~ 574.642 {Under) $ 47,250 130,539 63,813) 82,056 186,435) 103,265) 178,274 72,851 (116.7~3) % of Estima~;~ 0.10% 0.34% (11.19%) 13.84% (11.68%) (0.19%) 11.78% 1.04% {16.88%) 40.724 003% $ 22,239,547 $ 22,710,783 $ 471,236 2.12% 7,502,571 6,872,367 (630,204) ) 8.40%) 1,485,416 1,653,059 167,643 11.29% 2,405.l~45 2__._Z~Q.Q_6~[Z~ (399.170) (16.59%) Total ~ ~ 2~ S( 390.4~} (1.16%) CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES AND ENCUMBRANCES YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1991 (UNAUDITED) Page 12 General Government Judicial Administration Public Safety PubJic Works Health and Welfare Education Parks, Recreation, and CuJturar Community Development Nondepartmental Aooroorlation~ $ 8,728,274 3,407,586 29,112,338 20,271,589 13,813,038 86,618,712 3,900,649 1,174,048 Expenditurea and Encumbrances $ 8,655,107 3,358,963 28,968,360 20,105,524 13,506,877 65,736,711 3,895,976 1,165,003 Unencumbered $ 73,167 48,623 143,978 166,065 306,161 882,001 4,673 9,045 9,610 Percent Unencumbered 0.84% 1.43% 0.49% 0.82% 2.22% 1.32% 0.12% 0.77% 0.08% Total $159.148,066 $157.504~74~ ~ 1.03% CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA ANALYSIS OF GENERAL FUND EQUITY JUNE 30, 1991 (UNAUDITED) Page 13 June 30, 1990 Fund Equity: Reserve for Encumbrances Worker's Compensation CMERP Insurance Reserve Fiscal Year 1991 Revenues Fiscal Year 1991 Expenditures: (Excludes Encumbrances) June 30, 1991 Fund Equity 2,668,282 27,672 2,776,408 1.571.770 $ 7,044,132 153,579,251 (152.093.846) ANALYSIS OF FUND EQUITY JUNE 30, 1991 Reserve for Encumbrances Worker's Compensation Insurance Reserve City Administration School Administration CMERP Total $ 1,296,770 300.000 $ 5,410,897 13,762 1,596,770 (1) (1) Total CMERP Unappropriated City CMERP from FY90 $ 1,508,108 ( 60.151) Total CMERP for FY91 $ 1,447,957 Page CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL MAINTENANCE AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT RESERVE PER ORDINANCE NO. 26292 14 Total General Fund Budget FY1990-91 Deduct General Fund Debt Service Requirement Maximum Designated Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Reserve Amount Designated CMERP 6/30/91 $159,148,066 x 10% 15,914,807 ( 8.310.900) $ 7.603.907 $ 1,447,957 ANALYSIS OF CMERP JUNE 30, 1991 CRv Administri~iqn Revenues in Excess of Estimate Unexpended Appropriations Increase in Insurance Reserve Local Tax Revenue Over Estimate Less: Local Tax Revenue Adjustment (6/24/91) Revenues Under Estimate Unexpended Appropriations Decrease in Worker's Compensation Equity Local Tax Revenue Over Estimate Add: Local Tax Revenue Adjustment (6/24'91) $ 253,430 761,322 ( 250,000) 92,450 ( 240.000) $( 390,495) 882,001 13,910 85,339 240.000 830.755 Total Amount Designated "CMERP" FY1990-91 ~ 1,447,957 Page 15 REAL ESTATE TAX REVENUE CITY OF ROANOKE 10 9 8 7 5 4 3 2 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR A,~R MAY JUN MONTH ~ FY 91 ~ FY 90 ~ FY 89 ~ FY 88 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRG1NZA REAL ESTATE TAX REVENUE HISTORY RECAP FY 1988 - FY 1991 * PROJECTED % TOT MONTH FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1991 YTD COLLECTIONS % VARIANCE BUDGET JUL 122,142.03 92,711.06 108,283.79 109,858.63 109,858.63 123,195.43 -10.8~% 0.34% AUG 659,8.~.63 6~7,483.73 752,717.62 1,000,695.24 1,110,553.87 904,769.19 22.74~ 3.42% SEP 5,065,363.63 5,473,16~.39 5,295,444.17 ?,584,802.39 8,695,356.26 6,941,446.~5 25.27~ 26.81% OCT ?,480,558.20 8,053,896.55 9,464,592.71 7,434,676.63 16,130,03~.89 16,472,293.88 -2.08~ 49.73~ NOV 180,901.32 193,~67.38 186,883.54 40~,218.39 16,53&,251.28 16,686,346.66 -0.91% 50.97~ DEC Z05,021.00 191,286.80 140,459.68 213,62&.29 16,747,877:57 16,890,988.42 -0.85~ 51.63% JAN 93,760.82 142,970.52 112,771.32 89,405.20 16,837,282.77 17,024,235.76 -1.10% :1.91~ FED 81,003.80 446,422.80 726,018.41 373,071.49 17,210,354.26 17,502,109.71 -1.67'4 53.06~ HAR 5,933,492.49 5,291,245.72 6,110,379.67 ?,193,77~.29 24,404,129.55 24,111,096.21 1.22~ 75.23% APR 5,954,8~9.80 7,372,490.01 7,428,663.94 7,728,746.28 32,132,875.83 32,024,290.08 0.34~ 99.06% NAY 78,124.8~ 132,403.69 168,952.66 113,939.17 32,246,815.00 32,168,966.68 0.24% 99.41% JUN 232,458.10 198,813.17 274,392.79 212,837.14 32,459,652.14 32,438,000.00 0.07'~ 100.07~ TOTALS 26,087,512.66 28,226,555.82 30,769,560.30 32,459,652.14 32,459,652.14 32,438°000.00 0.07% 100.07~ (TO DATE) (TO DATE) %INCREASE 7.52% 8.20% 9.01% :44¢~/,=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: (TO DATE) Projected ColLections are based on proration of previous three years date. 15,0 ~3.5 ~2,0. 10.5 ~ 9.0 © := 7.,5. ._.g. 6.0. 4.5 3.0 1.5 0.0. F-Y1988 Page PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE 16 FY1989 FY1990 FY1991 FISCAL YEAR CITY OF ROAII~KE, VIRGINIA PER,~OgAL PROPERTY TAX REVEk'UE RECAP FY19~8-1991 PROJECTED Z TOT FY1988 FY1989 FY1990 FY1991 COLLECTIOII$ Z VARIAgCE BUDGET TOTALS 10,668,665.68 11,691,147.65 12,257,750.28 13,565,327.90 13,~65,205.00 -0.74~ 100.74X (TO DATE) (TO DATE) ~ INCREASE 4.33~ 9.58~ 4.85X :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: (TO DATE) 1.5 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 -- 0.5 -- 0.4 -- 0.3-- SALF-S TAX REVENUe- (1% LOCAL OPTION} CITY OF' ROANO~(E JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MONTH ~ FY 91 ~ FY 90 ~7,7,~ ~' 89 r~'~ FY 88 MAY JUN Page 17 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 1% SALES TAX HISTORY RECAP FY 1988 - FY 1991 NONTH FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990 * PROJECTED % TOT FY 1991 FY 1991YTD COLLECTIONS % VARIANCE BUOGET JUL 930,896.44 922,821.92 954,067.00 AUG 874,383.26 1,088,572.79 977,370.28 SEP 867,3~9.24 962,818.10 853,674.75 OCT 999,082.28 941,6~6.~8 1,031,769.90 NOV 814,2~.12 1,011,279.09 1,116,486.93 DEC 1,063,736.93 998,598.21 8~9,986.74 JAN 1,246,059.93 1,472,857.45 1,5~5,611.7~ FEB 8/*0,387.06 7T6,468.62 82Z,96~.89 NAR 878,933.63 952,228.38 968,115.90 APR 911,767.22 878,866.13 963,062.98 MAY 1,035,568.31 946,785.&6 1,091,307.60 JUN 1,013,698.03 1,006,574.42 922,400.36 1,065,017.15 1,065,017.15 985,201.96 8.10% 8.53% 1,010,351.60 2,075,368.75 2,016,910.19 2.90% 16.63% 1,178,656.89 3,254,025.64 2,958,633.19 9.98% 26.0?% 1,123,766.07 4,377,791.71 4,001,626.57 9.40% 35.08% 987,529.44 5,365,321.15 5,033,955.44 6.58% 42.99~ 896,613.15 6,261,7~.30 6,066,343.88 3.22% 50.17% 1,360,6~6.16 7,622,3~0.46 ?,562,691.31 0.79~ 61.08% 748,761.58 8,371,132.0& 8,420,535.38 -0.59~ 67.08% 1,054,595.60 9,425,727.~, 9,402,752.23 0.24% 75.53% 941,571.8~ 10,367,299.47 10,368,97~.31 -0.02% 8~.07% 938,242.23 11,305,541.70 11,447,468.43 -1.24% 90.59~ 1,028,250.30 12,333,792.00 12,480,000.00 -1.17% 98.83% TOTALS 11,476,164.45 11,959,506.95 12,131,819.05 12,333,792.00 12,333,r92.00 12,480,000.00 -1.17% 98.83% (TO DATE) (TO DATE) %INCREASE 9.7~J% 4.21% 1.44% :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: (TO DATE) * Projected CoLLections are based on proration of previous three years data. 900 UTILITY TAX REVENUE CITY OF ROANOKE Page 18 800 700 600 -- 500 -- 200 -- 1 O0 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEE] MAR APR MONTH FV89 FiS l 8 MAY JUN CITY OF ROANOKE,, VIRGINIA UTILITY TAX HISTORY RECAP FY 1988 - FY 1991 * PROJECTED % TOT HONTN FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1991 YTD COLLECTIONS % VARIANCE BUDGET JUL 6~1,031.61 625,228.97 619,868.18 786,533.89 786,533.89 785,465.65 0.14% 8.63% AUG 6~5,100.51 657,026.66 659,547.28 788,497.52 1,575,031.41 1,602,391.79 -1.71X 17.28% SEP 603,912.10 624,040.1& 631,759.10 800,549.78 2,375,581.19 2,376,856.08 -0.05% 26.07~ OCT 517,117.73 535,756.01 539,257.73 683,025.53 3,058,606.72 3,039,888.53 0.62~ 33.56% NOV 542,011.32 548,1~.20 548,866.95 715,272.58 3,773,879.30 3,722,439.68 1.38% 41.41% DEC 591,4&6o01 586,927.89 637,5:~&.70 771,072.&I 4,544,951.71 4,478,658.45 1.48% 49.87~ JAN 620,732.&3 608,272.45 681,666.48 823,623.03 5,368,574.74 5,27&,344.70 1.79~ 58.91% FEB 610,118.97 587,525.83 606,:~7~. 25 812,119.02 6,180,693.76 6,025,573.83 Z.57~ 67.82% MAR 582,504.43 577,003.93 7',~2,129.36 765,517.99 6,946,211.75 6,809,169.22 APR 538,467.86 550,934.39 69&, 712.97 761,927.&9 ?,708,139.24 7,552,152.01 2.07~ 84.58% HAY 525,700.79 636,471.21 671,225.32 707,054.02 8,&15,193.26 8,315,658.01 1.20% 92.34% JUN 58~, 183.96 597,943.05 732,520.27 778,865.0/, 9,194,058.30 9,113,000.00 0.89~ 100.89~ .............................................................................................................. TOTALS 7,002,327.72 7,135,:~55.73 7,745,350.59 9,19~,058.30 9,194,058.30 9,113,000.00 0.89~ 100.89~ (TO DATE) (TO DATE) (TO DATE) Projected Collections are based on proration of previous three years data. Page 19 5~5 2.5 2 0.5 0 BUSINESS LICENSE REVENUE CITY Of ROANOKE JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FE~3 MAR APR MAY JUN MONTH ~ FY 91 ~;~ FY 90 ~'~-~ FY 89 CITY OF ROANOICE, VIRGINIA HISTORY OF BUSINESS AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE REVENUE RECAP FY 1988 ~ FY 1991 14~TH * PROJECTED X TOT FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1991 YTD COLLECTIORS ~ VARIANCE BUDGET JUL AUG SEP OCT #OV DEC JAN FEB NAR APR HAY JU# 25,275.09 39,411.46 30,094.96 76,774.03 76,774.03 34,536.57 122.30~ 1.05% 16,420.21 20,456.~6 21,775.70 91,280.09 168,054.12 55,908.37 200.59~ Z.29~ 16,294.96 65,408.65 15,506.05 16,076.93 184,131.05 91,329.72 101.61~ 2.51~ 14,021.45 6,7~3.52 44,174.49 20,121.71 204,252.76 114,985.13 77.63~ 2.79~ 66,?33.55 47,109.64 19,960.31 24,928.08 229,180.84 163,558.37 40.12~ 3.13~ 13,222.79 ?,162.93 18,650.90 73,935.28 253,116.12 177,782.57 42.37'~ 3.45~ 1,600,762.55 2o132,739.23 2o128,~78./,~ 2,&32,569.37 2,685,685.49 2o313,703.26 16.08X 36.6~ 3,193o305.95 2,947,146.16 3,556,~,4.43 3,37~,402.64 6,058,088.13 5,847,139.92 3.61~ 82.65~ 123,123.99 124o211.60 108,115.14 167,652.21 6,225,740.3~ 5,976°659.37 4.17~ 84.94~ 84,917.32 6~,088.12 65°935.99 85o397.21 6,311,137.55 6,054,979.92 4.23X 86.10~ 625o526.17 795,269.69 703,221.97 8~6,383.40 ?,157,520.95 6,828,931.43 4.81~ 97.65~ 495,437.65 429o091.87 450,593.5? 354,573.01 7,512,1~,3.96 ?,330,000.00 2.48~ 102.48~ TOTALS 6,274,541.68 6,678,819.33 7,162,951.95 ?,512,0~3.96 7,512,0&3.96 7,330,000.00 E.48X 10~.48X (TO DATE) (TO DATE) ~INCREASE 5.57~ 6.44~ ?.25~ 4887'y,=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: (TO DATE) Projected Collections are based on proration of prevfous three years data. Page 20 450 PREPARED FOODS TAX CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA REVENUE 400 350 300 -- co ~ 250 0 0 c} z: 200 150 1 O0 50-- JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MONTH ~ FY 91 ~ FY 90 ~ FY 89 ~71 Fy 88 MAY JUN CiTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA PREPARED FO~S TAX REVENUE HISTORY FY 1988 - FY 19~1 MONTH * PROJECTED % TOT FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1991 YTD COLLECTIONS % VARIANCE BUDGET JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 0.00 331,203.18 350,816.75 363,979.~8 363,979.48 250,051.11 45.56% 8.39~ 322,335.17 340,101.56 357,654.65 369,674.78 733,654.26 624,050.41 17.56% 16.90% 309,178.90 333,748.79 343,931.96 354,016.35 1,087,670.61 985,865.87 10.33% 25.06% 340,273.15 330,962.28 374,843.56 366,856.40 1,454,527.01 1,372,326.16 5.99X 33.51% 315,721.05 325,583.24 338,939.39 345,426.14 1,799,953.15 1,731,715.97 3.94% 41.47~ 353,974.29 373,492.33 369,288.28 388,374.74 2,188,327.89 2,133,822.67 2.55% 50.42% 288,110.97 296,634.05 317,823.08 322,026.16 2,510,352.05 2,464,734.04 1.85% 57.84% 289,130.50 297,331.38 312,507.22 309,746.18 2,820,098.23 2,794,325.91 0.92% 64.98% 329,966.98 342,043.02 370,565.21 368,759.4? 3,188,857.70 3,176,568.53 0.39~ 73.48% 3&0,260.51 357,146.17 352,193.79 349,519.56 3,538,377.26 3,561,386.85 -0.65% 81.55% 339,686.65 350,834.81 370,580.92 369,654.01 3,908,031.27 3,950,422.14 -1.07~ 90.05% 335,631.61 358,259.63 368,690.98 337,847.68 4,245,878.95 4,340,000.00 -2.17~ 97.83% TOTALS %INCREASE 3,564,269.78 4,045,340.44 4,227,835.79 13.50% 4.51% 4,245,878.95 4,245,878.95 4,.~0,000.00 -2.1TX 97.83% (TO OATE) (TO OATE) * Projected Cottections are based o~ proratio~ of previous three years data. Page 21 ADMISSION TAX REVENUE CITY OF ROANOKE 26 24 22 2O JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV OEC JAN FEB MAR APR MONTH MAY dUN CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA AD#lESION TAX REVENUE RECAp FY 1988 - FY 1991 * PROJECTED ~ TOT MONTH FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1991YTD COLLECTIOgS X VARIANCE BUOGET JUL 13,243.02 14,379.7'5 18,655.39 18,098.65 18,098.65 16,5&0.08 9.42% 10.34~ AUG 14,955.19 19,224.25 24,235.39 20,983.42 39,082.07 37,417.87 4.45% 22.33X SEP 16,996.21 17,365.09 15,162.60 16,913.30 55,995.37 55,118.00 1.59~ 32.00~ OCT 15,349.88 11,333.67 16,197.93 12,099.33 68,094.70 ?0,444.09 -3.34~ 38.91~ NOV 8,444.30 14,117.78 12,133.70 11,756.08 79,850.T8 82,844.5? -3.61% 45.63~ DEC 12,997.91 16,390.08 14,621.21 16,068.34, 95,919.12 98,5T3.71 -2.69~ 54.81% dAN 13,267.90 18,446.59 11,766.51 17,979.02 113,898.14 114,106.92 -0.18~ 65.08~ FEB 11,:8~.42 9,899.21 13,877'.79 11,808.28 125,706.4: 126,638.08 -0.74~ 71.83~ NAR 12,524.97 10,125.56 9,290.36 12,160.21 137,866.63 138,053.9~ -0.14~ ?8.78% APR 8,816.02 10,521.66 11,524.13 13,783.88 151,650.51 149,086.13 1.72~ 86.66~ NAY 11,746.36 11,521.02 14,183.45 11,505.23 163,155.76 162,469.27 0.4:~ 93.23~ dUN 11,909.02 12,301.58 10,849.63 9,523.59 1T2,679.33 175,000.00 -1.33~ 98.67~ TOTALS 151,535.20 165,626.22 172,478.09 172,679.33 17~,679.33 175,000.00 -1.33~ 98.6~ (TO DATE) (TO DATE) %INCREASE -3.4~% 9.30% 4.14% ::::%=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: (TO DATE) * Projected Collections are based on proration of previous three years data. Page 22 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE REVENUE CiTY OF ROANOKE JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN MONTH ~ FY 91 ~ FY 90 ~7/~ FY 89 r~ F'Y 88 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA NOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE REVENUE HISTORy RECAP FY 1988 - FY 1991 * PROJECTED % TOT MONTH FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1991 YTD COLLECTIONS % VARIANCE BUOGET JUL 19,275.30 17,662.10 17,392.40 19,932.50 19,9'52.50 18,201.81 9.51% 1.66% AUG 13,962.00 14,059.80 15,578.80 15,011.40 3~,943.90 32,809.07 6.51% 2.91% SEP 12,703.60 11,369.20 10,547.60 10,407.10 45,351.00 44,407.75 2.12% 3.78~ OCT 10,856.60 10,316.10 13,518.50 10,733.80 56,08~.80 56,030.15 0.10% 4.67~ NOV 8,628.20 8,226.00 8,643.40 8,293.60 64,378.40 64,572.47 -0.30% 5.36% DEC 5,912.80 4,985.07 4,783.00 4,437.50 68,815.90 69,825.94 -1.45% 5.73% JAN 11,397.40 11,025.35 12,114.95 5,636.75 74,452.65 81,396.92 -8.53% FES 11,343.10 9,322.75 9,299.05 5,950.00 80,402.65 91,435.89 -12.07~ 6.70% NAR 8,585.00 5,481.33 5,722.05 5,306.70 85,709.35 90,065.48 -12.60% 7.14% APR 263,699.41 241,9/,9.59 251,309.16 219,095.69 304,805.04 351,6~,.93 -13.33% 25.40% HAy 709,447.26 759,965.35 774,051.65 821,670.13 1,126,475.17 1,103,280.20 2.10% 93.87~ JUN 10~,346.80 95,308.40 89,039.60 90,109.30 1,216,584.47 1,200,000.00 1.38% 101.38% TOTALS 1,180,157.47 1,189,671.02 1,217,000.16 1,216,584.47 1,216,58&.47 1,200,000.00 1.38% 101.38% (TO DATE) (TO DATE) %INCNEASE -0.63% 0.81% 1.88% ::38%=.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: (TO DATE) * Projected CoLlections ere based on proration of previous three years data. Page 23 ~eneral Ord. No. 30089 CMT CMT CMT CMT CMT CMT CMT 30244 30271 CMT CMT CMT CMT 30435 30441 CMT 30475 30494 30573 30574 30588 30592 30609 30612 Contil~gency: Balance July 1, 1990 DePartment Emergency Med. Services Management and Budget Custodial Services Custodial Services Custodial Services Director of Human Resources City Treasurer Management and Budget Commonwealth Attorney Animal Control Management and Budget City Manager Management and Budget City Manager Transfer to Capital Fund Transfer to Capital Fund Personnel Management Employee Uniform Contingency TAP Transfer to Capital Fund Police Patrol Contributions Transfer to Capital Fund Street Paving Transfer to Capital Fund Billing & Collection Srvc. Consolidation Study Expenses Excess Custodial Contract Funds Excess Custodial Contract Funds Excess Custodial Contract Funds Rent for Health Department Filing Unit Consolidation Study Expenses Secretarial Position S.P.C.A. Contract Consolidation Study Expenses Community Relations Task Force Consolidation Study Expenses Community Relations Task Force Old Mt. Road Bridge Old Mt. Road Bridge Employment Recruitment Reclassified Remaining Contingency Subsidy Hotel Roanoke Conference Ctr. Workmen's Compensation VA. Amateur Sports Stormwater Permits Paving Crisis Intervention Center $ 426,895 22,500) 2,393) 5,000 5,000 944 3,100 1,865 533 1,697 6,800 1,273 5,000 1,368 5,000 15,900 135,000 1,400 73,305 40,000 75,000 65,249 10,666 55,134 26,932 34,334) -0- Page 24 CO~INC~NC~ BAL~NC~ l~ OF Jbss 30, 1991 ~ainte----~e of Pi~e4 Assets Balance July 1, 1990 $ 200,000 Ord. No. Department PurPose 30372 30599 30609 30610 CMT CMT CMT CMT CMT Juvenile Detention Home Building Maintenance Street Paving Building Maintenance Dir. of Admin/Public Safety Miscellaneous Dir. of Admin/Public Safety Outreach Detention Fire Operations Security Doors Guardrail, painting, planks Paving Various roofing projects Cover operational accounts Cover operational accounts Cover operational accounts Cover operational accounts Cover operational accounts 9,004) 84,524) 59,813) 46,285) 206) 158) 1) l) 8) -0- Rqui.r~,t Replac~s~nt ContingentlY: Balance July 1, 1990 CMT 30226 30426 30428 30457 30459 30469 30496 CMT 30511 30540 30540 30540 30540 30595 30597 30609 CMT CMT CMT CMT Sheriff Building Maintenance Social Services Grounds Maintenance Refuse Collection Street Maintenance Transfer to Capital Fund REMS City Treasurer Refuse Collection City Clerk City Manager City Attorney Engineering Refuse Collection Refuse Collection Street Paving Miscellaneous Community Planning Refuse Collection Crisis Intervention Equipment Fire Station Alterations Vehicle Street Sweeper Refuse Truck Paint Striping Machine Fire Alarm System Ambulance Personal Computer Recycling Truck Personal Computer Personal Computer Personal Computer Personal Computer Recycling Truck Recycling Carts and Bins Paving Cover Operational Accounts Printer Personal Computers Recreational Equipment $ 600,000 ( 2,000 ( 3,732 ( 12,993 ( 68,700 ( 75,580 (123,375 20,000 40,000 3,599 54,193 20,265 10,380 13,758 6,739 53,106 70,200 14,686 771 1,200 4,428 295 -0- Page 25 GEauu~L 1~7#D A~ OF JUn~s 30, 1991 ( c'ont J.~ued ) ~upple~enta! ~ud~t - ~loyee Uniforms= Balance July 1, 1990 Ord. No.. DePartment PurPose 30475 Various 30475 General Contingency Employee Uniforms Reclassified to General Contingency Supp]~tal Budget - ~-ployee C~eneatio~= Balance July 1, 1990 30514 Various Departments Personnel Lapse $ 89,700 ( 16,395) (73,305) $ 139,713 (139,713) -0- $-0- Total Contingency Balance Page 26 CTT~ OF ]~OAIIQB~ BTAT~8 OF ~ ~ 30, 1991 City School Balance July 1, 1990 Appropriations: $1,667,297 $670,361 Ord. No. DePartment 30210 30248 30261 30295 30308 30309 30323 30376 30380 30449 30525 School Board Cable TV Contract UPS Project Equipment for P/P Proration School Board Law Library - Prior Year Carryover Civic Center Renovations Police Vehicles School Board - Equipment Fire Trucks School Board - Equipment Total Appropriations Unappropriated Balance - 171,700 13,930 - 125,000 - 25,891 - - 13,550 30,704 - 260,000 - 225,000 - - 125,000 926,621 - 360,111 1,607t146 670,361 60,151 ~_~ Page 27 ~IT~ OF ~ ST~T~'~T OF ~ GoreraL Property Taxes Other Local Taxes Permits, Fees, ~ Licer~es Fines and Forfeitures Ye~r to Date for the Period JuLy 1-~at ~0 July 1-d~s~ 1g~9-9~ 1990-91 C~rren~ Fiscal Yeer K-rcm~e Rwi~d Reverme Percent of Revenue of ~ Estimates Estimte R~ivod 4~,067,7&1 $49,163,955 6.72X $ 49,116,705 100. lOX 35,951,/.76 38,435,539 6.91% 38,305,000 IO0.~X 4~,441 5~,4~ 9.~% 5~,218 ~.81% 603,224 6~,056 11.91% 5~,000 113.~% 1,457,789 1,409,7'35 (3.30%) 1,596,170 88.32~ 31,778,240 33,242,884 &.61% 33,633,3~9 98.84~ 23,342,685 24,468,536 4.82% 24,412,834 100.23% 42,7'99 38,631 (9.74%) 28,000 137.97% 2,642,248 3,219,830 21.86% 3,003,046 107.22% 313,&5& 57&,6~3 83.33% 691,37~ 83.12% 1.623.509 1,8~6,038 13.58% 1,588,800 116.06~ TotaL $144,287,606 $153,579,252 6.44% $153,538,527 100.03% Page 28 CITY OF ROANOKE~ VIIIf]INIA GENERAL ]~UH]~ STATEMENT OF EFPEHDITu~ES AND ENC~MB~MICES JudiciaL Adninistrat ion PubLic Safety Pubi ic Works HeaLth and Wetfare Parks, Recreation & CuLturaL Education Non-Oepartnental Year to Date for the Period Current FiscaL Year JuLy 1-,k~ 30 JuLy 1-Jun ]0 Pa-ca~,~age Ur.~-.,~d3ered Raised 1~-~1 19g0-91 of CitanBe Ba~...= Alx=r~riatim~ 8,104,932 $ 8,655,107 6.79~ S 73,167 $ 8,728,274 3,061,714 3,358,963 9.71~ 48,623 3,407,586 25,937,911 28,968,360 11.68~ 143,978 29,112,338 19,595,594 ZO, 105,524 2.60~ 166,065 20,271,589 12,081,882 13,506,877 11.79X 306,161 13,813,038 3,617,435 3,895,976 7.?0~ 4,673 3,900,649 1,251,366 1,165,003 (6.90%) 9,045 1,174,048 63,329,636 65,736,711 3.80~ 882,001 66,618,712 8,378,~7 8,310,900 (0.81~) 8,310,900 6.427.805 3,801,322 {40.86~) 9,610 3,810,932 $151.~.722 $157,504,743 3.77~ $ 1,643,323 $159,148,066 Percent of Budget ~9.16~ 98.57~ 99.51~ 9~.18~ 97.78~ 99.88~ 99.23~ 98.68~ 100.00~ 99.75~ Total 9~.97Y Page 29 CAPITAL PROJECTS F[TI~D STATEMENT OF EXPI~m~ZTURES, ~HCUMBRANCES AHD APPROPRIATZOHS SUMMAI~Y AS OF JOHB 30, 1991 Genera[ Government Educat i on Recreation Streets and Bridges Sanitat io~ Projects Traffic Engineering & CmmJ~icatim Other infrastructure Projects Capital l~t R~erve F-~ituFes Une~eflded 0utste~lin8 to Date Bat ~-.~ F_flcum~-b ..~ Balm $ 5,459,444 $ 1,981,3~r5 $ 7,/.40,837 $ 6,329,518 $ 3,111,319 $ 1,101,025 $ 2,010,294 9,690,126 2,97~,9Z3 12,670,049 8,9~,0~ 3,~3,971 ~39,~ 3,~,1~ ~, 000 132, O~ ~2, ~0 ~5,5~ 126,425 115,332 11, ~3 5,~,3~ 2,4~,~0 7,7~5,213 5,345,858 2,399,355 1,~4,~0 1,35~,655 5,1~,229 1,0~,44~ 6,2~,6~ 5,~30,6~ ~4,~5 132,~2 212,~3 1,305,076 1,305,076 1,065,660 '~9,416 27,~1 211,455 14,555,689 4,072,446 18,628,135 1,837,543 16,790,592 6,131,726 10,558,866 4,145.090 (11.751.082) ( 7~605,g~2) ( 7,605,~2) Total Capital Projects Fund $/+6,258,027 $ 992.969 $ /~7.250~996 $28f110,925 $ 19,140,071 $ 8f993f259 $10,1/r6,817 Page 30 CIT~ OF ~OANOKE MAT~ F~D C~PA~ATI%~ IN~OM~ STATEMENT FO~ xu~ 12 MO~THS ~ugD 4DN~ 30, 1991 Operating Revenue: Comercial Sales Domestic Sales Industrial Sales Town of Vinton Roanoke County Customer Services Total Operating Revenue Less: Operating Exp. Before Depreciation Personal Services General Expenses Pumping Stations and Tanks Purification Total Operating Exp. Before Depreciation Operating Income Before Depreciation Less: Depreciation Operating Income (Loss) Add: Non-Operating Income Interest on Investments Rents Miscellaneous Gain on Sale of Assets Sale of Land Total Non-Operating Income Income Before Non-Operating Expenses LEAS= Non-Operating Expenses Interest Expense Total Non-Operating Expenses 1991 $1,208,493 1,646,125 89,703 20,434 957,362 452.952 4.375.069 906,193 1,953,251 357,987 273.819 3.491.250 883,819 714,397 169r422 142,606 16,542 3,516 485,864 100 648r628 818,050 4.000 4,000 1990 $1,073,689 1,445,792 101,377 45,765 988,926 254,183 3,909,732 849,603 1,827,389 367,282 191,789 3.236~063 673,669 702~619 ( 28,950) 191,555 8,389 8,209 208~153 179,203 10,000 10,000 Net Income $ 814,050 Page 31 Capital Outlay Not Included in Operating Expenses: Pro4ect FC Plana and Specs FY 86 Project Design Edgewood Replacement Falling Creek Plant Rehab. Ph. I Thirlane Road Realignment Total Project Expenditures Less Prior Year Expenditures Total Current Year Expenditures Year to Date Expenditures $ 131,541 12,103 9,007 894,705 103,642 1,150,998 126,137 $1,024.861 Some of these projects are continued from prior years with inception to date totals. Page 32 1991 Operating Revenue: Sewage Charges - City Sewage Charges - County Sewage Charges - Vinton Sewage Charges ~ Salem Sewage Charges - Botetourt County Customer Services Interfund Services Total Operating Revenue Less: Operating Exp. Before Depreciation Personal Services Administrative and Operating Expenses Total Operating Exp. Before Depreciation Operating Income Before Depreciation Less= Depreciation Operating Income (Loss) Add= Non-Operating Income Interest on Investments Miscellaneous Total Non-Operating Income Income (Loss) Before Non-Operating Expenses Less: Non-Operating Expenses Interest Expense Loss on Disposition of Assets Total Non-Operating Expenses 1991 $ 4,270,628 781,800 224,846 856,303 59,835 108,888 13.021 6.315.321 1,392,798 4.282r791 5,675.589 639,732 967,257 327.525) 126,222 94r090 220.312 ( 107,213) 66,800 254 67~054 1990 $ 3,843,046 954,738 304,986 1,387,525 58,140 145,829 17~722 6.711t986 1,303,008 4,013.556 5,316,564 1,395,422 949.252 446~170 219,342 49t881 269r223 715,393 84,375 84,375 Net Income (Loss) S¢ 174,267) $ 631.018 Page 33 SEI~G~ TI~ATM~I~ ~ Capital Outlay Not Included in Operating Expenses: Pro4ect FY 86 Projects Design STP Land Acquisition Roanoke Diesel Engine ~7 Realignment of Thirlane Road Total Project Expenditures Less Prior Year Expenditures Total Current Year Expenditures Year to Date Expenditures $ 36,097 25,721 771,610 34,692 868,120 781t347 $ 86,773 Some of these projects are continued from prior years with inception to date totals. Page 34 ~ REG"rGiiAL AIR,PORT COIQ[TSS?(:~* (X)MPARAT/VE 'I'NCOMK STA3.']~IENT FOR TAUS 12 ~ ENDED ~ 30, 1991 Operating Revenue: 1991 1990 Landing Fees Building and Equipment Rentals Terminal and Other Property Rentals Advertising Commissions Miscellaneous Fees Total Operating Revenue Less= Operating Exp. Before Depreciation Personal Services Operating Expenses Total Operating Exp. Before Depreciation Operating Income Before Depreciation Less= Depreciation Operating Income Add= Non-Operating Income Interest on Investments Interest Income - Airport Debt Service Accounts State Grant for Advertising Federal Grant for Noise Study State Grant for Noise Study Roanoke County Base Service Fee Miscellaneous $ 788,782 181,681 1,215,004 46,777 1,861,513 14,897 4.108,654 1,067,814 1,507,263 2,575,077 1,533,577 1,072f880 460t697 236,040 58,389 15,000 59,217 3,290 264,640 3.430 $ 487,031 162,121 899,175 34,126 1,845,090 37.951 3,465f494 880,261 1,387.841 2.268.102 1,197,392 1,074m729 122r663 222,945 40,424 46,188 264,640 Total Non-Operating Income Income Before Non-Operating Expenses 640,006 1,100,703 574t197 696,860 Page 35 ~ I~GZ(]~%L AZ~ CQ~SS'T~I C~ITZNu.~.z~ Less: Non-Operating Expenses 1991 1990 Interest Expense Bond Discount Amortization Interest Expense 88 Revenue Bonds Amortization of Bond Issuance Expense Paying Agent Fees Noise Study 93,841 $ 100,800 1,078 1,106 542,659 412,081 10,428 10,428 2,304 3,104 65~797 48r619 Total Non-Operating Expenses 716~107 576r138 Net Income $ 384,596 $ 120,722 Page 36 ~ REG~'~(AL AIRP4~T CYM4~SSTC~I ~T#uJ~ ~ap£tal Outlay ~ot Included In Operat~nq gzppn,~aa: Runway Extension ~23 General Aviation Development Total Project Expenditures Less Prior Year Expenditures Total Current Year Expenditures Year to Date Expenditures $ 283,886 23~768 307,654 305,278 $ 2,376 Some of these projects are continued from prior years with inception to date totals. Page 37 CI'VIC ,c~s~x.sK ~ C~01'~PA.RAT I'V~ T]i(~OI~ FOR 3'u~ 12 MO~I'BS ~D ~ 30,, 1991 Operating Revenue= Rentals Parking Fee Event Expenses Advertising Admissions Tax Commissions Total Operating Revenue Less= Operating Exp. Before Depreciation Administrative: Personal Services Utilities and Communications Administrative Expenses Promotional Expenses: Personal Services Services and Charges Total Operating Exp. Before Depreciation Operating (Loss) 8efore Depreciation Less= Depreciation Operating (Loss) Add: Non-Operating Income Supplement from General Fund Interest on Investments Miscellaneous Total Non-Operating Income 1991 $ 404,034 82,646 101,067 2,759 127,938 129.692 848,136 612,502 316,377 1,681,861 65,710 4.423 2.680,873 (1,832,737) 359,537 t2.192t274) 902,620 13,888 574,288* lm490,796 1990 459,174 99,392 181,810 9,220 167,370 162.122 1,079,088 573,070 304,294 709,890 87,536 8,908 1.683.698 604,610) 350,683 955.293) 655,650 43,449 6,277 705,376 Net (Loss) St 701.478) St 249,917) *Significant increase due to reimbursement for fire damage. Page 38 Capital Outlay Not Included in Operating Expenses: Pro4ect Trade Center Auditorium Interior Renovation New Toilet Floors - Coliseum Total Project Expenditures Less Prior Year Expenditures Total Current Year Expenditures Year to Date ExDenditares $ 50,000 259,710 22.422 $ 332,132 78.063 $ 254.069 Some of these projects are continued from FYg0 with inception to date totals. Page 39 CZTT OF ~ C~PA~ATI~ ~ STATEMENT FO~ TH~ 12 ~ ~D ~ 30, 1991 Operating Revenue: Charges for Services Total Operating Revenue Less: Operating Exp. Before Depreciation Personal Services Operating Expenses Total Operating Exp. Before Depreciation Operating Income Before Depreciation Less: Depreciation Operating Income Add: Non-Operating Income Operating Supplement Interest on Investments Total Non-Operating Income Income Before Non-Operating Expenses Less: Non-Operating Expenses Loss on Disposition of Assets Total Non-Operating Expenses Net Income 1991 $7.544.092 7,544.092 4,278,161 2.335.789 6.613.950 930,142 612,425 317,717 25,417 122,581 147r998 465,715 465.715 1990 S6.549r468 6~549,468 3,943,277 2.068.981 6,012.258 537,210 511.814 25,396 158,809 141,994 300~803 326,199 451 451 $ 325.748 Page 40 Capital Outlay Not Included in O~erating Expenses: MS - Furniture and Equipment CIS - Other Equipment CIS - Automated Library Equipment MC - Other Equipment MVM - Other Equipment ULS - Vehicular Equipment ULS - Other Equipment Year to Date Expenditures $ 95,068 42,257 795,204 14,779 10,271 105,202 69,121 Total S1,131,902 Page 41 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CiTY TREASURER'S OFFICE GENERAL. STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE MONTH ENDED JUNE 30, 1991 TO THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: GENERAL STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE CITY TREASURER OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA FOR THE FUNDS OF SAID CITY THE MONTH ENDED JUNE 30 1991. $19,063,482.44 $10~5~2~77.68: $9,948,891.44 GENERAL $18,418,616.84 $11,157,043,28 WATER $2,338,473.30 179,636.45 621,848.92 2,167,130.79 SEWAGE $1,930.747.54 905,995.31 1,202,988.71 ; $~i~,?S4,;i~ 1,529,683.71 AIRPORT $4,166,296.32 304,024.56 384,867.64 $478Si~?4 2,820,112.34 CIVIC CENTER $17,323.05 143,295.25 271,394,.70 ~ ~;~) 611,088.57 INTERNAL S~RV~CE $~,~6,~.50 2~0~5~.~ 450,996,56 ~~ !,670,6!8.75 DEBT SERVtCE $6,378~580.~ 270,122.10 178,625.00 ; ~;0~8~; 6,327,759.76 FDETC $88.959.63 189,837.39 219,498.~ (100,748.~) GRANT PROGRAMS ($566,901.18) 1.732,123.26 1. ~ g2,993.52 ~7~) 2~,131.24 WELFARE $0.00 0.00 0.00 ~: (361,539.95) *Y,OL (Se,a73,a 0.90) 4, s,03s. R~IREMENT ~ sa,ooo.oo o.oo TOTAL $38,531,371.87 $34,629,670.17 $35,452,35g.89 ~;~8;~!5 $35,187,609.03 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE STATEMENT OF MY ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, FOR THE FUNDS © F THE VARIOUS ACCOUNTS THEREOF FOR THE MONTH ENDING JUNE 30, 1991 THAT SAiD FOREGOING: CASH: CASH iN HAND $438.270.01 CASH IN BANK (~,,~J87.~) INVESTMENTS ACQUIRED FROM COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS: CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT UNITED STATES SECURITIES CENTRAL FIDELITY $10.800,000.00 10,800,000.00 DOMINION 15.500.000.00 SOVRAN 11,000,000.00 1 t,000,00o.00 TOTAL $37,708~B2,15 DATE: JULY 15, 199! GORDON E. PETERS. ROANOKE CITY TREASURER Page 42 CITT* OF ~ P~NSIO~' PLaN STA~ OF It~/ENUE ~ID ~ ~ 12 ~ .raug~ ~ 30, 1991 City's Contributions Investment Income Gain on Sale of Investments Income from Bond Discount Amortization Total Revenue 1991 $ 5,755,628 6,994,432 2,057,065 146.639 S14.953.764 1990 $ 5,824,774 6,663,245 1,568,893 269.966 $14.326,878 Pension Payments Fees for Professional Services Active Service Death Benefit Expense from Bond Premium Amoritzation Administrative Expense $ 5,123,498 630,476 41,436 160,878 134,037 $ 4,771,823 568,936 13,868 185,706 171.899 Total Expenses Net Income Year to Date 6,090,325 $ 8,863.439 5.712.232 $ 8.614,646 Page 43 CXT~ OF ~ P~MSXOII' PLAN BALANC~ Sn~'T AS OF ~ 30, 1991 ASSETS Cash Investments= (market value - 1991 $124,236,036 1990 $112,023,258) Due from Other Funds Accrued Investment Income Other Assets Total Assets LL%BILXTIESA~D FU~D BALAN(~ Accounts Payable Total Liabilities Fund Balance, July 1 Net Income Year to Date Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 1991 1990 3,202 $ 6,028 111,888,357 413,569 1,120,471 18,000 S 113.443.599 102,880,140 366,316 1,320,947 $104t573,431 $ 156,440 $ 149.711 156,440 149,711 104,423,720 8,863,439 113f287,159 113.443.599 95,809,074 8,614,646 104f423~720 $104.573~431 Page 44 TH~ CTTT* OF ~ ~',~'.~TO~i PLAN NET G~ZII ~i ~ OF TNVBS~S ~ 30, 1991 05/01/82 Wolf, Webb o7/o1/85 Wedge 06/01/89 ~umulativ~ $12,381,642 3,529,094 2r079m542 Year-to-Date $ 2,342,516 ( 107,606} ¢ 177,845) Totals $17.990.278 $ 2,057r065 IN~BSTMEBT ~TTE~ ~y Page 45 P,~ OF -rum; 30~ ].991 S~rces of Funds: Original Revenue Estimate for Fiscal Year Revenue Estimate Changes: Ord. I~o. Date Rever~e T~oe 30089 06/11/90 30097 06/11/90 30139 07/09/90 30139 07/09/90 30189 08/13/90 30211 08/27/90 30213 08/27/90 302~, 09/24/90 30309 11/19/90 30321 11/~6/90 30322 11/26/90 30333 12/10/90 30355 01/07/91 30376 01/22/91 30381 01/28/91 30416 02/25/91 30~25 03/0~/91 30~3~ 03/11/91 30~, 03/25/91 30~49 03/25/91 30696 05/06/91 30511 05/13/91 30514 05/13/91 30527 05/20/91 30528 05/20/91 30568 06/03/91 30576 06/~/91 MisceLLaneous $ 22,500 Per. its, Fees, and Licenses 50,000 Grants-in-Aid Conmom~aLth ( 52,800) Other School Revenue (special Education Progrm) 674,992 Grants-in-Aid Coeraon~aLth 42,92~ Grants-in-Aid Coemen~aLth 12,000 #isceLLareous (SaLe of GRTC FaciLity) 250,000 Grants-in-Aid Cemeon~eaLth 10,582 Charges for Current Services 11,000 Various - Budget Reduction ( 817,585) Grants-in-Aid Cce~on~eaLth - Personnel Lapse ( 77,697) Grants-in-Aid Coafnor~aLth 14o014 Grands-in-Aid Ceemom~a[th (Special Education Program) 296,720 MisceLLal~eous Revef!ue 2,3/~ Grants-in-Aid Coe~onueaLth 12,053 Grants-in-Aid coemen~a[th - Personnel Lapse ( 42,828) Grants-in-Aid Cone4x~aLth 75,000 MisceLLaneous Rever~e (RRHA Pageant in Lieu of Taxes) 239,77.6 NisceLLaneous Revenue 15,000 SaLe of Property ~1,000 MisceLLaneous Revemue &,976 MisceLLaneous Rever~de 28,512 Grants-in-Aid Coem~w~aLth - Personnel La~se ( 75,954) Grants-in-Aid Coan~q~eaLth 10,570 Grants-in-Aid Camn~q~eaLth ~0,000 MisceLLane~s (SaLe of GRTC Garage) ( 206,826) Other LocaL Taxes 375,000 $152,035,635 1.~:]r, Hd~,L O~iLY - A Page 46 30, 1991 J~ued ) Date 30595 06/24/91 :~0597 06/2&/91 30609 0~/2~/91 30609 06/2/*/91 30609 1~/24/91 Revenue Type Misce{Laneous Revenue Generat ProperLy Taxes-Paving Other Loca{ Taxes-Paving Grants-in-Aid Com~n~ea[ th -Paving 26,86~ 37,800 300,000 200,000 ~8,000) 1,502,892 $153,538,527' Reserve for Prior Year Encumbrances CMERP F~ncl BaLance - FLood Reduction insurance Reserve TotaL Seurces of Funds Appropriations: OriginaL Appropriation Budget for Fiscal year Ord. #o. Date Department Purpose 30051 05/21/90 School Boa~ 30051 05/21/90 School Board 30089 06/11/90 Emergency Medical Services 30089 06/11/90 General Fund Contingency 30097 06/11/90 BiLLings and Coi iectiona 3010~ 06/18/90 Citizens Services Coa~nittee 30109 06/18/90 Oirector of Ht~an 30139 07/09/90 SchooL Board 301~6 07/09/90 Various 30157 07/2~/90 Transfer to Grant Fund Instruction Transfer to Grant Fund BiLLing Services BiLLing Services Bingo Audits AL Location of Subsidies ALLocation of Subsidies Special Education Prior Year Enctan. Local Match $(193,500) 19~,500 &5,000 ( 22,500) 50,000 ~6,200) ~6,200 622,192 2,668,282. 1,056 $152,035,635 $ 2,668,282 2,2?7,507 4~8,750 225,000 $159.148.066 Zm~zu~iAZ.(~IZ.~ - A Page 47 BODG~I' ~I[M, ySTS ~ OF ~ 30, 1991 ( cont:J, nue~d ) No~ .Date Revenue Twe 30157 07/Z~/90 Jail Looa[ Hatch 30169 07/7'~/90 Transfer to Grant F~ Local Match 30169 07/2]/90 Commnity PLanning Local Hatch 30181 08/13/90 coaexx~oa [ t h Attorney Local Match 30181 08/13/90 Trar~fer to Grant 30183 08/13/90 School Board 30183 08/13/90 Transfer to Grant Fund 30189 08/13/90 Crisis lnterv. 30189 08/13/90 Juv. Prob. House 30189 08/13/90 Juveni[e Del. Ho~e 30189 08/13/90 Outreach Detantio~ 30210 08/27/90 School Board 30210 08/27/90 Transfer to Grant Fund 30210 08/27/90 School Board 30211 08/27/90 Comflon~oa[ th Attorney 30213 08/27/90 GRTC 30226 08/27/90 Fixed Asset Contingency 30226 08/27/90 Bui [ding #ai nte~ence 3024/, 09/24/90 Comm)n~eaL th Attorney 302~, 09/24/90 General Futld Contingency 302/*8 09/24/90 Miscellaneous 30252 10/01/90 School Board 30252 10/01/90 School Board 30261 10/01/90 Transfer to Capital F~d 30252 10/01/90 Instruction 30252 10/01/90 Transfer to Grant Fund $( 1,056) 10,006 ( 10,008) ( 20,072) Local Hatch 20,072 Local Match ( 247,742) Local Match 247,742 BLock Grant Reserve 17,711 BLock Grant Reserve 6,~87 Block Grant Reserve 14,92N BLock Grant Reserve 3,908 Local Hatch ( 15,000) Local Match 15,000 School Buses (C#ERP) 171,700 ~ord Processing Equipment 12,000 Buses 250,000 Fire Station Alteration ( 3,732) Fire Statian Alteration 3,732 Secretarial Poai t Jan 12,279 Secretarial Position ( 1,697) Cable TV Contract (Q4ERP) 13,930 VSRS Ret i rea~qt ( 26,38~ ) Local Hatch 26,~8~ UPS Project (CHERP) 125,000 Looa[ Match ( 26,38/*) Local Hatch 26,384 Page 48 30, 1991 (contio~d) ord. No. Date 30271 10/15/90 30271 10/15/90 30295 11/05/90 30308 11/19/~0 30309 11/19/90 30309 11/19/90 30318 11/26/90 30321 11/26/90 30322 11/26/90 30322 11/26/90 30323 11/26/90 30333 12/10/90 30355 01/07/91 30356 01/07/91 30356 01/07/91 3O372 01/14/91 30372 01/14/91 30374 01/22/91 3037& 01/22/91 30376 01/22/91 30376 01/22/91 30376 01/22/91 30380 01/28/91 30381 01/~8/91 30381 01/28/91 30381 01/28/91 303~9 02/11/91 30399 0Z/11/91 Dep~rtment Animal C~troL GeneraL Fund ContinGency SchooL Board La~ Library La~ Library Transfer to Capital Fund Various Oepts. Various Depts. Personnel Lapse Transfer to Civic Canter Social Services Educat i on State & Lacal HospitaLization HeaLth Depar tma~t Juv, DeL. Home Fixed Assets ContinGency SchooL Board School Board PoLice Patrol Transfer to int. Service Fund Transfer to int. Service Fund SchooL Board J~v. DeL. Home Juv. Pro~, House Crisis [nterv. Center Jail Trmsfer to Grant Fund S.P.C.A. Contract $ 6,~00 S.P.C.A. C~tract ( 6,800) P/P Proration (CMERP) 25,891 Roof RepLacement (04ERP) 13,550 Operations (OHERP) 30,?04 O~erations 11,000 FLood R~ti~ CF~ 8aLa~e) 4~,~0 ~et R~ctie ( 017,5~) Pera~L Lapse ( 2~,5~) Personnel Lapse 206,837 Renovations (CHERP) 260,000 Purchased Services 14,014 Special Education 296,720 School HeaLth Nurse ( 19,286) SchooL Nes[th Nurse 19,286 Security Deers 9,004 Security Doors ( 9,004) Local Natch 1,600 Instruction ( 1,600) Patrol Cars (CMERP) 201,927 Patrol Cars (CMERP) 23,07'5 Patrol Cars 2,344 Equil~nant (CMERP) USOA Grant 8,015 USDA Grant 1,579 USOA Grant 2,459 Adult Ed. Grant ( 333) Local Natch 333 Page 49 GENBBAL FU-~D AS OF ~ 30~ 1991 ( cont:inued ) O~cl. No. Date 30400 02/11/91 30400 02/11/91 30416 30416 02/25/91 30426 03/04/91 30426 03/04/91 03/~/91 03/~/91 03/~/91 03/~/91 03/11/91 03/11/91 03/11/~1 03/18/91 03/18/~1 3~ 03/~/91 3~49 03/25/91 03/Z5/91 03/~/91 03/Z5/91 0~/01/91 3~57 ~/01/91 3~59 ~/01/91 3~59 ~/01/91 Transfer to Capital Fund Transfer to Debt Service Various Personne[ Lapse Social Services General Fund Fire Operation Fire Operation Crisis Intervention 8ui (ding $(2~7,850) Crisis Intervention Bui Lding 267,850 Personnel Lapse ( 161,061) Personnel Lapse 118,233 Vehicle 12,993 VehicLe ( 12,~93) Street S~eeper 68,1'00 Street s~per ( 68,700) Auxi Liary Grant Program ( 75,000) Day Care Services 150,000 Do~ntok~ Parking Garage 239,726 OLd Mt. Road Bridge 15,900 OLd Nt. Road Bridge ( 15,900) Old #t. Road Bridge ( 135,000) Old Mt. Road Bridge 135,000 Recycl lng Program 15,000 Fire Trucks ( 255,000) Fire Trucks (CMERP) 926,621 Fire Truck (Insur. Reserve) 200,000 Fire Trucks 295,000 Refuse Truck (75,580) Refuse Truck ~,580 Paint Striping #achine 123,375 Paint Striping Machine ( 123,375) Page 50 BUDGET AS O1~ ~ 30~ 3.993. {cont lnuod NO. Date 30460 04/~/91 04/15/91 30~?~ 0~/15/91 304~, 05/06/91 05/~/91 05/~/91 3~ 05/~/91 3~11 05/13/91 3~11 05/13/91 05/13/91 O5/13/91 O5/13~1 05/~0/91 05/20/91 O5/~/91 05/20/91 30528 05/20/91 30540 05/28/91 3O540 05/28/91 3O5.~0 o5/~8/gl 30540 05/28/91 3O540 05/28/91 Eo~i p. Re~pl ace~ent Contingency Fire Atar~ $(~0,000) Tr~sfer to C~ita[ F~ Fire Ata~ 20,0~ Cont ingancy - Employee Uniforms Employee Unifoms ( 16,395) Various F.~pl oyee Univoras 16,395 General Fund Contingency TAP Supsidy ( 40,000) TAP TAP Subsidy 40,000 Equip. Replacement Contingency NnbuLance ( ~0,000) RE#S N~buLsnce z~,976 Refuse CoLLection Truck and Radios 82,705 Denera [ Fund Contingency Truck and Radios ( 54,19~) Various sa[ar~ Lapse ( 206,624) Contingency - Employee Campsnsation SaLary Lapse ( 139,713) Personnel Lapse Personnel Lapse 272,~8~ School Bosnd Equipment (CHERP) 560,111 Juveni[e Home USDA Grant 7,040 Juveni[e Probation House USOA Grant 471 Crisis Intervention Center USDA Grant 3,059 EmpLoyment Services Purchased Services 70,000 20,265 10,380 13,758 6,739 City Clerk City Manager City Attorney Engineering Equip. Refliace~ent Contingency ~ord Processing Equip. ~tord Processing Equip. ~ord Processing Equip. ~ord Processing Equip. Q~ord Processing Equip. ( 51,142) ONLY - A Page 51 BO1)~T ~ys'r 8 OF dum; 30, 1991 cont. J.aued ) Ord. No. Date D~rtmnt Puneose ]0546 05/28/91 Various ]OSd 05/88/91 Various ]0568 06/03/91 Subsidy to GRTC ]05~8 06/03/91 Transfer to Capital Ftaqd 30557 06/24/91 Risk Management 30571 06/2/*/91 Transfer to Grant Fund 30571 06/2/*/91 dai I 30573 06/2/*/91 Transfer to Capital Fund 305?3 06/2/*/91 General Futld Cent ingency ]057a 06/2/*/91 General Fund Co~t ingency 3057/, 06/26/91 Police Pat roi 30576 06/2/,/91 Transfer to Capital Fund 30582 06/?/*/91 GR?C Operating subsidy ]0582 06/2/*/91 Building Maintenance ]0582 06/2/*/91 Transfer to Capita[ Fund $0588 06/26/91 Co~tributiens 30588 06/2/*/91 Genera[ Fund Contingency 30588 06/2&/91 Misc. Refunds 30592 06/2/*/91 Misc. Refunds ]0592 06/2/*/91 Genera t Fund Contingency ]0592 06/2/*/91 Transfer to Capital Fund 3059~ 06/2/*/91 Police Patrol 3059~ 06/2/*/91 Fire Operations 3059~ 06/2/*/91 Street Maint. 3059~ 06/2/*/91 Bui [ding Naint. ReaLLocatie~ of ClS ReaLLocatien of ClS Loca[ Match for Grant Local Natch for Grant Claims (Ins. Reserve) Grant Local Match Grant Local Match Conference Center Study Conference center study Ce~pensat ion Coe~peneat i on Flood Reduction Undergro~xt Tank Removal Underground Tank RmovaL U~derground Tank Re~ovel VA. Aaateur Sports VA. A~ateur Sports VA. Aeateur Sports NPDES Pereit #lCq)E S Permit #PDES Penei t Interfund Services Interfund Services 277,229 277,229) 250,000) 43,17/* 25,000 26,107 26,107) 75,000 75,000) 65,269) 65,2/*9 375,000 ~8,001) 29,000) 77,001 30,000 10,666) 19,334) 53,~7) 55,1~) 108,581 15,000) 12,000) 33,000) 13,000) Page 52 A~ OfF ,~u~ 30, 1991 ( ~ont: ~nu~cl ) 30594 06/24/91 Gr~s Naint. 3~ ~/2~/91 Ref~e CoL Lect{~ 3~ ~/24/91 Ref~e Co~ l~t~ 3~97 ~/24/91 Ref~e CoL t~ti~ c~t i ~cy 3~3 ~/24/91 N~-~rt~tat 3~03 06/24/91 N~-~rt~nta[ 3~03 06/2~/91 Varies O~rt~ts 3~ 06/~4/91 Fix~ Asset 3~ ~/Z~/91 Street Paving 3~10 ~/~&/91 FiX~ Asset C~ti~y 3~12 06/2~/91 Tr~fer to C~ital F~ Purpose Interft~d Services $( 4,000) Interfund Services 77,000 RecycLing Equipment 79,970 RecycLing Equil:relent ( 53,106) RecycLing Equipment 1~,000 RecycLing Equipment ( 70,200) Guard Raits 84,524 Guard Raits ( 8~,524) Workmen, s coep. #edicaL (28~,552) Workman, s comp. Wages (300,000) Unemployment Wages ( Termination Leave Wages ( 78,261 ) Distribution of Frfnges 696,813 SaLary Lapse (17~,39~) Paving ( 26,932) Paving ( 59,813) Paving ( 14,686) Paving ( 47,699) Paving 773,524 Roof #aint chance 46,285 Roof #aintermnce ( Crisis Intervention gui tding ( 34,334) Crisis I nterve~t ion Bui tdin9 34.334 7.112,431 $159,1~8,066 Budget Excess (Deficit) IN~'[I~N~L OllLy -- A Page 53 CAPXTAL p~Od-~,CT~ ~ CAP?TAL LMPI%OVEM~NT I~,,~W, Kq'E BALANC~ JDNB 30, 1991 30602 Balance July 1, 1990 Close out completed projects $(3,593,587) 243,716 30167 30164 30175 30197 30201 30231 30231 30231 30253 30261 30273 30280 30368 30382 30395 30417 30495 30498 30500 30525 30549 30542 30592 Transfers Statesman Industrial Park 2nd Street/Gainsboro Road Hemlock Hills Storm Drain Roanoke River Flood Reduction Hollins Road Storm Drain Franklin Road Widening Peters Creek Extension Brandon Avenue Widening 2nd Street/Gainsboro Road Thirlane Road Luck Avenue Storm Drain Peters Creek Floodproofing Crystal Spring School Peters Creek Floodproofing Improvements 7 Parks Campbell/Patterson Land Storm Drain Cross Connectiong Peters Creek/Meadowbrook 460 Fire Station School Renovation 2nd Street/Gainsboro Road Franklin Road Widening Stormwater Discharge Permit 310,000 1,758 104,915 617,024 427,643 70,000 10,000 10,000 33,324 598,600 147,990 150,000 13,985 300,000 132,000 2,000 32,534 35,000 209,532 925,000 2,686 49,624 72,506 Balance as of June 30, 1991 $(7,605,992) Page 54 CAPITAL PROJECTS FDHD C2~P'I'TAL /MP~ ~ BALANCE d-OHK 301, 1991 (continued) ~£~t~ frcm Gene~al ._F~v~ueH Buildings Storm Drain Future Flood Reduction FYg0 Revenue Adjustment Streets and Bridges ADDroDr£atione $ 55,757 $ 26,191 1,775,059 1,183,912 817,024 817,024 926,183 926,183 - ( 65,925) 3,574,023 2.887,385 Balance 29,566 591,147 65,925 686,638 Public I~v.e~ent Ser es 1988 Parks schools Streets and Bridges Storm Drains AD~ro~riat£ons Transfers $ 750,000 $ 360,000 3,525,000 3,525,000 1,500,000 1,207,378 4.225,700 4,075,285 10.000.700 9,167,663 Balance $ 390,000 292,622 150,415 833,037 $15,250,~ l~hlic Im~rov--~ut Bonds Schools Storm Drains $6,800,~ T~r Bonds Tower Project A~DroDriatione Transfers Balance $ - $ 1,863,677 $ (1,863,677) - 461.990 ( 461,990) - 2,325,667 (2,325.667) A~Droor£ations Transfers - 6,800,000 - 6,800.000 S13.574.723 S21.180.715 Balance (6,800,000) (6,800.000) Balance $ (7,605.992) Page 55 O~d. No. 30500 30536 Balance July 1, 1990 Interest Earned 460 Fire Station Tower Streetscape ( 138,365.00) ( 390.759.00) Balance Available June 30, 1991 $( 8,102.45) 1,369,361.81 ( 529,124.00) $ 832,135.36 ~r~ (~LY - C Noel C. Taylor Mayor Howard E. Musser Vice-Mayor CITY OF ROANOKP,TY ...... AUG-7 0:55 CITY COUNCIL 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 '(~ Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 Council Members: David A. Bowers Elizabeth T Bowles Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr James G. Harvey, II William White, Sr. August 1, 1991 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Annual Report of the Audit Committee of Roanoke City Council Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen: The purpose and function of the Audit Committee as stated in the City Code at Chapter 2-298(b) is: "The audit committee shall act in an advisory capacity to the council, the municipal auditor, the director of finance and the city manager in matters relating to the city's financial records and to that end shall have the right to have immediate access to all records and reports relating to financial matters and transactions of the city or of matters and things affecting such financial records. The council, any member thereof, the municipal auditor, the director of finance and the city manager shall have the right to consult with and seek the advice of the audit committee on matters relating to the city's financial records, but neither the committee nor any member shall have authority to act for or to bind the city council, unless expressly authorized so to do by ordinance or resolution of the council.', During the year ended June 30, 1991, the committee held 3 regular meetings. Each member's attendance was: Member Meetinqs Attended Meetings Absent Elizabeth T. Bowles 3 0 David A. Bowers 3 0 Beverly T. Fitzpatrick 2 1 Howard E. Musser 2 1 Noel C. Taylor 1 2 James G. Harvey, II 3 0 William White, Sr. 3 0 Annual Report -2- August 1, 1991 The the year: o o o o o o following is a summary of the committee's activity during Reviewed and concurred with the annual plan presented by Peat Marwick Reviewed and concurred with the Municipal Auditor's annual audit plan. Reviewed the independent accountant's reports with repre- sentatives from Peat Marwick and City officials. Reviewed the internal audit reports with the Municipal Auditor and City officials. Advised the Council on the actions needed to implement the matters considered at the committee's meetings. Furnished a copy of the minutes of each committee meeting to city Council and City officials. I ask that this report be made a part of the Council agenda for August 12, 1991 under reports of committees. If any of you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best personal regards to each of you. Sincerely, Chairman, Audit Committee MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKF. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue. S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Vh-g~ia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #255-298-55 SANDRA H. EAKIN Depur/City Clerk Mr. Stephen A. Mancuso Greater Roanoke Transit Company P. O. Box 13247 Roanoke, Virginia 24032 Dear Mr. Maneuso: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30670-81291 accepting the bid of the Greater Roanoke Transit Company made to the City for management and operation of the Tower and Downtown East Parking Garages, for the total base bid price of $113,720.00, and rejecting all other bids made to the City. Resolution No. 30670- 81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations Mr. Robert H. Bird, Municipal Auditor IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30670-81291. VIRGINIA A RESOLUTION accepting the bid of the Greater Roanoke Transit Company made to the City Tower and Downtown East bids made to the City. for the management and operation of the Parking Garages and rejecting all other BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The bid of the Greater Roanoke Transit Company made to the City offering to manage and operate the Tower and Downtown East Parking Garages meeting all of the City's specifications and requirements therefor, for the total base bid price of $113,720.00, which bid is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, is hereby accepted. 2. The City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, in form approved by the City Attorney, an appropriate contract for such services as more particularly set forth in the report to this Council dated August 12, 1991. 3. services Any and all o.ther bids made to the City for the aforesaid are hereby rejected and the City Clerk is directed to notify each such bidder and express to each the City's appreciation for such bid. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia August 12, 1991 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Bid Connnittee Report; Management and Operation of Tower Parking Garage and Downtown East Parking Garage I. Background: mo Legal agreements between the City of Roanoke and the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority obligate the City of Roanoke to manage and operate the Tower and Downtown East parking garages. These legal agreements provide, in part, the City of Roanoke with the right, at its option, to contract with independent contractors for the purpose of fulfilling this obligation. Solicitation of bids for the management and operation of the parking garages by an independent contractor was properly advertised on May 26 and 27, 1991, and a pre-bid conference was held on June 13, 1991. Cit~ Council received, opened and read five bids for the management and operation of the parking garages on July 8, 1991. Do Bids were referred to the undersigned Bid Committee for review and report back to Council. II. Current Situation: Ao Bids consist of a separate bid for each garage and a combined bid for both garages; a tabulation of which is attached. B. Formal action regarding the bids is needed from Council. III. Issues: A. Bid compliance B. Strength of bid proposals Page 2 IV. C. Amount of low bid D. Timin~ Alternatives: A. Award a combined bid to the Greater Roanoke Transit Company for the management and operation of the Tower and Downtown East parking garages in accordance with the bid documents for a total base bid amount of $113,720.00 and authorize the execution, by the City Manager, of the appropriate agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. Bid compliance with the requirements of the bid documents was met by all bidders. Strength of bid proposals, as evidenced by the bidders' responses to the non-monetary evaluation criteria, were extremely competitive. Each of the bidders adequately demonstrated their ability to provide the services desired. Amount of low bid is acceptable. The portion of the bid amount relating to the Tower parking garage is within the amount budgeted for the remainder of this fiscal year. Timing will permit operation of the Tower garage upon its October 1, 1991 anticipated completion date or earlier. Do not award a bid for the management and operation of the Tower and Downtown East parking garages. Bid compliance with requirements of the bid documents will not change. 2. Strength of bid proposals will not change. Amount of low bid will not change, at least until October 7, 1991; the end of the 90 day period during which bids may not be withdrawn without penalty. Timin~ will delay operation of the parking garages until such time as Council might choose otherwise. V. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Alternative "A" which is to award a combined bid to the Greater Roanoke Transit Company for the management and operation of the Tower and Downtown East parking garages in accordance with the bid documents for the total Page 3 base bid amount of $113,720.00, and authorize the execution, by the City Manager, of the appropriate legal agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. BID COMMITTEE: Respectfully~~~Cha/i~submitted' ~ , William White, Sr., rman Kit B. Kiser William F. Clark KBK:afm Attachment cc: City Attorney Director of Finance Municipal Auditor RECEIVED CITY CL ?,.~:S '91 ~-7 A9:25 Roanoke, Virginia August 12, 1991 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: I concur in the Bid ComMittee's recommendation for the Management and Operation of the Tower Parking Garage and the Downtown East Parking Garage. WRH:KBK:afm Attachment cc: City Attorney Director of Finance Municipal Auditor Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKI OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 23, 1991 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. Jeffrey S. Okyle Executive Vice President Century Parking, Inc. 3200 Wilshire Boulevard 14th Floor - North Tower Los Angeles, California 90010-1300 Dear Mr. Okyle: The contract for management and operation of the Tower and Downtown East Parking Garages having been awarded to the Greater Roanoke Transit Company, I am returning your cashier's cheek deposited with your bid. Please sign the enclosed receipt and return same to me for my files. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd Enclosure CERTIFIED MAIL MARY F. P3.RI~.R City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKF. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #255-298-55 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. Jeffrey S. Okyle Executive Vice President Century Parking, Inc. 3200 Wilshire Boulevard 14th Floor - North Tower Los Angeles, California 90010-1300 Dear Mr. Okyle: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30670-81291 accepting the bid of the Greater Roanoke Transit Company made to the City for management and operation of the Tower and Downtown East Parking Garages, for a total base bid price of $113,720.00, and rejecting all other bids made to the City. Resolution 30670-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. On behalf of the Members of the Roanoke City Council, I would Like to express appreciation for submitting your bid for management and operation of the two parking garages. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: gd 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 August 23, 1991 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. Jerry F. Billiter Vice President - Marketing National Garages, Inc. 550 West Fort Street Detroit, Michigan 48226 Dear Mr. Billiter: The contract for management and operation of the Tower and Downtown East Parking Garages having been awarded to the Greater Roanoke Transit Company, I am returning your cashier's check deposited with your bid. Please sign the enclosed receipt and return same to me for my files. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd Enclosure CERTIFIED MAIL MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITer OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, V'wginJa 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File # 255-298-55 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. Jerry F. Billiter Vice President - Marketing National Garages, Inc. 550 West Fort Street Detroit, Michigan 48226 Dear Mr. Billiter: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30670-81291 accepting the bid of the Greater Roanoke Transit Company made to the City for management and operation of the Tower and Downtown East Parking Garages, for a total base bid price of $113,720.00, and rejecting all other bids made to the City. Resolution 30670-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. On behalf of the Members of the Roanoke City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bid for management and operation of the two parking garages. Sincerely, MFP: gd Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk 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 August 23, 1991 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. Greg Maxey Vice President and Regional Manager Central Parking System of Virginia, Inc. 1411 K Street, N. W. Suite 600 Washington, D. C. 20005 Dear Mr. Maxey: The contract for management and operation of the Tower and Downtown East Parking Garages having been awarded to the Greater Roanoke Transit Company, I am returning your cashier's cheek deposited with your bid. Please sign the enclosed receipt and return same to me for my files. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd Enclosure CERTIFIED MAIL ~ 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 August 19, 1991 File # 255-298-55 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. Greg Maxey Vice President and Regional Manager Central Parking System of Virginia, Inc. 1411 K Street, N. W. Suite 600 Washington, D. C. 20005 Dear Mr. Maxey: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30670-81291 accepting the bid of the Greater Roanoke Transit Company made to the City for management and operation of the Tower and Downtown East Parking Garages, for a total base bid price of $113,720.00, and rejecting all other bids made to the City. Resolution 30670-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. On behalf of the Members of the Roanoke City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bid for management and operation of the two parking garages. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd M.Sd~F. pMI~ER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKF OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue. S.W.. Room 456 Roanoke, V~rginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 23, 1991 SANDRA H. EArN Deputy City Clerk Mr. John Wynn, President Allright Roanoke Parking, Inc. P. O. Box 116 Roanoke, Virginia 24002 Dear Mr. Wynn: The contract for management and operation of the Tower and Downtown East Parking Garages having been awarded to the Greater Roanoke Transit Company, I am returning your cashier's check deposited with your bid. Please sign the enclosed receipt and return same to me for my files. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: gd Enclosure CERTIFIED MAIL MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKF OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #255-298-55 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. John Wynn, President Allright Roanoke Parking, Inc. P. O. Box 116 Roanoke, Virginia 24002 Dear Mr. Wynn: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30670-81291 accepting the bid of the Greater Roanoke Transit Company made to the City for management and operation of the Tower and Downtown East Parking Garages, for a total base bid price of $113,720.00, and rejecting all other bids made to the City. Resolution 30670-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, August 12, 1991. On behalf of the Members of the Roanoke City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bid for management and operation of the two parking garages. Sincerely, MFP:gd Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue. S.W.. Room 456 Roanoke. Vkginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #169 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Ms. Linda L. Holsinger Vice President, Marketing & Communications United Way of Roanoke Valley, Inc. P. O. Box 600 Roanoke, Virginia 24004 Dear Ms. Holsinger: I am enclosing four copies of Ordinance No. 30634-81291 granting to the United Way of Roanoke Valley, Inc., a revocable permit to mount certain flags on street lighting poles in the Central Business District of the City, effective September 3, 1991, and expiringat midnight on September 30, 1991. Ordinance No. 30634-81291 wasadopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, July 22, 1991, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Monday, August 12, 1991, and will become effective ten days following the date of its second reading. Please execute two copies of the abovestated ordinance and return to the undersigned prior to September 3, 1991. MFP:gd Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk pc: Mr. Franklin D. Kimbrough, Executive Director, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., 310 First Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and Public Safety Mr. Robert K. Bengston, Acting Manager of Signals and Alarms Ms. Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30634-81291. AN ORDINANCE granting to the United Way of Roanoke Valley, Inc., a revocable permit to mount certain flags on street lighting poles in the Central Business District of the City, upon certain terms and conditions. WHEREAS, the United Way of Roanoke Valley, Inc. (Permittee), has requested that Council authorize the Permittee to mount certain flags on certain street lighting poles in the Central Business District of the City, Permittee's request being more particularly set forth in the letter dated June 18, 1991, from Linda L. Holsinger, Vice President, Marketing & Communications of the United Way of Roanoke Valley~ Inc.; and WHEREAS, Council is desirous of granting the request of the Permittee pursuant to certain terms and conditions. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Permission is hereby granted the Permittee to mount certain flags on street lighting poles in the Central Business District of the City, the Permittee's request being more particularly described in the letter dated June 18, 1991, from Linda L. Holsinger, Vice President, Marketing & Communications of the United Way of Roanoke Valley, Inc., a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. 2. The permit granted by this ordinance shall be revocable at the pleasure of the City of Roanoke. the United Way of of the City Clerk. 3. Any and all costs in connection with the granting of this permit shall be borne by the Permittee. 4. The Permittee shall and, by execution of this ordinance, does agree to indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, legal actions, and judgments advanced against the City and for expenses ~he City may incur in this regard, arising out of the Permittee's intentional acts or negligent acts or omissions with respect to the rights or privileges granted hereby. 5. Permittee shall give notice to the City's Director of Public Works prior to entry onto City property or City facilities for installation or mounting of the flags. 6. The permit granted by this Ordinance shall be effective September 3, 1991 and shall expire, by its own terms, without notice, at midnight on September 30, 1991. 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect at such time after its effective date as a copy, duly signed, sealed, attested and acknowledged by an appropriate official on behalf of Roanoke Valley, Inc., has been filed in the Office City Clerk. ACCEPTED AND EXECUTED by the undersigned this , 1991. ATTEST: UNITED WAY OF ROANOKE day of VALLEY, INC. By Title - 2 - gtl17 0:17 Roanoke, Virginia July 22, 1991 Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor and Members of Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: United Way of Roanoke Valley Back~round: mo City Council has previously granted permission to vario~m civic groups and United Way of Roanoke Valley to hang flags from street light poles within the Downtown area. II. Current Situation: By letter dated June 18, 1991, Ms. Linda L. Holsinger, Vice President, Marketing and Communications for the United Way of Roanoke Valleyt has requested permission to fly approximately one hundred (100) 3 foot by 5 foot United Way flags from street light poles in the Central Business District during the month of September 1991. Vietnam Veterans of America organization has ongoing authorization from City Council to fly American flags from downtown street light standards on designated holidays. September 2, 1991, will be Labor Day, one of those designated holidays. III. Issues: A. Authority B. Permit Requirements IV. Alternatives: City Council issue a revocable permit to the United Way of Roanoke Valley to hang flags from street light poles in the Central Business District. Authority for approval is solely City Council's. Permit requirements are basically the same as previously required of other organizations. a) United Way of Roanoke Valley obtain individual or company to install and remove flags. Members of City Council Page 2 b) Cost of installing and removing flags will be the sole responsibility of the United Way of Roanoke Valley. c) Indemnification and InsurancP - United Way of Roanoke Valley has furnished a certificate of insurance suitable in form and amount to the risk manager. The City is named as an additional insured on the policy. City Council deny the request of the United Way of Roanoke Valley. 1. Authority for denial is solely City Council's. 2. Permit requirements would not be an issue. V. Recox~nendation is that City Council approve Alternative "A" thus: Adopt appropriate measure, as prepared by the City Attorney, issuin~ a revocable permit to the United Way of Roanoko Valley to fly United Way flaKs from street light poles in the Central Business District from September 3, 1991, through September 30, 1991. This will avoid conflict with the Vietnem Veterans on Labor Day, which is agreeable with the United Way. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH:RKB: j rm copy: Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. George C. Snead, Director of Administration & Public Safety Mr. Robert K. Bengtson, Acting Manager, Signals and Alarms Ms. Linda S. Holsinger, Vice President, Marketing & Communications, United Way of Roanoke Valley, 325 Campbell Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, VA 24004 Mr. Franklin D. Kimbrough, Executive Director, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., 310 First Street, S. W., Roanoke, VA 24011 Unll;ed VaM of Roanoke Valley, Inc. Chairman of the Board * Houston L. Bell, Jr. Vice Chairman * James W. Arend General Campaign Chairman W II am F. Hawkins Chairman-Administrative Division · Glenn O. Thornhill, Jr. Chairman-Community Problem Solving Division · Sue W. Robertson Chairman-Marketing and Communications Division Patrick N. Shaffner Chairman Planning Division · Joseph H. Vipperman · Robert C. Lawson, Jr. President and Chief Professional Officer Robert A. Kulinski Daniel S. Anderson J. Rudy Austin William B, Bales John C. Berry John W. Clarke Marion V. Crenshaw Gary R. Duerk Lucy R. Ellett Edwin R. Feinour William H. Fulton * Robert W. Glenn, Jr * Jean A. GIontz Clark G. Graninger David R. Gring James W. Harkness F. Edward Harris Ernest C. Hinck Elmer C. Hodge J Hayden Hollingsworth Reginald K. Hutcherson Calvin H Johnson * Ali Khan Barbara Kurshan Thomas T, Lawson Richard B. Lewis, II Calvin L. Lilly * Angelica D. Lloyd Mac McCadden Karl N. Miller Howard C. Packett · Richard L. Popp * Donald G. Reid James D. Rgchie David R. Sangston A Byron Smith · Joseph E. Stephenson Richard A. Switzer James R Thorne James U. Turner, Jr. Executive Committee June 18, 1991 Mr. William F. Clark Director of Public Works Room 354 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear Mr. Clark: In an effort to heighten awareness about United Way of Roanoke Valley, we request permission to hang United Way flags on the Iow level street lights in the downtown area during our fund drive in September. We have approximately 100 3x5 flags and will be borrowing the flag poles from American Red Cross. If the schedule permits, we would like them to hang from September 1 through September 30, 1991. I have enclosed a certificate of insurance which I'm sure you will find in order. I would appreciate you letting me know your decision as soon as possible. Sincerely, Linda L. Holsinger Vice President Marketing & Communications Enclosure 325 Campbell Avenue, S.W. / P.O. Box 600 / Roanoke, Virginia 24004 / Telephone: 703-345-7351, FAX: 703-344 4304 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS Chas.Lunsferd/ Frank 8.Hall NORIGHTSUPONTHECERTIEICATEHOLDER THISCERTIFICATEOOESNOTAMEND. EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES ~]ELOW P.O. Box 2571 Roanoke, VA 24010 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE 703-982-0200 CONPANY CODE aua.oo~ ROYAL INS CO OF AMERICA Uni ted Way Of RoanokeLE]TERCO~AN¥ C Valley Inc 325 W CImpbell Avenue L~)TTER D Roanoke VA 24 015 CO~DANY LETIER E THIS ~S TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE USTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ~SSUED TO THE ~NSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY DER~OD iNDICATED. NOT'WITHSTANDING ANY REOUIREMENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY DONTRADT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO 'WHICH THIS CERT~RDATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERT A~N, THE ~NSURANDE AFFORDED BY THE ROUCIES DESCRIBED HERE~N ~S SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES LIMITS SHO'WH MAY HAVE BEEN DEDUCED BY PAID CLA~S A X COMk~RCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PSP 035561 1/27/91 1/27/92 >RODUCTS-COMP/OPS AOQREOAIE $ 1000 )AMAO~ ............ tACH AL ~'~._OX IE'r City ef Reaneke,lt$ Officers ,Agents,&Empleyees are named as addt'l.insNred$ unaer the ara ef the above p~liCy as respects pla¢in$ United WIy BInner$&Flags Fi::: ,, . / .~/,/ 005744000 lg~RY F. P,~RKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKe- OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, $.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (70:3)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #79 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy Cit~ Clerk Mr. Jerome S. Howard, Jr. Commissioner of Revenue Roanoke, Virginia Mr. Gordon E. Peters Treasurer Roanoke, Virginia Gentlemen: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30643-81291 amending and reordaining Section 32-108.1, Proration of Personal Property Tax Generally, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to delete boats from the eategories of personal property subject to proration effective January 1, 1992; to require that the owner or purchaser of properties subject to proration declare such property with the Commissioner of Revenue within 30 days of the property registration date with the State Department of Motor Vehicles; to establish penalties and interest with respect to any owner or purchaser who shall fail to so declare property; and to provide that prorated personal property tax shall be due and payable within 60 days of the registration date of such property or May 31 of the tax year, whichever shall occur later. Ordinance No. 30643-81291 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, July 22, 1991, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Monday, August 12, 1991, and shall be effective on and after September 1, 1991. Sincerely, Pta.~-~t..._ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: gd pc: The Honorable Kenneth E. Trabue, Chief Judge, Circuit Court, 305 East Main Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 The Honorable G. O. Clemens, Judge, Cirenit Court, P. O. Box 1016, Salem, Virginia 24153 The Honorable Roy B. Wiliett, Judge, Circuit Court The Honorable Clifford R. Weekstein, Judge, Circuit Court The Honorable Diane M. Strickland, Judge, Circuit Court The Honorable Joseph M. Clarke, II, Chief Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court The Honorable Philip Trompeter, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Mr. Jerome S. Howard, Jr. Mr. Gordon E. Peters August 19, 1991 Page 2 pc: The Honorable Fred L. Hoback, Jr., Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court The Honorable Edward S. Kidd, Jr., Chief Judge, General District Court The Honorable Julian H. Raney, Jr., Judge, General District Court The Honorable Richard C. Pattisal, Judge, General District Court The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney The Honorable A. Dale Hendrick, Clerk, Circuit Court Ms. Patsy Bussey, Clerk, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Mr. Ronald Albright, Clerk, General District Court Mr. Raymond F. Leven, Public Defender, Suite 4B, Southwest Virginia Building, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Mr. Bobby D. Casey, Office of the Magistrate, P. O. Box 13867, Roanoke, Virginia 24037 Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Ms. Clayne M. Calhoun, Law Librarian Mr. Robert L. Laslie, Vice President Supplements, Municipal Code Corporation, P. O. Box 2235, Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Wayne G. Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth Planning District Commission, P. O. Box 2569, Roanoke, Virginia 24010 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 12th Day of August, 1991. No. 30643-81291. AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining S32-108.1, Proration of personal property tax generally, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to delete boats from the categories of personal property subject to proration effective January 1, 1992; to require that the owner or purchaser of property subject to proration declare such property with the Commissioner of Revenue within thirty (30) days of the property registration date with the State Department of Motor Vehicles; to establish penalties and interest with respect to any owner or purchaser who shall fail to so declare property; to provide that prorated personal property tax shall be due and payable within sixty (60) days of the registration date of such property or May 31 of the tax year, whichever shall occur later; and providing for an effective date. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Section 32-108.1, Proration of personal property tax generally, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is amended and reordained as follows: S32-108.1. Proration of personal property tax qenerally. The personal property tax assessed against motor vehicles and trailers shall be prorated for the period of time the property has its tax situs in the City, or is owned by any person within the City, as follows: (5) When any personal property acquires a tax situs in the City after January 1, or is transferred to a new owner in the City after January 1, the owner or purchaser of the property shall declare such property with the commissioner within thirty (30) days of the property registration date with the State Department of Motor Vehicles, and the commissioner shall assess such property pursuant to subsection (1) of this section. For failure to declare such property within thirty (30) days of such property registration date, any owner or purchaser shall be subject to the same penalties and interest as established by S32-106 of this Article for failure to pay tax imposed. Any such tax shall be due and payable within sixty (60) days of such property registration date or May 31 of the tax year, whichever shall occur later, and failure to pay in a timely fashion shall subject the owner or purchaser to penalties and interest as established by S32- 106 of this Article. prorated, trailers, The personal property tax assessed against boats shall be in the same fashion applicable to motor vehicles and through December 31, 1991. On and after January 1, 1992, the personal property assessed against boats shall not be prorated; however, boats shall continue to be tangible personal property subject to taxation under this Article. 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and after September 1, 1991. ATTEST: City Clerk. RECE)¥EO CITY C,.E~AS JUL I6 AS:lO July 22, 1991 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Gordon E. Peters, Treasurer Jerome S. Howard, Jr., Commissioner of Revenue Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., city Attorney Proration of Personal Property Tax The fiscal year 1990-91 Annual Budget recommended to City Council that a personal property tax proration system applicable to motor vehicles, trailers, and boats be established effective January 1, 1991. It was anticipated that proration would generate additional annual revenue of $365,205. By Ordinance No. 30028- 51490, City Council amended the City Code to provide for proration of personal property tax. We completed our first proration personal property tax deadline on May 31, 1991 and the Treasurer and Commissioner of Revenue agree that certain fine tuning of the personal property tax ordinance is necessary to equitably administer the assessment and collection of personal property tax. Three amendments are recommended to the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, Section 32-108.1 "Proration of Personal Property Tax - Generally": Eliminate boats as personal property to be taxed on a prorated basis. The counties of Roanoke, Bedford and Honorable Mayor and Members of city Council July 22, 1991 Page 2 Franklin exclude boats as personal property taxed on a proration basis. The City of Roanoke is required to refund taxes paid under proration if boats are transferred to these counties, but boats transferred in to the City of Roanoke may not be legally taxed if current year taxes were paid in another locality. The annual amount of personal property tax received on boats is only .15% of the tax levy. 10% Filina Penalty shall be assessed by the Commissioner of Revenue if personal property return is not filed with the Commissioner of Revenue 30 days from Division of Motor Vehicles registration date. Currently the City Code requires filing within 30 days of the purchase of property or its acquisition of tax situs in the City. Use of registration date will simplify enforcement. The 10% non-filing penalty shall be applied under the proration system, which is the same penalty for delinquent filing applied after the February 15 annual deadline. Personal Property Tax shall be paid to Treasurer within 60 days from registration date of personal property ownership. Present wording in ordinance states tax shall be due 30 days after tax bill is issued. If taxpayer, Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council July 22, 1991 Page 3 however, does not file a timely return with Commissioner of Revenue, the Treasurer can not issue a timely tax bill. The City Attorney has reviewed these recommended changes and prepared the attached ordinance for city Council's consideration. We recommend your adoption of this ordinance with an effective date of September 1, 1991. Treasurer Jerome S. Howard Commissioner of Revenue Joe~ M. Schlanger /) z Wllbur~, Jr. city Attorney JMS/JDG:s Attachment cc: W.Robert Herbert, City Manager MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKI . OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 August 19, 1991 File #5-66 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: At the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held on Monday, August 12, 1991, Mr. Walter Beckner complained about incidents of vandalism and robbery at his business located at 1118 Salem Avenue, S. W. He requested better police protection from the City. The matter was referred to you to work with Mr. Beckner relative to his concerns. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd pc: Mr. Walter Beckner, 1118 Salem Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and Public Safety Mr. M. David Hooper, Chief of Police 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 August 19, 1991 File #132 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Dibling: At the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held on Monday, ~_qgust 12, 1991, you were requested to prepare the proper measure cancelling the regular meeting of Council to be held on Monday, October 7, 1991, inasmuch as the Virginia Municipal League will hold its annual meeting in Roanoke on October 6-8, 1991. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:gd