Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Council Actions 04-06-92
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL BOWERS (30929) April 6, 1992 2:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL Call to Order Roll Call. Council Members Bowles and Harvey were absent. The Invocation was delivered by The Reverend F. Daniel Wright, Associate Pastor, Ghent Grace Brethren Church. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United Sta~teS of America was led by Mayor Noel C. Taylor. CONSENT AGENDA (APPROVI~D 5-0) ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENA~ BY ONE MOTION IN THE FORM LISTED BF.I.OW. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELy. C-1 A communication from Mayor Noel C. Taylor requesting 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. 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. C-2 A communication from Mayor Noel C. Taylor requesting an Executive Session to discuss specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, specifically being the terms and conditions of various agreements and related legal documents, and to discuss personnel matters relating to appointments to a commission appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, all in connection with the Hotel Roanoke Conference Center Commission. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in request for Council to convene in Executive Session to discuss specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel, pursuant to Section 2.1- 344 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, specifically being the terms and conditions of various agreements and related legal documents, and to discuss personnel matters relating to appointments to a commission appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, all in connection with the Hotel Roanoke Conference Center Commission. 2 C-3 A communication from Ms. Stephanie A. Cicero, Neighborhood Partnership Coordinator, advising of the resignation of Dr. Gary Waldo as a member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Parmership Steering Committee. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file the communication and accept the resignation with regret. C-4 A communication from Mr. W. L. Whitwell, Chairman, Architectural Review Board, transmitting the Board's Annual Report for the year 1991. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. C-5 A list of items pending from July 10, 1978, through March 23, 1992. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. A request of the City Manager for an Executive Session to discuss specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel, being the terms and conditions of an agreement with a neighborhood, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. REGULAR AGENDA 3. HEARING OF CITIZF~NS UPON PUBLIC MATEERS: None. 4. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: ao A communication from Mr. Charles H. Osterhoudt, Attorney, transmitting petitions on behalf of a group of citizens requesting that Council schedule a public hearing on the continued inclusion of the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District, in the City's Zoning Ordinance, and how application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted, if such District is to be continued. The m~_n_¢r was referred to the City Manager and the City Attorney for report to Council. 3 . Co A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending extension of the lease agreement between the City of Roanoke and Orris Roanoke, Inc., for lease of 3,000 sqnare feet of retail space from the City in the Market Square Parking Garage, 19 Campbell Avenue, S. E. Council Member Eli?abeth T. Bowles, Chairperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 30929 on first reading. (5-0) 5. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: a. CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: A report with regard to Economic Development activities in the City of Roanoke. No action was taken. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: A report recommending approval of a Community Development Block Grant loan under the Home Purchase Assistance Program to an individual for purchase and rehabilitation of property at 1912 Melrose Avenue, N. W.; and authorization to execute the necessary documents to implement and administer the loan, including a Construction Disbursement Agreement. Adopted Ordinance 30930-040692. (5-0) A report recommending endorsement of participation by the City in the Virginia Tourism Accreditation Program and redesignation of the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau as the City's representative for the purpose of participating in said program. Adopted Resolution No. 30931-040692. (5-0) 4 A report recommending that a mapping service be established utilizing the City's existing mapping contract with Lumsden and Associates, for a maintenance fee of $757.00 per site, for requests from private individuals, developers and non-city agencies. Adopted Resolution No. 30932-040692. (5-0) A report recommending execution of appropriate documents to subscribe to C & P Telephone Company's Centrex CustoFLEX Plan for a period of 12 months, with the option to extend the contract for an additional 12 months. o Adopted Resolution No. 30933-040692. (5-0) A report recommending appropriation and transfer of funds for purchase of furnishings and food service equipment for the new facility of the Crisis Intervention Center. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 30934-040692. (5-0) A report recommending transfer of funds, in the amount of $90,000.00, and appropriation of additional funds, in the amount of $27,000.00, to Foster Care Services for the care of children in custody of the City's Department of Social Services. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 30935-040692. (5-0) A report recommending award of an architectural/engineering contract to Hayes, Seay, Mattem and Mattern, Inc., for design development and construction documents, construction administration and project inspection for completion of the second floor cell pod at the Roanoke City Jail, in the amount of $60,700.00; and appropriation of funds therefor. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 30936-040692 and Resolution No. 30937--040692. (5-0) 5 o A report recommending acceptance of the bid submitted by Baker Brothers, Inc., in the amount of $35,969.00, for providing one new rubber tired loader/backhoe for use by the Utility Line Services Department; and appropriation of funds therefor. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 30938-040692 and Resolution No. 30939-040692. (5-0) 10. A report recommending acceptance of the lowest responsible bids submitted by McCormack International Trucks, Mid-State Equipment Company, Inc., Sanco/Division of the Heil, and Cavalier Equipment Corporation, for providing refuse trucks and bodies for use by the Refuse Collection Department; and transfer of funds therefor. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 30940-040692 and Resolution No. 30941--040692. (5-0) 11. A report recommending acceptance of the lowest responsible bids submitted for providing trucks and related equipment for use by various Public Works, Grounds Maintenance and Utility Line Services Departments; and transfer and appropriation of funds therefor. Deferred until the next regular meeting of Council on Monday, April 13, 1992. 12. A report recommending acceptance of the bid submitted by Chiefs Fire and Rescue, Inc., in the amount of $136,096.00, for providing one new hazardous material vehicle for use by the Fire Department; and appropriation of funds therefor. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 30942-040692 and Resolution No. 30943-040692. (5-0) 13. A report recommending execution of a license agreement for auto racing in Victory Stadium, in 1992. Adopted Ordinance No. 30944 on first reading. (5-0) 14. A joint report of the City Manager and City Attorney recommending adoption of a comprehensive ordinance which defines and regulates dangerous dogs. Adopted Ordinance No. 30945-4}40692. (5-0) b. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: A report recommending certain revenue adjustments within the fiscal year 1991-92 budget. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 30946-040692. (5-0) 6. REPORTS OF COMMITrEES: ao A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending execution of Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Dewberry and Davis, in the amount of $22,000.00, for Carvins Cove Improvements, Phase II; and appropriation of funds therefor. Council Member Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairperson. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 30947-040692 and Resolution No. 30948-040692. (5-0) A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending dedication of a public utility easement to C & P Telephone Company for siting of an equipment cabinet on an unused portion of Lakewood Park along Brambleton Avenue, S. W. Council Member Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 30949 on first reading. (5-0) 7 See item 6.c., on page 4. A report recommending approval of the Fiscal Year 1992-93 Annual Operating Budget of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, in the amount of $320,321.00. Messrs. Kit B. Kiser and Joel M. Schlanger, City Representatives, Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. Adopted Resolution No. 30950-040692. (5-0) 7. UNFINISI4F. D BUSINESS: None. 8. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: None. OF 9. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 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: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. (5-0) Appointed the following persons: Lenora V. Williams - Roanoke Neighborhood Pa~h~ership Steering Committee Brook Dickson - Roanoke Arts Commission At this point, Council Member Musser left the meeting. 8 Appointed the following persons - continued: Katherine G. Cochran - Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee Davis T. Maxey - Advisory CommiRee, Crystal Spring Pumping S~afion Dale C. Allen - Roanoke Neighborhood Parmership Steering Commi~/ee Adopted Resolution No. 30951-040692 authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understaoding with the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association d~tod April 7, 1992. (4-0) NOEL C. TAYLOR Mayor CITY OF ROANOKI OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Room 452 Roanoke, V'~rginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2444 April 6, 1992 The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen: This is 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 Sincerely, Mayor NOEL C. TAYLOR Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 452 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2444 April 6, 1992 The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen: This is to request an Executive Session to discuss specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel, pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A)(7), specifically being the terms and conditions of various agreements and related legal documents, and to discuss personnel matters relating to appointments to a commission appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, all in connection with the Hotel Roanoke Conference Center Commission. Sincerely, NCT :sw Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #15-488 Dr. Gary Waldo 3087-I Ordway Drive, N. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Dear Dr. Waldo: A communication from Ms. Stephanie A. Cicero, Neighborhood Partnership Coordinator, advising of your resignation as a member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the communication was ~eceived and filed and your resignation was accepted with regret. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno o pc: Mr. Charles W. Hancock, Chairperson, Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee, ]016 Estates Road, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Ms. Stephanie A. Cicero, Coordinator, Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 I N .i.~/~D E P A~T~4ENTAL MEMOraNDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Mary Parker, City Clerk ~ Stephanie Cicero, Partnership Coordinator March 17, 1992 Resignation of Dr. Gary Waldo On March 5, 1992, I received a letter from Dr. Gary Waldo resigning his position on the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee. On March 17, the Steering Committee accepted Dr. Waldo's resignation and wished him best luck in his future endeavors. with Dr. Waldo's resignation, the Steering Committee has, I believe four vacancies. Lenora Williams has submitted a talent form for consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. cc: Charles Hancock, Steering Committee Chairman April 6, 1992 The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor and Members of Council: On behalf of the Architectural Review Board, I am pleased to submit our 1991 Annual Report to City Council. This past year was a very productive and challenging one for the Board and the City. In 1991, major projects totalling in excess of $46 million were constructed in the City's Historic Districts with the guidance of the Architectural Review Board. Notable projects completed include the Dominion Tower, Market Place Center, Corned Beef & Company, Lucas & Boatwright (Washington Avenue), 302 Associates (Washington Avenue), and Anderson & Reed, CPA (Franklin Road/King George Avenue). In addition, there were a substantial number of other quality rehabilitations of both commercial and residential historic buildings, all of which greatly contribute to the enhanced image and economic well-being of downtown and adjacent neighborhoods. During 1991, the Board reviewed 71 applications for Certificates of Appropriateness in the H-1 and H-2 Districts. In addition, the Board attended one technical training workshop and held three informal workshops to discuss design guidelines, zoning regulations, and other Board-related matters. Since 1979, the Board has reviewed over 350 applications. Of those, only 4 decisions have been appealed to City Council, one in 1990 and 3 in 1991. All of these appeals were controversial, especially the two involving demolition. While it may appear from these recent appeals that local regulation through historic districts and an architectural review board negatively affects investment, development, and property values, it is quite the opposite, as is shown by the number of quality new projects constructed in the past several years. Generally, property values in the downtown and Old Southwest have continued to rise over the years. Revitalization and re-investment Room 355 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke Virg~nio 24011 (703) 981 2344 Members of Council Page 2 continue to occur in these parts of the City. This trend is substantiated elsewhere in the State by a study by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources just recently published entitled, "The Financial Impact of Historic Designation: A Report to the Governor and General Assembly of Virginia." Specifically with regard to the effect of historic designation on the assessed value of property, 97% of the local Virginia assessors and commissioners of revenue responding to the study (Roanoke included) advised that such recognition causes no lowering of a property's existing value, that the values of the properties have risen over the years in accord with the increase of property values generally in the jurisdiction, and that in some cases historic recognition probably adds value in certain markets. In the past year (one of economic hardship for most cities), Roanoke has truly demonstrated its national reputation for success in historic preservation. Clearly, historic designation and design regulation have been beneficial for Roanoke's economy, improving the quality of life, and increasing pride in our community. The Architectural Review Board is pleased to have been a part of this guidance for development in the City. In the coming months we will be pursuing written design guidelines for the historic districts to assist us in achieving our goal of public education. We hope that you will support our future efforts and continue to work positively in preserving our community's rich heritage. With Hotel Roanoke on the horizon and continued investment in the City Market and Old Southwest, Roanoke has a unique opportunity to capitalize on heritage tourism as a source of revenue. We look forward to working further with City Council and assisting you in your efforts to preserve our past for our future. Roanoke City Architectural Review Board WLW:ESG:mpf attachment cc: Assistant City Attorney Director of Public Works Pending Items from July 10, 1978, through March 23, 1992. Referral Date 7/10/78 2/11/91 5/13/91 5/13/91 5/28/91 Referred To Item City Manager Architectural Review Board City Manager 1992-93 Budget Study City Manager City Manager Recommendation No. 11 contained in the Mayor's 1978 State of the City Message. (Development of a hotel on Mill Mountain.) 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 recommendation to Council with regard to clarification of the language contained therein. 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 feasibility 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. 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 residences on inner-city vacant lots. 1 Pending Items from July 10, 1978, through March 23, 1992. Referral Date Referred To Item 8/12/91 8/12/91 8/12/91 8/12/91 9/23/91 City Manager City Manager Director of Finance 1992-93 Budget Study City Manager 1992-93 Budget Study City Manager City Attorney 1992-93 Budget Study Mayor's 1991 State of the City Recommendation No. 3 to establish a committee to report back to Council before the end of the year as to whether the Roanoke area has adequate facilities and support to compete in an even greater way in the area of attracting amateur sporting events to the Roanoke Valley. Mayor's 1991 State of the City Recommendation No. 4 that the necessary steps be taken to reduce the real estate tax rate from $1.25 per $100.00 of assessed value to $1.20 per $100.00 of assessed value during the next five years. Mayor's 1991 State of the City Recommendation No. 5 to provide employees of Roanoke City Government and the Roanoke City School System with a salary increase during fiscal year 1992-93. Remarks of Mr. Ted H. Key, Director of the Northwest Revitalization Corporation, 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. Matter regarding holiday seasonal outlining of City- owned buildings. 2 Pending Items from July 10, 1978, through March 23, 1992. Referral Date Referred To Item 2~3~92 2/3/92 City Manager City Attorney Roanoke City School Board Request of Mr. William P. Vinyard, Jr., for relocation of the boundary line between the City of Roanoke, the Town of Vinton and the County of Roanoke, in order to allow the City portion of a parcel of land owned by Mr. Vtnyard to be combined with adjoining lots in the Town of Vinton. Matter of possession of firearms on school property. 2/10/92 3/16/92 City Attorney City Manager Request to study the matter of regulating the sale of "look- alike" weapons. Remarks of William W. Jones with regard to noise and illegal parking activities in connection with a race car owned by a resident adjacent to his residence at 2904 Bradley Street, N. E. 3 April 6, 1992 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Re: Request for Executive Session Dear Members of Council: This is to request that City Council convene in Executive Session to discuss specific legal matters requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel being the terms and conditions of an agreement with a neighborhood pursuant to Section 2.1- 344(A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Respectfully submitted, WRH/dh cc: Wilburn C. William F. ~Mary F. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Clark, Director, Public Works Parker, City Clerk Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #51 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney Roanoke, Virginia Gentlemen: A communication from Mr. Charles H. Osterhoudt, Attorney, transmitting petitions on behalf of a group of citizens requesting that Council schedule a public hearing on the continued inclusion of the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District, in the City's Zoning Ordinance, and how application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted, if such District is to be continued, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the communication and petitions were referred to you for report to Council. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/KAE City Clerk MFP:sw pc: Mr. Charles H. Osterhoudt, Attorney, Osterhoudt, Ferguson, Natt, Aheron and Agee, P. C., P. O. Box 20068, Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator Room 456 Municipal 8uilding 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, N,~T~T; AHER-0N-~ AGEE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018 March 12, 1992 Ms. Mary Parker, Clerk City of Roanoke Municipal Building Roanoke, VA Dear Ms. Parker: I represent a group of citizens who wish to present the enclosed petition at a meeting of Roanoke City Council at the earliest possible date and to ask the Council to hold or cause to be held the public hearing requested in the enclosed petitions. I would appreciate your advising me of the date, time and location of the council meeting at which the petitions will be presented at your earliest possible convenience. Very truly yours, OSTE~.O~T, FERGUSON, NATT, CHO/bp Encl. PETITION ' The undersigned, being residents ~ ~nd ~xpayers in the City of Roanoke do hereby PETITION the Roanoke City Council to conduct or to cause to be conducted PUBLIC ~EARINGS on the continued inclusion of an H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, (Roanoke City Code §36.1-342-349) and if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. NAME 9 10. 11. 12. ADDRESS 1. © ,. PETITION The undersigned, being residents of and taxpayers in the City of Roanoke do hereby PETITION the Roanoke City Council to conduct or to cause to be conducted PUBLIC HEARING~ on the continued inclusion of an H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, (Roanoke City Code S36.1-342-349) and if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. NAME ADDRESS 5. 8. 9. 1G 15. 16. 17. 18. PETITION The undersigned, being residents of and taxpayers in the City of Roanoke do hereby PETITION the Roanoke City Council to conduct or to cause to be conducted PUBLIC HEARING~ on the continued inclusion of an H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, (Roanoke City Code §36.1-342-349) and if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. NAME 11. 12. ADDRESS 11. 12. 13. 13. 14. 14. 15. 16. 17. 15. 16. 17. 18. 18. PETITION The undersigned, being residents of and taxpayers in the City of Roanoke do hereby PETITION the Roanoke City Council to conduct or to cause to be conducted PUBLIC HEARINGS on the continued inclusion of an H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, (Roanoke city Code S36.1-342-349) and if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. ADDRESS 18. PETITION The undersigned, being residents of and taxpayers in the City of Roanoke do hereby PETITION the Roanoke City Council to conduct or to cause to be conducted PUBLIC HEARINGS on the continued inclusion of an H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, (Roanoke City Code §36.1-342-349) and if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. NAME 7e 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. ADDRESS 7e 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. PETITION The undersigned, being residents of and taxpayers in the City of Roanoke do hereby PETITION the Roanoke City Council to conduct or to cause to be conducted PUBLIC HEARINGS on the continued inclusion of an H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, (Roanoke City Code S36.1-342-349) and if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. ADDRESS PETITION The undersigned, being residents of and taxpayers in the City of Roanoke do hereby PETITION the Roanoke City Council to conduct or to cause to be conducted PUBLIC HEARINGS on the continued inclusion of an H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, (Roanoke City Code S36.1-342-349) and if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 12. 13. 13. 14. 14. 15. 15. 16. 16. 17. 17. 18. 18. PETITION The undersigned, being residents of and taxpayers in the City of Roanoke do hereby PETITION the Roanoke City Council to conduct or to cause to be conducted PUBLIC HEARINGS on the continued inclusion of an H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, (Roanoke City and if such district is to be continued, how maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. Code S36.1-342-349) its application to NAME ADDRESS 13. 14. 14. 15. 15. 16. 16. 17. 17. 18. 18. PETITION The undersigned, being residents of and taxpayers in the City of Roanoke do hereby PETITION the Roanoke City Council to conduct or to cause to be conducted PUBLIC HEARINGS on the continued inclusion of an H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, (Roanoke City Code §36.1-342-349) and if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. ADDRESS 4. 16. 17. 17. 18. 18. PETITION The undersigned, being residents of and taxpayers in the City of Roanoke do hereby PETITION the Roanoke City Council to conduct or to cause to be conducted PUBLIC HEARINGS on the continued inclusion of an H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, (Roanoke city Code §36.1-342-349) and if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. ADDRESS 11. 12. 12. 13. 13. 14. 14. 15. 15. 16. 16. 17. 17. 18. 18. PETITION The undersigned, being residents of and taxpayers in the City of Roanoke do hereby PETITION the Roanoke City Council to conduct or to cause to be conducted PUBLIC HEARINGS on the continued inclusion of an H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, (Roanoke City Code S36.1-342-349) and if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. 11. 12. 14. ADDRESS .Ai' / ~6. 17. PETITION The undersigned, being residents of and taxpayers in the City of Roanoke do hereby PETITION the Roanoke City Council to conduct or to cause to be conducted PUBLIC HEARINGS on the continued inclusion of an H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, (Roanoke City Code §36.1-342-349) and if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. NAME 8 o 12. 13. 14. ADDRESS 14. 15. 15. 16. 16. 17. 17. 18. 18. PETITION The undersigned, being residents of and taxpayers in the City of Roanoke do hereby PETITION the Roanoke City Council to conduct or to cause to be conducted PUBLIC HEARINGS on the continued inclusion of an H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, (Roanoke City Code §36.1-342-349) and if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. NAME '~' 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. ADDRESS ~z, / ~/~. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. PETITION The undersigned, being residents of and taxpayers in the ~ity of Roanoke do hereby PETITION the Roanoke City Council to conduct or to cause to be conducted PUBLIC HEARINGS on the continued inclusion of an H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, (Roanoke City Code §36.1-342-349) and if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. NAME 16. ADDRESS 3. /11 7. 13. 14. PETITION The undersigned, being residents of and taxpayers in the city of Roanoke do hereby PETITION the Roanoke city Council to conduct or to cause to be conducted PUBLIC HEARINGS on the continued inclusion of an H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, (Roanoke City Code §36.1-342-349) and if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. NAME .ADDRESS 12. 13. 13. 14. 14. 15. 15. 16. 16. 17. 17. 18. 18. Roanoke, Virginia April 6, 1992 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: City of Roanoke Economic Development Activity Please reserve space on Council's agenda Monday, April 6, 1992, for a briefing pertaining to the above subject. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herb~ City Manager WRH:mp cc: City Attorney Director of Finance MISSION STATEMENT ERxO,_ANOKE, THE "STAR CITY", WILL BE THE MOST CEPTIONAL PLACE TO LIVE AND WORK IN THE SOUTH. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Roanoke shall create and maintain a broad range of .q.uality development and employment o.pportun~t~es to. meet the needs of our d~verse population and to strengthen our tax base. EMPLOYMENT ROANOKE CITY ROANOKE MSA NUMBER OF JOBS - MARCH, 1991 NUMBER OF JOBS - MARCH, 1988 70,883 66,770 119,417 115,010 NET NEW JOBS 4,113 4,407 93.3% OF ALL MSA JOBS VEC ROANOKE METRO JAN UARY, 1991 TO JAN UARY 1992 EMPLOYMENT SECTOR JAN 1991 JAN 1992 NUMBER GAIN/(LOSS) CONSTRUCTION TRADE MANUFACTURING GOVERNMENT SERVICES 6,900 7,100 200 35,300 35,600 300 19,200 18,100 (1,100) 15,700 16,000 300 30,700 33,100 2,400 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 124,800 126,300 1,500 Virginia Employment Commission PER CAPITA INCOME INCREASES ROANOKE MSA YEAR ROANOKE NATIONAL AVERAGE PERCENT 1980 $9,410 $9,919 94.9% 1981 $10,344 $10,949 94.5% 1982 $10,978 $11,495 95.5% 1983 $11,809 $12,124 97.4% 1984 $12,994 $13,152 98.8% 1985 $13,838 $13,936 99.3% 1986 $14,760 $14,657 100.7% 1987 $15,721 $15,489 101.5% 1988 $16,728 $16,595 1 00.8% 1989 $18,229 $17,732 102.8% Economic Forecasting Center NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS 1982 - 1991 ROANOKE CITY SALEM ROANOKE COUNTY NUMBER OF BUILDING PERMITS 5,115 1,270 3,262 BUILDING PERMIT VALUES $403,468,507 $121,450,056 $162,919,757 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL 58.7% 17.7% 23.7% Annual Reports From Each Jurisdiction TAX RATE HISTORY 1982 - 1991 FISCAL YEAR REAL ESTATE TAX PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX 82 - 83 83 - 84 84 - 85 85 - 86 86 - 87 87 - 88 88 - 89 89 - 90 90 - 91 91 - 92 $1.35 $1.35 $1.33 $1.30 $1.29 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 $1.25 $3.75 $3.70 $3.60 $3.45 $3.45 $3.45 $3.45 $3.45 $3.45 $3.45 NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS 1991 LOCALITY BUILDING PERMIT VALUES PERCENT OF TOTAL ROANOKE CITY $68,515,642 71.0% ROANOKE COUNTY $9,073,406 9.4% SALEM $18,969,864 19.6% Annual Reports of Each Jurisdiction ROANOKE CITY PROJECTIONS VS ACTUAL AREA PROJECTED # JOBS ACTUAL # JOBS RCIT 1,805 1,800 Berkeley 345 585 Deanwood 354 301 Downtown 620 830 Airport 1,136 1,797 Other 100 191 TOTAL 4,360 5,504 ROANOKE VALLEY CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU ROANOKE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL BUDGET FISCAL YEAR CONTRIBUTION PERCENT OF TOTAL BUDGET 1985 - 1986 $110,000 66.1% 1989 - 1990 $160,000 69.3% 1990- 1991 $210,000 75.6% EXPENDITURES & IN-KIND SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF TOURISM RECIPIENT $600,000 $210,000 $150,000 $30,000 $3,500 $85,ooo $75,000 $63,000 $35,452 $40,000 $11,373 $78,000 $5,000 $5,000 $7,000 Roanoke Civic Center Roanoke Valley Convention & Vistors Bureau Center-In-The-Square Commonwealth Games (In-Kind) Service to Commonwealth Games Harrison Center Virginia Transportation Museum Special Cultural and Civic Events Cost of Issuing 200+ Parade/Assembly Permits (In-Kind) Festival-In-The-Park Farmer's Market Downtown Roanoke Funds Applied to Local Festivals Mill Mountain Zoo (In-Kind) Five Market Events - Chili Cookoff, etc. (In-Kind) City Events - Christmas Parade, Henry St 1991 - 92 $1,398,325 ROANOKE CONVENTION CENTER CONVENTION AI I I::NDANCE YEAR ATTENDANCE 1988 26,700 1991 46,5OO INCREASE OF 74% Roanoke Valley Convention & Visitors Bureau FITCH INVESTORS SERVIC AA BOND RATING QUOTE '"With its evolution from its historic position to a more d. iversified economic base, Roanoke has mainta.~ned and enhanced its position as the major city ~n western Virginia. The city has successfully expanded its employment base into a broad number of sectors and serves as the essential employm.ent center an.d retail core for a land and populabon area well ~n excess of Roanoke itself." Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #236-178-2 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30930-040692 approving the loan of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to Cornell Jones, in connection with the City's Home Purchase Assistance Program for property located at 1912 Melrose Avenue, N. W., which loan shall not exceed $20,000.00; authorizing you to execute documents providing for the assignment of certain options to Mr. Jones; authorizing you to execute documents approved as to form by the City Attorney necessary to implement and administer the loan, including a Construction Disbursement Agreement; authorizing the City Attorney and Director of Finance to serve as trustees with regard to the related deed of trust securing the note for the loan; authorizing you to execute a certificate of satisfaction, upon full payment and satisfaction of the loan; and authorizing recordation by the City Attorney of the certificate of satisfaction in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke. Ordinance No. 30930-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. pc: Mr. Herbert D. McBride, Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 2624 Salem Turnpike, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Mr. Cornell Jones, 4102 Virginia Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 The Honorable Arthur B. Crush, III, Clerk of the Circuit Court Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 Mr. W. Robert Herbert April 9, 1992 Page 2 pc: Mr. Joel M. Schianger, Director of Finance Ms. Deborah J. Moses, Chief of Billings and Collections Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator Mr. H. Daniel Pollock, Housing Development Coordinator Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 6th day of April, 1992. No. 30930-040692. VIRGINIA, AN ORDINANCE approving the loan of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to an individual in connection with the City's Home Purchase Assistance Program, authorizing the City Manager to execute documents approved as to form by the City Attorney necessary to implement and administer the loans, including a Construction Disbursement Agreement, authorizing the City Attorney and Director of Finance to serve as trustees with regard to the related deed of trust securing the notes for the loan, authorizing the City Manager to execute a certificate of satisfaction upon full payment and satisfaction of the loans, and authorizing recordation by the City Attorney of the certificate of satisfaction in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke; and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, Council has previously approved the concept of the Home Purchase Assistance Program in which the City will provide loans for purchase, closing costs and additional property rehabilitation from CDBG funds to low-moderate income households agreeing to buy and repair certain identified substandard housing, contingent upon approval by the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) of State rehabilitation loans. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to loan CDBG funds in Connection with the City's Home Purchase Assistance Program to the individual identified in the City Manager's report dated April 6, 1992, upon the terms and conditions set forth therein. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized for and on behalf of the City to execute documents approved as to form by the City Attorney necessary to implement and administer the loan, including a Construction Disbursement Agreement, in connection with the Home Purchase Assistance Program loans to be made to Cornell Jones, which loan amount shall not exceed $20,000.00 for the purchase price, closing costs, attorney fees and rehabilitation of the property at 1912 Melrose Avenue, N.W., in accordance with the recommendations contained in the City Manager's report of April 6, 1992. 3. To secure payment of the loan of CDBG funds made under the Home Purchase Assistance Program and performance by the loan recipients, the recipients shall execute a deed of trust and deed of trust note, which document shall City Attorney. 4. Wllburn C. Dibling, Jr., be approved as to form by the City Attorney, and Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance (hereinafter "Trustees"), are hereby authorized to serve as Trustees for and on behalf of the City as beneficiary. 5. Pursuant to S26-49, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, City Council reserves the right in its sole discretion for any reason whatsoever to appoint a substitute trustee or trustees. 6. Upon payment or full satisfaction of the debt secured by the deed of trust and delivery of the canceled deed of trust note to the person or persons by whom it was paid, the City Manager shall be authorized to execute a certificate of satisfaction upon form prepared by the City Attorney, and the City Attorney shall be authorized to file such certificate of satisfaction in the Office of the Clerk of Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke. 7. 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. Roanoke, Virginia April 6, 1992 Honorable Mayor and Members of Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Community Development Block Grant Loans under the Home Purchase Assistance Program I. Background $2201000 from the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund's Local Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program~ and $2t~0~000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds were allocated to the Home Purchasp Assistance Program (HPAP) by City Council on June 26, 1989, allowing the City to provide loans to low-moderate income households agreeing to buy and repair certain identified substandard houses. The Program is administered jointly by the City and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA), as outlined in the City's contract for services with the RRHA. Program design is as follows: State Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) and Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) jointly administer the Local Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program on the State level. VHDA provides loan approval and servicing for $25,000 maximum rehabilitation loan/grants available to qualifying low-moderate income households at t,% interest with 15 year terms. City provides CDBG loans for purchase, closing costs and additional property rehabilitation (beyond VHDA's $25,000 maximum if needed) at 4% interest with 10 - 15 year terms. These loans are approved by City Council. 3. RRHA oversees the rehabilitation repairs to the properties. II. Current Situation Home Purchase Assistance Program Selection Committee, which is composed of both RRHA and City staff, recommends approval of CDBG loan(s) as outlined on Attachment A. B. VHDA has notified the City of approval of State rehabilitation loan(s)~ and Energy grant(s) for the low-moderate income household(s). Apr'] 6, 1992 Page 2 City Council's approval to provide loan(s) of CDBG funds to the low-moderate income households(s) is necessary to allow the purchase and rehabilitation of currently substandard vacant properties to occur through the Home Purchase Assistance Program. III. Issues A. Cost to the City. B. Effect on Housing Conditions. C. Timing. D. Administration. IV. Alternatives A. Approve CDBG loan(s) as outlined on Attachment A under the Home Purchase Assistance Program~ and authorize the City Manager to execute documents to be approved as to form by the City Attorney necessary to implement and administer the loan(s), including Construction Disbursement Agreement(s). Upon payment or full satisfaction of the debt secured by the Deed of Trust(s) and delivery of the cancelled Deed of Trust Note(s) to the person or persons by whom it was paid, the City Manager will execute Certificate(s) of Satisfaction upon such a form prepared by the City Attorneys and the City Attorney shall file such Certificate(s) of Satisfaction in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke. Note(s) evidencing the loan(s) and the Deed of Trust(s) (naming 3oel M. $chlanger and Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr. as Trustees) securing the loan(s) to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. (Attachment B) Cost to the City will be $20,000 in CDBG loan(s) as outlined in Attachment A. Funding is available in the Grant Fund in account number 035-089-8920-5115. Funds will revolve back to the City over a fifteen (15) year period with 4% interest. The City will receive increased tax revenue on the improved property. Effect on housing conditions will be positive as home-ownership opportunities will be provided to low-moderate income household(s) who will rehabilitate and occupy currently substandard vacant properties, thereby contributing to neighborhood stabilization and rejuvenation. Timing is significant, since delay in approving the loan(s) may cause termination of agreement(s) between the buyer(s) and seller(s). Immediate Council approval of the CDBG loan(s) will allow closing to be held as provided in agreement(s) between the buyer(s) and seller(s) of the properties. April 6, 1992 Page 3 #. Administration of the rehabilitation will be overseen by RRHA, as Do provided for in the City's contract for services. Servicing of the City's loans will be handled by Dominion Bankshares Mortgage Corporation as provided for in existing Mortgage Loan Service Agreement. not approve CDBG loan(s). Cost to the City can be recognized as lost opportunity cost, as vacant, deteriorating properties will probably not be rehabili- tated and occupied by homeowners. The City will not receive increased tax revenue from the improved properties, and the tax base of nearby properties is likely to suffer as well. Effect on housing conditions will be negative as vacant, substan- dard properties probably will continue to deteriorate to the detriment of surrounding properties and neighborhoods. Further, home-ownership opportunities for low-moderate income households will be lost. Timing would require prompt notification to both the low-moderate income purchaser(s) and the seller(s) that the sale cannot close. Administration would not be an issue. V. Recommendation: Adopt Alternative A~ thereby approving CDBG loan(s) as outlined in Attachment A under the Home Purchase Assistance Program, and authorize the City Manager to execute documents to be approved as to form by the City Attorney necessary to implement and administer the loan(s), including Construction Disbursement Agreement(s). Upon payment or full satisfaction of the debt secured by the Deed of Trust(s) and delivery of the cancelled Deed of Trust Note(s) to the person or persons by whom it was paid, the City Manager will execute Certificate(s) of Satisfaction upon such a form prepared by the City Attorney, and the City Attorney shall file such Certificate(s) of Satisfaction in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke. Note(s) evidencing the loan(s) and the Deed of Trust(s) (naming Joel M. Schlanger and Wilburn C. Dibling, 3r. as Trustees) securing the loan(s) to be approved as to form by the City Attorney (Attachments B). Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager April 6, 1992 Page ¢ BC:rs(CR.58.1, 58.2, 58.3, 58.¢) Attachments CC.' City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Public Works Building Commissioner Housing Development Coordinator Grants Monitoring Administrator Chief, Office of Billings and Collections Director, RRHA Attachment A On this date, April 6, 1992. Roanoke City Council is hereby requested to approve: CDBG loan not to exceed $20~000 under the Home Purchase Assistancp Program to Cornel1 3ones for the purchase and Rehabilitation of 19J? Melrose Avenue~ NW~ Tax Parcel1 112322606 PROJECT COSTS Purchase Price Rehabilitation Costs Attorney's fees Closing Costs TOTAL PROJECT COSTS PROJECT FUNDING (GRANTS & LOANS) GRANTS: Energy Conservation Grant TOTAL GRANTS LOANS: State RehabiLitation Loan CDBG Loan TOTAL LOANS TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING BACKGROUND ON PROPERTY City Assessment Appraised Value (as is) After rehab Appraised Value $ ~)875.00 $14,625.00 20~000.00 $12,600.00 $18,300.00 $39,500.00 $18,000.00 19,300.00 300.00 1~500.00 $39,500.00 $ 4,873.00 34~625.00 $39,500.00 ATTACHMENT B THIS IS A PURCHASE MONEY DEED OF TRUST THIS DEED OF TRUST made as of the__ day of by and between (herein referred to as "Grantor") and Wilburn C. Dibling, 3r., of the City of ,19 Roanoke, Virginia, and 3oel M. Schlanger, of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (herein referred to as "Trustees"), either of whom may act; and the City of Roanoke, Virginia (herein referred to as the "City") legal holder of the hereinafter described note, NOW THEREFORE, WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the provi- sions of this Deed of Trust (herein referred to as "Deed") and of $1.00 cash in hand paid and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby grant and convey unto the Trustees, with General Warranty of title, the real property described with par- ticularity in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto, together with all buildings, improvements, and fixtures now or hereafter erected thereon, including without limitation all apparatus, equipment, fixtures or articles, used to supply heat, gas, air conditioning, water, light, power, refrigeration, ventilation, or other services, and all items of personal property and any other thing now or hereafter therein or thereon used in connection with the real property including without limitation screens, window shades, storm doors and windows, affixed floor coverings, screen doors, venetian blinds, awnings, stoves and water heaters (all of which are declared to be a part of said real property whether physically attached thereto or not); and also together with all rights, privileges, appur- tenances, easements belonging or in any way appertaining thereto or otherwise relating to the real property, as well as any unearned hazard insurance premium with respect to such real property, all of which are hereby pledged, assigned, transferred and set over unto the Trustees, whether now due or hereafter to become due (all of such real property herein referred to as "Property") . IN TRUST, to secure to the City the performance and payment by the Grantor of all present and future obligations arising out of the Note and accompanying documents between Grantor and the City for an amount not to exceed at any one time outstanding the pricipal sum of ($ ) plus finance charges, late charges, and costs of collection, including attorney's fees and foreclosure expenses, to the order of the City of Roanoke, Virginia (hereinafter referred to as "Secured Indebtedness") which Secured Indebtedness is due and payable on order of the City, and also to secure the due and punctual performance by Grantor of each and every covenant and agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Secured Covenants") of the Grantor to and with the City concerning or relating to the Property. Page I of 9 THIS DEED OF TRUST, except to the extent inconsistent with the specific and express provisions contained herein, shall in all other respects be read and construed with, and to such extent be deemed to incorporate by reference, the pro- visions of Section 55-59, Code of Virginia (1950), as in force and effect on the date of aknowledgement hereof, and shah include in short form provided in Section 55-60 of said Code the following )rovisions: Exemptions waived Subject to all upon default Renewals and extensions permitted Insurance required dollars Substitution of Trustee permitted Any Trustee may act. The parties hereto aknowledge that the Grantor has executed a deed of trust note of even date (the "Note") payable to the City Jn the amount of Dollars ($ ) and maturing on , 19 and evidencing a loan for the purchase and/or rehabilitation of a single family residence intended for occupancy by persons and families of low and moderate income. The Grantor desires to secure to the City the payment of certain indebtednesses of the Grantor to the City and the performance of certain covenants made by the Grantor to the City. SECURED COVENANTS The parties hereto do further covenant and agree as follows: 1. Titlel Payment and Performance. Grantor hereby covenants that Grantor is lawfully seized of an indefeasible estate in the Property in fee simple and has the right to convey it; that Grantor will execute such further assurances of title as may be requisite; that Grantor will pay punctually and promptly all of the said indebtedness; and that no purchaser hereunder shall be required to look to the application of the purchase money. 2. Maintenance of the Property. (i) Grantor shall promptly repair, restore or rebuild any part of the Property that may become damaged or destroyed while subject to the lien of this Deed; (ii) Grantor shall not commit or suffer waste of the Property; (iii) Grantor shall not commit or suffer to be done or exist on or about the Property any condition whereby the Property shall become less valuable; (iv) without prior permission, Grantor shall not remove or demolish any part of the Property; (v) Grantor shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regula- tion, covenants, conditions and restrictions affecting the Property, and not suffer or permit any violations thereof. 3. Rents and Profits. Grantor hereby transfers, sets over and assigns to the City all rents and profits of the Property from time to time accruing~ whether under leases or tenancies now existing or hereafter created, providing that the Grantor reserves the right to receive and retain such rents and profits so long as the Grantor is not in default hereunder. 4. Expenses Incurred in Collection of Secured Indebtedness. Grantor agrees to pay all expenses incurred in the collection of the indebtedness hereby secured, including reasonable attorney's fees or a reasonable fee for the services rendered by the City's Attorney in enforcing any right of the City in the collection of the indebtedness hereby secured. Page 2 9. Condemnation Under Eminent Domain~ 3ud~ements~ Awards of Damages~ Settlements~ and Compensation. If the Property, or any part thereof, be condemned under the power of eminent domain, the proceeds and consideration for such acquisition to the extent of the full amount then secured by this Deed of Trust, are hereby assigned by Grantor to the City of Roanoke and shah be paid forthwith and directly to the City of Roanoke to be applied on account of the then full amount of the indebtedness hereby secured. Grantor further transfers, sets over and assigns to the City ali judgements, awards of damages, settlements and compensation made in con- nection with or in lieu of (i) any damage to or destruction of the Property by casualty, and (ii) any other injury or damages to the Property. The City is authorized and empowered (but not required) to collect and receive any such sums and is authorized to apply them in whole or in part to the reduction of the Secured Indebtednesses and/or to the performance of the Secured Covenants. 6. Default in Payment of Indebtedness. Grantor agrees that if default be made in the payment of the indebtedness or covenants hereby secured, the Trustees (i) may take possession of the real estate, or any part hereof, and lease in the name of and for the account of Grantor, or in the name of and for the account of its then owner; or (ii) may give notice of such default to the lessee of the Property in the event it shah have been leased by the Grantor, and thereafter collect the rents from the lessee. In either of such events, the Trustees shall deduct from such rents ail costs of collection and administration and apply the net proceeds to the Secured Indebdtedness. The Trustees are hereby empowered to bring in their names, or each of them, or in the name of the owner of the Property, any suit or action they may deem advisable for the enforcement of the provisions of this clause to the same extent as if the Trustees were then lessor of the Property, but the Trustees shall be in no way personally liable under any of the provisions of such lease or of this clause, and shall not be personally liable to any person by virtue of their possession of the Property or by virtue of their acting under any provision of this clause, except to the extent of accounting for rents actually received by them hereunder. The rights and remedies given under this clause are in addition to and not in lieu of those given by law or by other clauses of this deed, and may be exercised without pred- iud]ce to such other rights and remedies. 7. Default and Payment of Taxes or Assessments. Grantor further agrees that in the event of default, or in the payment of any taxes or assessments, the City of Roanoke may pay same, and all sums so advanced shall immediately attach as a lien hereunder, and be payable on demand. Upon failure or inability faithfully and fully to keep and perform any of the other conditions or covenants herein provided, then upon any and every such default so made as aforesaid, it is expressly covenanted and agreed by Grantor that the City of Roanoke may, after thirty days default, treat the whole principal debt and interest thereon hereby secured as thereupon immediately due and payable, and shall, in order to recover said principal debt or sumand interest, have the right then or thereafter at any time to sue thereon at law or in equity, or to enforce payment thereof by means of any remedies or provisions in this instrument contained, and these rights shall exist notwithstanding that, by the terms of the note or notes hereby secured, they may not on their face be due. ~. Advertisement For Sale. In the event of default occurring as described in the preceding paragraph, then the Trustees, their successors or assigns, on being requested to do so by the City of Roanoke, shall sell for cash the Property, after first advertising the time, place and terms of sale once a week for two weeks in some newspaper published in, or having a general circulation in, the county, city or town wherein the Property lies, or by any method of advertisement that the Trustees may deem advisable. Page 3 9. Entry and Receivership. In the event of any default hereunder and irrespec- tive of whether the City accelerates the maturity of all indebtednesses secured hereby, the City may exercise the rights and remedies provided herein. In addition, in the event of such default, the City, upon the City's written demand to the Trustees, or the Trustees, without notice, may enter upon and take possession of the Property or any part thereof, and perform personally or by their agents any acts which the City or the Trustees deem necessary or proper to operate, manage and con- serve the Property and/or have a receiver appointed. 10. Postponement or Continuance of Sale. If at the time of the sale the said Trustees, or the one acting, shall deem it best for any reason to postpone or con- tinue said sale for one or more days, they or he may do so, in which event, notice of such postponement or continuance shall be made in such manner as the Trustees, or the one acting, may deem sufficient. It is further agreed that if the said property shall be advertised for sale as herein provided and not sold, the Trustees, or the one acting, shall be entitled to one-half the commission by law provided, to be com- puted on the amount of the principal then unpaid. 11. Written or Oral Representations of Default. Grantor further covenants that the Trustees may rely upon the written or oral representations of the City of Roanoke that this Deed of Trust is in default, and all action taken pursuant to notice of default and request for foreclosure shall be binding upon Grantor, the Trustees and those claiming through or under them. 12. Quiet Use, Possession and Management. Until default in the payment of the indebtedness hereby secured, or the breach of one or more of the covenants of the note(s) evidencing the said indebtedness, or of this Deed of Trust, or the happening of any event which would constitute a default under the terms hereof, Grantor shall remain in quiet use, possession and management of the Property, and in enjoyment of the income, revenue and profits therefrom, subject to the terms of this Deed. 13. Heirs~ Executors~ Administrators~ Successors and Assigns. The covenants contained herein shall bind, and the benefits and advantages shall inure to, the respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. Whenever used, the singular number or noun shall include the plural and the plural the singular. 1#. Sales and Transfers Prohibited. During the period that the Note, is secured by this Deed, the Grantor will not, without the prior written consent of the City, sell, assign, convey or transfer, nor suffer or permit any sale, assign- ment, conveyance or transfer of all or any part of any interest in the Property or any other security hereunder. Any permitted sale, conveyance or transfer shall be on terms and conditions as the City shall prescribe. If all or any part of the Property or interest therein is sold, transferred or leased by the Grantor, or he contracts to sell, transfer or lease the same, without the prior written consent of the City of Roanoke, the City, at its option, may declare all sums hereby secured to be immediately due and payable. No sale of the Property, forebearances on the part of the City or extension of time for the payment of the Secured Indebtednesses given by the City shall operate to release, discharge, modify, change or affect the original liability of the Grantor herein either in whole or in part. Page 15. [nsurance. Grantor shall maintain property and casualty insurance for the full replacement cost of the Property, and to maintain policies of insurance against other such hazards, casualties and contingencies as the City may require, with all such policies to be in form satisfactory to, and in insurance companies approved by, the City. The proceeds of any such insurance shall be applied to the full repayment of the Secured lndebtednesses. Such policy or policies sha][~ at the option of the City, be directed to and held by the City without liability. 16. Rights of City to Remedy Defaults. (a) If the Grantor defaults in payment of any sums or in the performance of any act required to be paid or performed by the Grantor under the provisions of any of the covenants herein, the City may, at its option, make payment thereof or perform any act required of the Grantor, to such extent and in any form or manner deemed expedient by the City~ and pay any other sums, expenses, and charges including attorneys' fees which the City deems necessary and appropriate therefor. The City shall be the sole judge of the validity, priority and amount of any such claim so paid by it and the necessity for the performance by the City of any such act which the Grantor was required but failed to perform. The City at its option, shall be subrogated to any encumbrance, lie% claim or demand which it has paid under the provisions hereof and any such subrogation rights shall be additional and cumulative security to those set forth Jn this Deed and as provided by law. (b) Upon the payment of any sums or performance of any act which the Grantor fails to pay or to perform~ the amount so paid or the cost of performing any such act~ together with other sums paid or incurred by the City (including charges, expen- scs and attorneys' fees deemed necessary or appropriate by the City to effect such payment or to perform such act) immediately and without demand, shall be paid by the Grantor to the City. The foregoing amounts shall be secured hereby. 17. Rehabilitation. (a) The Grantor agrees that it will comply with the provi- sions of all applicable federal, state and local laws prohibiting discrimination in housing and that the Grantor, to the extent it has emp]oyees~ and all o~ Grantor's contractors and subcontractors engaged in the construction, rehabilitation, or management of the Property~ shah provide an equal opportunity for employment without unlawful discrimination. (b) The provisions of this paragraph shall apply during the period when the Secured Indebtedness is secured by this Deed. (i) a. The Grantor shall commence and proceed with the rehabilitation with all practical dispatch, and in an economical, efficient and good and workmanlike manner, in compliance with the Plans and in accordance with the provisions hereof and with all applicable laws. b. The Grantor shall commence and proceed with the provision or the periormance of the labor, services or materials necessary to install, construct or complete those improvements in accordance with the work write-up or the plans and specifications for the Property which were submitted to and approved by the City (such write-up or plans and specifications are referred to herein as the "Plans"). The Plans are incorporated herein by reference. Page 5 c. In the event that any proceeding or authorization is required by any applicable law or regulations either to enable the Grantor to execute, deliver or perform its duties hereunder or to undertake and complete the Rehabilitatio% the Grantor will take all steps necessary including the payment of license and permit fees, to secure such approval, or to comply with such law or regulation. d. The Grantor shall not permit any changes to the Plans without the approval of the City. Any desired changes must be approved by a change order signed by the Grantor and the Building Commissioner or the Assistant Building Commissioner for the City of Roanoke. (ii) It is agreed that the Grantor shall execute a Construction Disbursement Agreement and that the method of payment to Grantor of amounts disbursed in escrow pursuant to that Construction Disbursement Agreement this day and evidenced by the Note shall be governed by the terms and provisions of the Construction Disbursement Agreement dated , 19__, and incorporated herein by reference. (iii)a. The Grantor understands that the City is subject to the requirements of the Virginia Housing Partnership Revolving Fund Guidelines as amended from time to time (referred to herein as the "Fund Guidelines"). The Grantor hereby covenants and agrees to comply with the Fund Guidelines and agrees not to act or fail to act in any way which would cause the City to be in non- compliance with any of the Fund Guidelines. b. Without in any way limiting the foregoing, and without the prior written consent of the City, the Grantor shall not rent to, or otherwise allow occupancy of the Property by, any person or family other than the the Grantor and his family (whop shall at the time of execution of this Deed, have an annual gross income less than or equal to 80% of the median family income as deter- mined by the Virginia Housing Partnership Revolving Fund for the applicable market area), for a period to expire eight years from the date hereon, and after this eight year period the Grantor shall not rent to, or otherwise allow occupancy of the Property by, any person or family who, shall at the time of occupancy, have an annual gross income greater than 80% of the median family income as then determined by the Virginia Housing Partnership Revolving Fund for the applicable market area. The Grantor shall examine and determine the income and eligibility of any person or family who is to rent or occupy the Property and shall report such determination to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, or its assigns, in such form as it shall require. Such examination and determination shall be made, and such report shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to initial occupancy of the Property by such person or family. The Grantor will not permit the use of the Property except as a single family residence without the prior approval of the City. Page 6 18, Approvals and Authorizations. All approvals and authorizations under this Deed of Trust shall be in writing from the Building Commissioner or the Assistant Building Commissioner for the City of Roanoke, 19. Events of Default. Any one or more of the following events shall consti- tute a default under this Deed: (a) Default in the payment of any portion of the Secured Indebtedness or any installment thereof, whether principal, interest, when and as the same shall become due and payable, whether at maturity or by acceleration or otherwise; or (b) Default in the due performance or observance of any Secured Covenant; or (c) Misrepresentation or omission by the Grantor of any material fact in the Application, any supplements or amendments thereto or in or with respect to any document or information furnished pursuant thereto. (d) If the Grantor shall be involved in financial difficulties as eviden- ced: (i) by an admission in writing of its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due; (ii) by filing a petition in bankruptcy or for the adoption of an arrangement under the National Bankruptcy Act (as now or in the future amended) or an admission seeking the relief therein provided; (iii) by making an assignment for the benefit of creditors; (iv) by consenting to the appointment of a receiver or trustee for all or a substantial part of its assets or to the filing of a petition against it under said Bankruptcy Act; (v) by being adjudicated a bankrupt; (vi) by the entry of a court order appointing a receiver or trustee for all or a substantial part of the assets of Grantor or approving as filed in good faith a petition filed against it under said Bankruptcy Act; (vii) by the assumption of custody or sequestration by a court of competent jurisdiction of all or substantially all of the assets of the Grantor; (viii) by an attachment for an amount in excess of $5,000 on any substantial part of the assets of the Grantor which shall not be discharged within thirty (30) days from the making thereof; (ix) by a judgement or decree for the payment of money in excess of $5,000 being entered against the Grantor, or if an attachment, execution or levy is made upon any of its assets and the judge- ment, execution or levy, as the within thirty (30) days from the tion or levy as the case any be; recorded prior to this Deed. case may be, is not discharged or stayed date of the judgment, attachment, execu- or (x) by default under any deed of trust 20. Delay. No delay by the City or the Trustees in exercising any right or remedy hereunder or otherwise afforded by law shall operate as a waiver thereof or preclude the exercise thereof during the continuance of any default hereunder. 21. Remedies Cumulative. No remedy herein contained or conferred upon the City or the Trustees is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy or remedies afforded by law or by the terms hereof to the City or the Trustees, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given hereunder or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity. Page 7 22. Headings. The headings herein are inserted for convenience of reference and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of this Deed, or of any particular provision thereof, or the proper construction thereof. 23. Entire Agreement. This writing, and all documents referred to herein, constitute the entire agreement. No modification of this writing shall be made without written consent of the Grantor and the City. 24. Enforceability. If any term or provisions of the Deed of Trust is invalid or unenforceable to any extent, the remainder of this Deed of Trust will not be affected. 25. Notice. Any notice, demand or other communication required or otherwise to be sent or delivered to City shall be sent by first class mail to: Housing Development Office, Administrator 215 Church Avenue S~ Room 170 - Building Department Roanoke, VA 2#011-1592. Upon the payment of all Secured Indebtednesses and upon the performance of all Secured Covenants, the Grantor covenants to pay the expenses of releasing this Deed, ~ITNESS the following signatures and seals. (SEAL) (SEAL) STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF ROANOKE, to wit: day of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this , 19 by My commission expires: NOTARY PUBLIC Page 8 EXHIBIT A Property Description Page 9 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA DEED OF TRUST NOTE $ Roanoke, Virginia , 19 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of the City of Roanoke, Virginia (the "Noteholder"), the principal sum of Dollars ($ with interest on the unpaid principal balance from the first day of the second month following the month in which closing occurs, until paid, at the rate of four percent (#%) per annum. The principal and interest shall be payable at the principal office of the City of Roanoke, Department of Billings and Collections, or such other place as the Noteholder may designate in writing, in consecutive monthly installments of Dollars ($ ) each, on the first day of each month beginning 19__, and continuing on the like day of each successive month thereafter until the entire indebtedness evidenced hereby is fully paid, except that any remaining, if not sooner paid, shall be due and payable on the 1st day of ., 19 . All payments received by the Noteholder on account of this Note shall be first applied to accrued interest and the residue to reduction of principal. The undersigned shall pay to the Noteholder a late charge of five percent (5%) of any installment not received by the Noteholder within fifteen (15) days of its due date. If there is a breach of any of the covenants contained in the Deed of Trust to 3oel M. 5chlanger and Wilburn C. Dibling, 3r., Trustees, of even date herewith and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke, which said Deed of Trust secures the debt hereby evidenced, or in the event that any monthly installment due under this Note is not paid when due and remains unpaid for a period of fifteen (15) days after written notice is sent, stating that any of the parties hereto shall be in default, then the entire principal amount outstanding hereunder and accrued interest thereon shall, at the option of the Noteholder, immediately become due and payable for all pur- poses whatsoever, and its collection may be enforced by any remedy in law or in equity. Failure to exercise such option upon default shall not constitute waiver of the right to exercise such option upon any subsequent default. The time of payment of all or any part of the debt hereby evidenced may be extended or renewed from time to time by the Noteholder, and no such extension or renewal shall in any way waive or release the liability of anyone in any way liable for the payment hereof. The right is reserved to prepay this Note, in whole or in part, on any installment due date. At the option of the Noteholder, prepayments shall be applied to reduction of the indebtedness in the inverse order of maturity of the installments provided for herein. The loan evidenced by this Note is being made to finance purchase and/or improvement of certain property pursuant to the Home Purchase Assistance Program. This Note and the instrument securing the same may be sold, assigned, transferred by the Noteholder. Page I of 2 The undersigned makers) and any and ail endorsers, sureties) guarantors and assumers hereof (each a "Party" and collectively the "Parties" hereto), hereby iointly and severally waive presentment, demand) protest, notices of dishonor and of protest) the benefits of homestead) and ali other waivable exemptions, and all defenses and pleas on the ground of any extension(s) or renewals of the time of payment or of the due dates of this Note, in whole or in part, before or after maturity, with or without notice, it being further agreed by all the makers that they, or each of them, wi[[ pay any collection expense, court costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees which may be incurred in the collec- tion or enforcement of this Note or any part hereof. This Note is secured by a Deed of Trust of even date herewith conveying real property and other security, which real property is briefly described as located in the City of Roanoke, Virginia and more fully described in said Deed of Trust, in which Trustees are Wilburn C. Dibling Jr., and 3oel M. Schlanger. WITNESS the following signatures and seal. (SEAL) (SEAL) (address) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) To-wit: CITY OF ROANOKE ) I hereby certify that the foregoing Deed of Trust Note was acknowledged before me by , this day of My Commission expires: , 1990. Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY OF ROANOKE This is to certify that this is the Note described in and secured by Deed of Trust dated , 19 , on the Property located in Roanoke, Virginia. My commission expires: Date: Notary Public Page 2 of 2 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #450-293 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: ! am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30931-040692 endorsing participation by the City in the Virginia Tourism Accreditation Program and designating the Roanoke Valiey Convention and Visitors Bureau as the City's representative for the purpose of participating in such program. Resolution No. 30931-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMCTAAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno o pc: Ms. Martha Mackey, Executive Director, Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau, 114 Market Street, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Mr. Patrick A. McMahon, Tourism Development Group, Virginia Department of Economic Development, P. O. Box 798, Richmond, Virginia 23206-0798 Mr. Joel M. Schianger, Director of Finance Mr. Brian J. Wishneff, Chief, Economic Development Mr. Philiip F. Sparks, Economic Development Specialist Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue. S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #183-294 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30932-040692 approving the establishment of a mapping service, and amending the City's Fee Compendium to establish a fee, in the amount of $757.00, for processing a request for preparation of a map of a site within the City. Resolution No. 30932-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. pc: Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Mr. John A. Peters, III, Civil Engineer Ms. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 6th day of April, 1992. No. 30932-040692. A RESOLUTION approving the establishment of a mapping service, and amending the City's Fee Compendium to establish a fee of seven hundred and fifty-seven dollars ($757.00) for processing a request for the preparation of a map of a site within the City. BE follows: 1. IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as This Council hereby approves the establishment of a mapping service, more particularly described in the City Manager's report of April 6, 1992, whereby the City Engineering Department will cause a map of a site within the City to be prepared upon request for a charge of actual cost of preparation plus the mapping service fee established herein. 2. The charge by the City for processing any request for the preparation of a map of a site within the City shall be actual cost of preparation plus seven hundred and fifty-seven dollars ($757.00). 3. The Fee Compendium of the City, maintained by the Director of Finance and authorized and approved by City Council by Resolution No. 30789-111891, adopted November 18, 1991, effective as of that date, shall be amended to reflect the new charge established by this Resolution for processing a request. 4. Resolution No. 30789-111891 is hereby amended to the extent and only to the extent of any inconsistency with this Resolution. 5. The fee established by this Resolution shall remain in effect until amended by this Council. 6. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia Honorable Mayor and Me~bers of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: City of Roanoke Mapping Program I. Background: Ground Control and Mapping Consultant Contract was awarded to Lumsden and Associates by City Council on October 14, 1991 in the amount of ~92~975.00 with a contingency of $4,112.00. This contract includes a cost schedule for any form of mapping anywhere in the City for a year. Mapping for the Carvins Cove Waterline Project was also approved by Council on October 14, 1991 in the amount of $40,000.00. This contract represented a cost savings of over $135,000.00 over traditional field survey methods as priced by the waterline consultant. Due to the length of the waterline (13 miles), an elaborate survey baseline would have been established. Instead, the consultant was able to survey short runs between monuments installed as part of the City mapping program. Topographic surveys throughout the 13 mile long corridor would have required a very large amount of field survey work with a crew costing $70 per hour. Then the field notes would have to be "reduced" in the office by a surveyor or engineer. This would have amounted to over two months of additional personnel and equipment cost. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appears to require the City to make our mapping data available to anyone requesting the information. FOIA allows localities to recoup basic expenses related to copying, search time and computer time expended in supplying such records. Page 2 II. Current Situation: Mapping Information that can be produced accurately, quickly, and economically is a major asset to any organization. However, the aerial photography and photographic identification points must be updated every three (3) to five (5) years in order to maintain the integrity of the information. The amount of development within the community will determine the optimal reflight time. It is anticipated that the City will need to "refly" the City in five (5) years with annual updates of large construction projects such as Thirlane Road / UPS and Franklin Road. An aggressive mapping program is anticipated to result in approximately twenty-five (25) requests for mapping from developers in a given year. This is based on the volume of work currently produced by local engineering firms. While staff is concerned with the appearance of competing with the private sector, the two (2) consultants who currently provide mapping services indicate that they provide mapping strictly for the benefit of their clients. Currently, both of these consultants will use our mapping, if provided, as a more economical alternative for their clients. A mappinq service could be provided in lieu of providing "raw mapping data" under FOIA. This mapping service would charge the actual City contract amount for mapping with an additional Mapping Maintenance Fee. A citizen has the option of receiving the raw map data under FOIA or to utilize our mapping service. Mapping Maintenance would include the cost of new aerial photography in five (5) years, annual photographic updates, surveying to photographic targets, stereographic triangulation, and replacing lost ground control points. This fee would be in addition to the actual cost of th,. mapping. Page 3 A maDpinq maintenance fee can be determined by dividing the anticipated cost of mapping maintenance by the number of requests for mapping anticipated. 1. MaDDinq Cost: - Annual Photographic Updates: - Photographic Update (5 years): - Ground Surveys (Photo ID Pts.) - Stereo-Triangulation - Photo Processing Charge: - Ground Control Replacement: Total: (Cost projected out 5 years) $15,000.00 $12,000.00 $24,000.00 $20,000.00 $3,000.00 $15e000.00 $89,000.00 III. Issues: Cost per MaDDinq Request: - Maintenance: $89,000 / (5x25) = $712.00 Staff Time: 3 hours @ $15.00/hr = $45.00 Total: $757.00 A. Leqal Requirements: B. Cost: C. Inteqrity of Map~inq: IV. Alternatives: Establish a mappinq service for any mapping request from private developers and non-City agencies in lieu of providing raw mapping data. In addition to the actual contract amount outlined in the Scope of Work with Lumsden and Associates, the City will charge a maintenance fee of $757.00 per site. Leqal Requirement of the Freedom of Information Act will be met. Cost of future map updates would be offset by users of the mapping rather than all taxpayers. In addition, this per site fee is a bargain compared to the $2,000.00 to $4,000.00 fee typically charged for ground control for individual mapping requests from various consultants. Page 4 Inteqrity of MaDDinq throughout the City would be maintained through continuous updates. The availability of accurate mapping can work favorably with economic development clients. After a recent client reviewed a site in the field, we were able to provide a small scale topographic map to him in two (2) days. Do not establish a mappinq service for any mapping request. Leqal Requirements of the Freedom of Information Act will still be met if the City makes our raw mapping information available to developers. Cost of future updates will be paid out of General Fund Accounts. Therefor, all taxpayers will pay for future updates rather than the actual users of the information. Inteqrity of MaDDinq could be maintained if future City Councils agree to fund map updates with General Fund Accounts. Recommendation: Establish a maDDinq service utilizing our existing mapping contract with Lumsden and Associates with a map maintenance fee of $757.00 per site for mapping requests from private individuals, developers, and non-City agencies, and direct the Director of Finance to establish a separate revenue account entitled "Map Maintenance". WRH/JAP/jap City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Public Works City Engineer Construction Cost Technician Respectfully Submitted: W. Robert Herbert City Manager IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 6th day of April, 1992. No. 30931-040692. VIRGINIA, A RESOLUTION endorsing participation by the City in the Virginia Tourism Accreditation Program and designating the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitor Bureau as the City's representative for the purpose of participating in this program. WHEREAs, the City Council of the City of Roanoke is interested in the economic well-being of its citizenry and the community at large; WHEREAS, the City Council is prepared to support appropriate efforts within the community to become totally prepared to promote tourism and related economic development; WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Economic Development, through its Tourism Development Group, is offering a program which is specifically designed to assist Virginia communities to become better prepared for tourism an~ related economic development; and WHEREAs, this program is entitled the VIRGINIA TOURISM ACCREDITATION PROGRAM. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Our community, the Clty of Roanoke, wishes to participate in the VIRGINIA TOURISM ACCREDITATION PROGRAM, and the leadership of this community is fully Cognizant that the aforesaid program requires dedicated effort. 2. By entering the aforesaid program, the City of Roanoke pledges its best and honest efforts to achieve designation as a Virginia "Accredited,, community. 3. The City Council recognizes that the aforesaid program requires either the existence or formation of a tourism promotion organization which will be charged with the responsibility of completing the requirements of the aforesaid program, and the City Council hereby designates the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitor Bureau as representing this community for the purpose of participating in this program. ATTEST: City Clerk. April 6, Honorable Mayor and Members of Council Roanoke, Virginia 1992 Subject: ROANOKE VALLEY CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU ACCREDITATION PROGRAM I. BACKGROUN_____~D Virqinia Tourism Accreditation Droqram has been developed by the Virginia Tourism Development Group (formally the Virginia Division of Tourism) to establish tourism standards throughout Virginia. The Virqinia Tourism Accreditation proqram will have an 18-month completion requirement. Twenty preliminary requests from specific localities and/or their convention and visitors bureaus will be accepted. Situation analysis will be made and goals will be established to address weak areas of tourism development. Local governments will be asked to be receptive and to support the development of new or expanded tourism enterprises and to become better prepared for tourism and economic development. Localities are not required to make any additional expenditures to cover weak areas found during the accreditation period. D. Roanoke City, Roanoke County, Town of Vinton and the City of Sale____~m are requested by the Virginia Tourism Development Group to apply for the certification under the umbrella of the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau. There is no cost incurred by the City. E. Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton have passed the required resolutions of participation. Salem is expected to do so prior to the April 10, 1992 deadline. II. CURRENT SITUATION Virginia does not currently have any accredited tourism communities. Members of Council April 6, 1992 Page 2 III. ISSUES ae Timing Commitment Economic Development IV. ALTERNATIVES City Council endorse a "resolution of participation,, by: 1) Making a commitment to support appropriate efforts within the community to become better prepared to promote tourism and related economic development, and 2) Pledging to educate and convince others of the necessity and value of tourism ao Timing - application to be considered for tourism accreditation must be made by April 10, 1992. Commitment - toward tourism development would be maintained. c. Economic Development would be continued. Special attention from travelwriters, meeting planners and tour operators by the State Tourism Development office will be obtained by tourism accredited communities. City Council not endorse a "resolution of participation,, to become accredited at this time and wait until the first selected communities have been accredited to apply. 1) Timinq - The Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau could postpone application until the second term for certification resulting in an eighteen- month delay. 2) 3) Commitment for the progressive movement of tourism readiness would be delayed. Economic Development would be maintained at "status quo." Members of Council April 6, 1992 Page 3 City Council not endorse a resolution of participation to become accredited. 1) Timing The Roanoke Valley and Convention and Visitors Bureau would not become accredited. 2) Commitment for progressive movement of tourism would not be realized. 3) Economic DeveloDment would be maintained at "status quo." V. RECOMMENDATION Recommend alternative A - City Council endorse a resolution of participation for the Virginia Tourism Accreditation program. Sincerely, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/PFS/egf cc: Director of Finance City Attorney Chief, Economic Development Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #112-262 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30933-040692 authorizing the City's participation in C & P Telephone Company's Centrex CustoFLEX Plan, for an initial 12 month period, and granting you the authority to extend the agreement for an additional 12 month period, upon certain terms and conditions. Resolution No. 30933-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno o pc: Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. Ronald L. Wade, Acting Manager, Communications Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #112-262 Mr. Fred W. Rogers Account Executive C & P Telephone Company 5415 Airport Road, N. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Dear Mr. Rogers: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30933-040692 authorizing the City's participation in C & P Telephone Company's Centrex CustoFLEX Plan, for an initial 12 month period, and granting the City Manager the authority to extend the agreement for an additional 12 month period, upon certain terms and conditions. Resolution No. 30933-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 6th day of April, 1992. No. 30933-040692. A RESOLUTION authorizing the City's participation in C & P Telephone Company's Centrex CustoFLEX Plan, upon certain terms and conditions. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, appropriate documentation, in form approved by the City Attorney, for the City to subscribe to the C & P Telephone Company's Centrex CustoFLEX Plan for an initial twelve (12) month period, with the City Manager being granted the authority to extend the agreement for an additional twelve (12) month period, said vendor being the sole source practically available for such service, upon such terms and conditions as are deemed to be in the City's best interest, and as more particularly set forth in the report to this Council dated April 6, 1992. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, April 6, Virginia 1992 The Honorable Mayor and city Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: SUBJECT: C&P TELEPHONE PROPOSAL I. BACKGROUND ae Previous Administrative Telephone System Contract with C & P Telephone Company for telephone line service has expired and is currently on a month to month basis. With current structure of City System, C & P is sole source available for telephone line service. Be C & P Telephone Company is providing telephone system services on a month to month basis with no termination liability. II. CURRENT SITUATION ae C & P Telephone has submitted a proposal that offers a new Centrex Tariff approved by the S.C.C. which is based upon length of contractual period and number of Centrex lines. By subscribing to the twelve (12) month options the City will save approximately $4,318.09 per month or $51,817.08 per year. This is achieved through substantial reductions in the monthly line rate as compared to the existing Centrex service. Conversion to the new plan is accomplished through a change in the City's class of service and will not affect current telephone numbers or modify how the system is presently configured. No telephone sets will need replacement. The rates quoted under the Plan will allow the City to select a contractual period raging from twelve (12) months up to thirty-six (36) months. The benefit is that the City's rates are stabilized for budgetary purposes. The new tariff will allow the City to achieve significant savings without incurring up-front capital outlay or changes in the City's current system and will allow time for the City to conduct a comprehensive study of the telephone system which may result in further savings. PAGE 2 THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL APRIL 6, 1992 Proposed Centrex CustOFLRW Telephone System would provide enhanced calling features such as automatic call back, call forwarding, speed calling and distinctive ringing at reduced costs. III. ISSUES A. Cost Savinqs B. Quality of Telephone Servic~ IV. AL'i'~NATIVES Authorize the City Manager to execute appropriate documents to subscribe to C & P Telephone Company,s Centrex CustoFLEX Plan for a period of twelve (12) months with an option to extend for another twelve (12) months at the end of the original agreement. Cost savinqs in the amount of approximately $4,318.09 per month will commence upon execution of the twelve (12) month agreement with C & P Telephone Company. Quality of telephone servic~ will be enhanced. Do not authorize the city Manaqer to execute appropriate documents to subscribe to C & P Telephone Company's Centrex CustoFLEX Plan for a period of twelve (12) months with an option to extend for another twelve (12) months at the end of the original agreement. Cost savinqs would not be realized under this alternative. 2. Quality of telephone servic~ would not be enhanced. PAGE 3 THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL APRIL 6, 1992 V. RECONMENDATION City Council concur in Alternative "A" to authorize the City Manager to execute appropriate documents in form approved by City Attorney to subscribe to C & P Telephone Company's Centrex CustoFLEX Plan as a sole source provides for a period of twelve (12) months with the option to extend for another twelve (12) months at the end of the original agreement. Respectfully, W. Robert Herbert, city Manager WRH:RLW/ry cc: Mr. Joel M $chlanger, Director, Finance Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Management and Budget Mr. Ronald L. Wade, Acting Manager, Communications Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #60-305-472 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30934-040692 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 Generai and Capital Funds Appropriations, providing for the transfer of $35,494.00, to p~ovide funds for purchase of furnishings and food service equipment for the new facility of the Crisis Intervention Center. Ordinance No. 30934-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Resources Ms. Andrea B. Krochalis, Crisis Intervention Center Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROI%NOKE~ VIRGINIA The 6th day of April, 1992. No. 30934-040692. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1991-92 General and Capital 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 General and Capital Funds Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Gener&l Fund A o ri 'OhS Nondepartmental Transfers to Other Funds Fund Balance Capital Maintenance Equipment ~nd Replacement Program - City Unappropriated (2) ................. Revenue USDA - Crisis Intervention (3) ...................... (1) ...................... $12,461,909 10,694,144 $ 205,388 $ 30,241 ro ' tions General Government Crisis Intervention Center (4) .................... $ 5,641,174 617,678 1) Transfer to Capital Fund (001-004-9310-9508) $ 35,494 2) CMERP - City Unappropriated (001-3323) (20,000) 3) USDA - Crisis (001-020-1234-0661) 15,494 4) Appropriated from General Revenue (008-052-9637-9003) 35,494 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Honorable Mayor Noel C. Taylor Members of Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia SUBJECT: FUNDING FOR EQUIPMENT FOR CRISIS INTERVENTION CENTER Roanoke, Virginia April 6, 1992 I. BACKGROUND The new facility for the Crisis Intervention Center (Sanctuary) is presently under construction with an expected completion date of April 30, 1992. This new building will replace the space currently being rented. B. This facility will house up to 15 City youth who need emergency shelter and crisis counseling. C. The construction budget included $15,000 for furnishings and equipment. II. CURRENT SITUATION Most furnishings and equipment in the present building were purchased at least ten years ago and are in a poor state of repair. B. Additional furnishings and equipment in the amount of ~35~494 are needed for the new building. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has agreed to reimburse the City $15,494 for food service equipment including stove, refrigerator, freezer, dishwasher, and all kitchen utensils. The remaining funds~ }20~000~ needed to complete this project are available in the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP). III. ISSUES A. Budget. B. Needs of the Facility. C. Timing. IV. ALTERNATIVES A. Appropriate funding to the Crisis Intervention Center {Sanctuary) for furnishing and equipment needs. Budget. Funds are available to transfer $35,494 to the Capital Project Account number 008-052-9637. Increase the revenue estimate from the United States Department of Agriculture by $15,594 and appropriate $20,000 from CMERP. Needs of the Facility. The Crisis Intervention Center needs these funds in order to purchase the necessary furnishings and office equipment. 3. Timing. All funds must be expended during this current fiscal year. Do not appropriate funding to the Crisis Intervention Center for furnishings and office equipment. 1. Budget. Local funding would not be an issue. Funds from the United States Department of Agriculture would not be received. Needs of the Facility. The Crisis Intervention Center would not have adequate furnishings and equipment. Sufficient furnishings and equipment will not be available to begin operation. The opening of the new facility would be delayed. 3. Timing. Timing would not be an issue. V. RECOPIqENDATIONS Concur with Alternative A and appropriate funding to the Crisis Intervention Center for furnishings and equipment. Transfer $35,494 from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund Crisis Intervention Center project, account number 008-052-9637. Funding will be provided from the following sources: Increase the General Fund revenue estimate for USDA funds, account number 001-020-1234-0660, by $15,494. Appropriate these funds to Transfer to Capital Projects Fund, account number 001-004-9310-9508. Appropriate $20?000 from CMERP to account number 001-004-9310-9508, Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund. WRH/JDR:dsn cc: City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Human Resources Manager, Crisis Intervention Center Manager, Management and Budget Respectfully Submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #60-72 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30935-040692 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 General Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of $27,000.00 and transfer of $90,000.00, in connection with additional funds necessary for the care of children in custody of the City's Department of Social Services. Ordinance No. 30935-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. pc' Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Resources Ms. Corinne B. Gott, Manager, Social Services Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CXTY OF ROANOXE~ VIRGINIA The 6th day of April, 1992. No. 30935-040692. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1991-92 General Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, Government of exist. 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 General Fund Appropriations, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to rea~ as follows, in part: &~Droori&~ons Health and Welfare Income Maintenance (1) ............................. Social Services - Services (2) ..................... Nondepartmental Contingency - General Fund (3) ..................... Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth Welfare (4-5) ...................................... 1) Auxiliary Grant Program (001-054-5313-3120) $ (90,000) 2) Foster Care Services (001-054-5314-3141) 90,000 3) Contingency (001-002-9410-2199) (27,000) 4) Foster Care (001-020-1234-0675) 45,000 5) Aged, Blind, Disabled (001-020-1234-0670) (72,000) $15,007,128 3,550,846 6,981,766 12,414,909 728,759 $53,290,642 9,270,346 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: city Clerk. April 6, 1992 The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Mayor and Members of Council: SUBJECT: REQUEST TO TRANSFER AUXILIAI{Y GRANT FUNDS TO FOS'r~fl~ CARg SgllVICE I. BACKGROUND The Department of Social Services is required by Virginia statutes to accept custody of and make arrangements for a treatment plan for children found to be dependent or neglected and in need of services. Severe emotional problems prevent children from remaining with their own family or foster family, consequently, children need intensive residential services provided by facilities who specialize in therapeutic care. Cost of care per child is increasing each year because of the following reasons: More children in need of services remain at the local level for treatment instead of being sent to State facilities which would have been paid by State funds. Foster families reflect the current socio-economic make-up of families in the Community; therefore, some foster care children require Day Care, in addition to room and board, when placed in foster homes. The State Board of Social Services increased the rates for payment of room and board for foster children by 3% across the board 7-1-91. 4. Through the rate setting process, residential facilities averaged a 10% rate increase for FY 91-92. II. CURRENT SITUATION Cost of care for Foster children in custody of local Department was underestimated by $90~000 in FY 91/92. 1. $45,000 local funds are needed to match State funds on a 50/50 match which totals $90,000. Page Two 2o III. ISSUES Part of local match is in the local budget under Auxiliary Grants Program. a) $18,000 local funds may be transferred from Auxiliary Grants which is an 80/20 State/local fund. Additional local funds of $27~000 are needed to continue foster care program. 1. Funding. 2. Legal. IV. ALTERNATIVES City Council approve this request and transfer $90,000 from Auxiliary Grant Programs to Foster Care Services and provide additional local funds of $27~000. FundinK - Funding to provide remaining local match of $27,000 is available in contingency account. 2o Lesal - Foster Care services that are mandated by State statutes can be provided. Do not approve the request to transfer $90~000 from Auxiliary Grant Program to Foster Care services. 1. Fundin~ - Not an issue. Legal - Foster Care services that are mandated by State statutes cannot be provided. V. RECOMMENDATION A. City Council concur in Alternative A and authorize the following: Transfer $90,000 from Auxiliary Grant Program Account #001-054-5313-3120 to Foster Care Services Account #001-054-5314-3141. Increase Revenue estimate of Foster Care funds received from the State Department of Social Services Account #001-020-1234-0675 by $45~000. Decrease Revenue estimate of Auxiliary Grant funds received from the State Department of Social Services Account #001-020-1234-0670 by $72~000. Page Three Decrease General Fund Contin~enc~ Account #001-002-9410-2199 by $27~000 to offset loss of local funds. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager 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 FOSTER CARE EXP E NDITURE NUMBER OF CHILDREN SERVED TOTAL CHILDREN FY 1987/1988 320 FY 1988/1989 337 FY 1989/1990 349 FY 1990/1991 338 FY 1991/1992 Projected 329 TOTAL EXPENDITURE 1.411.101 ! ,853,242.00 2,384.660.00 2,597,711.00 2,647,660.00 2.8i 2.2~ '1,2 0.2 0 FOSTER CARE EXPENDITURES NUMBER OF CHILDREN SERVED 320 337 349 338 328 FOSTER CARE EXPENDITURES COMPARATIVE CHART REIMBURSEMENT 100% Reimbursed 80% Reimbursed 50% Reimbursed Total 1987,188 ':,!, Tota 470.742.00 33?,;:. 444,581.00 327,,~ 495,77800 1,411,101.00 P roj. 1992 %Total 713,460.00 27% 363,600.00 14% 1,570,~00,00 2,647,~60 00 % Change 51% (22%) 21 87% FOSTER CAREEXPENDITURES 1,7~ 1.6~- 1.51-' !,4 1. 3 0,9 0.8 0,7 0.6 0, 5 ~' ': · 0,3 0.2 100% Reimbursed ~ 50% Reimbursed 80% Reimbursed ~ 1987/88 [] 1992 PROJECTED TYPE OF PLACEMENT COMPARISON FOSTER PARENTS SPECIALIZED FC AGE NCIES RESIDENTIAL 7/90 47,584.00 20,094.00 65,34t .00 7/90 51,407.00 44,317.00 ~2,579,00 7/90 54,280.00 56,43900 95,193.00 7/'91 60,294.00 79.014.00 94,815.00 2/92 51,543.00 90,803.00 91,369.00 TYPE OF PLACEMENT COMPARISON 100v' 90~ 5o? 4O? 30? 2oi E;-¢,~- z ~- z--~ i 7/88 7/89 7/90 2/92 7/91 FOSTER PARENTS EX ~ ...... ~,.-~ SPEC. FC AGENCIES ~-~ RESIDENT.A_ Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #123 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30937-040692 authorizing execution of a contract with Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern, Inc., to provide certain engineering services, specifically design development, construction documents, construction administration and project inspections for completion of the second floor cell pod in the Roanoke City Jail, in the amount of $60,700.00. Resolution No. 30937- 040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. pc: Mr. Joel M. Schianger, Director of Finance Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Administration and Public Safety Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Mr. L. Bane Coburn, Civil Engineer Ms. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician Ms. Dolores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community Relations Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #60-123 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30936-040692 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 General and Capital Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of $450,000.00, in connection with award of a contract to Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern, Inc., for design development and construction documents, construction administration and project inspection for completion of the second floor cell pod at the Roanoke City Jail. Ordinance No. 30936-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. pc: The Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, City Sheriff Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Administration and Public Safety Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Mr. L. Bane Coburn, Civil Engineer Ms. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget Ms. Dolores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community Relations Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROA~OKEv VIRGINIA The 6th day of April, 1992. No. 30936-040692. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1991-92 General and Capital 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 General and Capital Funds Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Gener&l Fu~d Appropriations Public Safety $29,299,061 Jail (1) .......................................... 3,926,915 Nondepartmental 12,641,909 Transfers to Other Funds (2) ...................... 10,858,650 Canital Fund Appropriations General Government City Jail - 2nd Floor Pod (3-4) ................... Revenue Accounts Receivable - U.S. Dept. of Justice (5) ..... 1) Recovered Cost 2) Transfers to Capital 3) Appropriated from General Revenue (001-024-3310-8005} (001-004-9310-9508) (008-052-9681-9003) $(200,000) 200,000 200,000 $11,347,716 450,000 $ 250,000 4) Appropriated from Third Party 5) U.S. Dept. of Justice-Jail (008-052-9681-9004) $ 250,000 (008-1287) 250,000 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: this City Clerk. Ro~anoke, Virginia '~2 ."~?:A~ri'~ ~i. 1992 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Award Architectural/Engineering Full Service Contract Addition to Roanoke City Jail Completion of Second Floor Cell Pod for City of Roanoke Roanoke, Virginia II. Background: Advertisement of Public Notice to seek architectural/engineering services for the Completion of Second Floor Cell Pod in the Roanoke City Jail was advertised in the local paper on January 19, 1992. Three (3) architectural/engineering firms responded to the request for services. They were: - Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. - Sherertz Franklin Crawford Shaffner, - I. V. Harris and Associates, Inc. Inc. The three firms were invited for interviews and they all responded. Interviews were conducted by the selection committee, composed of Charles Huffine, L. Bane Coburn, and Sheriff Alvin Hudson, on February 19, 1992. Hayest Seayt Mattern & Matternt Inc. was selected as the best qualified architectural/engineering firm for this particular project. This firm designed the original jail and also the completion of the third and fourth floor pods. Project consists of the interior completion of the second floor pod to accommodate an additional forty-four (44) inmates. This is achieved by double bunking the cells on the outside walls. Issues: A. Qualification of firm B. Timing of award C. Reasonableness of fee D. Availability of funding Page 2 III. Alternatives: Award a full services architectural/engineering contract to Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc., Architects-Engineers-Planners of Roanoke, Virginia for the design, construction documents, and contract administration including periodic inspections of construction for the following lump sum fee: Basic Services Contract Additional Services Reimbursable Expenses $55,000.00 3,200.00 2t500.00 TOTAL $60,700.00 * Expenditure of these fee charges will be administratively approved. Additional service fees are for any changes or additional work requested by the City during the construction of the project. * Reimbursable Expenses is for additional prints required over the ten complete sets contained in the contract agreement, travel and telephone services required outside the City of Roanoke during the project time. Estimated cost of the project is as follows: Estimated Construction Cost Project Contingency Architect/Engineer Expense $450,000.00 30,000.00 60,700.00 TOTAL $540,700.00 Qualification of the firm was verified during the proposal review and the interviews for this project. Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. has performed all architectural/engineering services for this facility in the past. Timing of award is important because of the Jail overcrowding. Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. does not have to familiarize themselves with present construction as it relates to this particular project. Page 3 IV. Reasonableness of fee has been verified through the use of the Commonwealth of Virginia's Capital Outlay Manual for A/E services for projects of this size and complexity. Availability of fundinq for this A/E fee and the entire project is as follows: From U.S. Dept. of Justice, U.S. Marshals Service $250,000.00 City Jail's Recovered Cost Account (Per Diem from Housing Federal Prisoners) 200~000.00 TOTAL $450,000.00 Do not award a contract at this time. Qualification of firm will still have to be established prior to award of any architectural/engineering services contract. Timinq of award would be delayed which would delay completion of the construction of the additional inmate cells. This would delay any relief for the overcrowding of the jail. Reasonableness of fee would have to be established for any architectural/engineering firm selected in the future. Availability of fundinq would remain unobligated at this time. Recommendation is that City Council take the following action: A. Concur with the implementation of Alternative A. Be Authorize the City Manager to execute an architectural/engineering full services contract, in form acceptable to the City Attorney, with Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. for design development and construction documents, construction administration and project inspection of Completion of the Second Floor Cell Pod at the Roanoke City Jail for the following fee: Page 4 WRH/LBC/mm CC: Basic Services $55,000.00 Additional Services 3,200.00 * Reimbursable Expenses 2t500.00 * TO~AL $60,700.00 * Expenditure of these funds to be administratively approved. Appropriate $450~000.00 to an account to be established by the Director of Finance in the capital projects fund titled City Jail - 2nd Floor Pod. Pro~ect fundinq to this new account is from the following sources: From U.S. Dept. of Justice U.S. Marshals Service $250,000.00 From City Jail's Recovered Cost Account 200~000.00 TOTAL $450,000.00 Any additional funding required for construction will be identified at the time that the construction contract is awarded. Establish an accounts receivable account for the $250~000.00 from the United States Department of Justice, United States Marshals Service. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Public Works Director of Administration & Public Safety City Sheriff City Engineer Citizens' Request for Service Construction Cost Technician Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #183-472-268 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30939-040692 accepting the bid of Baker Brothers, Inc., in the amount of $35,969.00, for furnishing and delivering one rubber tired loader/backhoe for use by the Utility Line Services Department. Resolution No. 30939-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. pc: Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Administration and Public Safety Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations Mr. Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Manager, Utility Line Services Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #183-472-268 Mr. Joseph B. Baker Vice President Baker Brothers, Inc. 1404 Williamson Road, N. E. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Dear Mr. Baker: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30939-040692 accepting the bid of Baker Brothers, Inc., in the amount of $35,969.00, for furnishing and delivering one rubber tired loader/backhoe for use by the Utility Line Services Department. Resolution No. 30939-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #183-472-268 Mr. T. E. Shelton, President Shelton-Witt Equipment Corporation P. O. Box 828 Salem, Virginia 24153 Dear Mr. Shelton: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30939-040692 accepting the bid of Baker Brothers~ Inc., in the amount of $35,969.00, for furnishing and delivering one rubber tired loader/backhoe for use by the Utility Line Services Department. Resolution No. 30939-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed equipment. Sincerely, City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoka, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #183-472 Mr. Edward T. Robinson Sales Coordinator James River Equipment, Inc. 3902 W. Main Street Salem, Virginia 24153 Dear Mr. Robinson: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30939-040692 accepting the bid of Baker Brothers, Inc., in the amount of $35,969.00, for furnishing and delivering one rubber tired loader/backhoe for use by the Utility Line Services Department. Resolution No. 30939-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed equipment. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno o Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #183-472 Mr. Dan J. Buckley, Jr. Governmental Account Manager Carter Machinery Co., Inc. P. O. Box 3096 Salem, Virginia 24153 Dear Mr. Buckley: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30939-040692 accepting the bid of Baker Brothers, Inc., in the amount of $35,969.00, for furnishing and delivering one rubber tired loader/backhoe for use by the Utility Line Services Department. Resolution No. 30939-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, Aprli 6, 1992. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed equipment. Sincerely, City Clerk MFP: sw Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 6th day of April, 1992. No. 30939-040692. VIRGINIA, A RESOLUTION accepting a bid made to the City for furnishing and delivering one rubber tired loader/backhoe; and rejecting all other bids made to the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The low bid of Baker Brothers, Inc., made to the City, offering to furnish one rubber tired loader/backhoe, meeting all of the City's specifications and requirements therefore, for the total bid price of $35,969.00, which bid is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, is hereby ACCEPTED. 2. The City's Manager of General Services is hereby authorized to issue the requisite purchase order therefore, incorporating into said order the City's specifications, the terms of said bidder's proposal, and the terms and provisions of this measure, as more particularly set out in a report to this Council dated April 6, 1992. 3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid equipment are hereby REJECTED; notify each such bidder and appreciation for each bid. and the City Clerk is directed to to express to each the City's ATTEST: City Clerk. Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #60-183-472-268 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30938-040692 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 Internal Service Fund Appropriations, providing for the transfer of $35,969.00, in connection with award of a contract to Baker Brothers, Inc., for one new rubber tired loader/backhoe for use by the Utility Line Services Department. Ordinance No. 30938-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC~AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc o pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Administration and Public Safety Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations Mr. Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Manager, Utility Line Services Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 6th day of April, 1992. No. 30938-040692. AN ORDINANCE 1991-92 Internal an emergency. WHEREAS, for the usual daily Government of the city of Roanoke, exist. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by Roanoke that certain sections of the Fund Appropriations, be, and the same reordained to read as follows, in part: VIRGINIA to amend and reordain certain sections of the Service Fund Appropriations, and providing for operation of the Municipal an emergency is declared to the Council of the City of 1991-92 Internal Service are hereby, amended and &nDronriationa Utility Line Services Capital Outlay (1) ................................. $2,730,772 260,512 Retained Earnings Retained Earnings - Unrestricted (2) ............... 1) Other Equipment 2) Retained Earnings - Unrestricted (006-056-2625-9015) $ 35,969 (006-3336) (35,969) $2,749,511 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: this City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia April 6, 1992 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Bids on Rubber Tired Loader/Backhoe Bid No. 92-2-85 I. Backqround: Funds for Internal Service Fund capital equipment purchases were not budgeted for FY 91/92. Prior year retained earnings are available for appropriation to the current Utility Line Services budget. Bids were received on March 5~ 1992~ after due and proper advertisement and were publicly opened and read at 2:00 p.m. in the office of the Manager of General Services. Equipment to efficiently and safely provide water and sewer repairs needs to be purchased, replaced and upgraded on an annual basis. The Loader/Backhoe will replace an existing unit purchased in 1978. II. Current Situation: A. Evaluation of bids received was accomplished by: Mr. Kit Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations Mr. Jesse Perdue, Jr., Manager, Utility Line Services Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services Four (4) companies submitted quotations for consideration. The lowest bid meeting all specifications was submitted by Baker Brothers, Inc. in the amount of $351969.00. III. Issues in order of importance: A. Need B. Compliance with specifications C. Fundinq Members of Council April 6, 1992 Page 2 IV. Alternatives: Council accept the lowest bid meeting specifications as submitted by Baker Brothers, Inc. in the amount of $35r969.00. Need to replace equipment in poor condition purchased in 1978 will be met. Compliance with specifications - lowest bid submitted meets all specifications. Fundinq in Internal Service Fund previous years' retained earnings has been identified. B. Reject all bids: Need to replace existing equipment in a timely manner will not be met. 2. Compliance with specifications - is a moot issue. Fundinq designated for the purchase and replacement of equipment will not be expended. Recommendation: Accept low bid meetinq specifications and reject all other bids. ADDroDriate $35,969.00 from Internal Services Fund retained earnings to account number 006-056-2625-9015 for the purchase of equipment. Members of Council April 6, 1992 Page 3 WRH:dpe Attachment: cc: Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager Tabulation of Bids City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Utilities & Operations Manager, Utility Line Services Manager, General Services Manager, Management & Budget BID TABULATION Bids received and opened in the Office of General Services, FOR RUBBER TIRED LOADER/BACKHOE BID NUMBER 92-2-85 2:00 p.m., March 5, 1992 Shelton-Witt Equip. Corp. James River Baker Carter Equip., Inc. Brothers, Inc. Machinery Co., Inc. 1 New Rubber Tired Loader/Backhoe $40,000.00 $36,957.00 Alternate Bids: 1 24" Trenching Bucket 720.00 800.00 Additional Set of Tires 9J0.00 1,000.00 Terms Net Net Delivery 60 Days 30 Days * $35,969.00 $48,272.00 560.00 1,882.03 Net Net 45-60 Days 90 Days Recommended Bid Denoted by Asterick* BID COMMITTEE K.B. Kiser Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File //144-472 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30941-040692 accepting bids submitted by McCormack International Trucks, Mid- State Equipment Company, Inc., Sanco/Division of the Heft, and Cavalier Equipment Corporation, to provide refuse trucks and bodies for use by the Refuse Collection Department. Resolution No. 30941-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mar~ F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno o pc: Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. Jerry R. Chocklett, Jr., Acting Manager, Refuse Collection Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Administration and Public Safety Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #144-472 Mr. Roland J. Blake Vice President Fulton Trucks, Inc. P. O. Box 6337 Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Dear Mr. Blake: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30941-040692 accepting bids submitted by McCormack International T~ucks, Mid-State Equipment Company, Inc., Sanco/Division of the Hell, and Cavalier Equipment Corporation, to provide refuse trucks and bodies for use by the Refuse Collection Department. Resolution No. 30941-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the refuse collection equipment. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/~AE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #144-472 Ms. Deborah M. Beck Corporate Secretary Cavalier Equipment Corporation P. O. Box 12507 Roanoke, Virginia 24026 Dear Ms. Beck: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30941-040692 accepting your bid for one new bulky item refuse body to be used by the Refuse Collection Department, in the amount of $23,828.00. Resolution No. 30941-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CM~/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #144-472 Mr. Edward Hallford Sales Correspondent Dempster, Inc. P. O. Box 1388 Hwy 123 Toccoa, Georgia 30577 Dear Mr. Hallford: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30941-040692 accepting bids submitted by McCormack International Trucks, Mid-State Equipment Company, Inc., Sanco/Division of the Heil, and Cavalier Equipment Corporation, to provide refuse trucks and bodies for use by the Refuse Collection Department. Resolution No. 30941-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the refuse collection equipment. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #144-472 Mr. Dale S. Jones Vice President McCormack International Trucks P. O. Box 12087 Roanoke, Virginia 24022 Dear Mr. Jones: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30941-040692 accepting your bid for one new cab/chassis for a 20 cubic yard packer body to be used by the Refuse Collection Department, in the amount of $46,712.20. Resolution No. 30941-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Erie Room 456 Municipal Buildirtg 2.15 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 2401.1 (703) 98'1-254'1 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #144-472 Mr. Robert A. Bankert Vice President Mid-State Equipment Co., Inc. P. O. Box 249 Buchanan, Virginia 24066 Dear Mr. Bankert: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30941-040692 accepting your bid for one new 20 cubic yard packer body to be used by the Refuse Collection Department, in the amount of $20,220.00. Resolution No. 30941-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #144-472 Mr. J. Richard Warren Territory Manager Sanco/Division of the Heft P. O. Box 8676 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37411 Dear Mr. Warren: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30941-040692 accepting your bid for one new cab/chassis for a bulky item refuse body to be used by the Refuse Collection Department, in the amount of $32,856.00. Resolution No. 30941-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Ma / r~r F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #144-472 Mr. C. N. Hall, III Vice President of Operations Solid Waste Equipment Co. 306 S. Leadbetter Road Ashland, Virginia 23006 Dear Mr. Hall: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30941-040692 accepting bids submitted by McCormack International Trucks, Mid-State Equipment Company, Inc., Sanco/Division of the Heil, and Cavalier Equipment Corporation, to provide refuse trucks and bodies for use by the Refuse Collection Department. Resolution No. 30941-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the refuse collection equipment. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #144-472 Mr. David W. Witt Sales Representative Virginia Truck Center P. O. Box 7178 Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Dear Mr. Witt: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30941-040692 accepting bids McCormack International T~ucks, Mid-.State Equipment C subm/'tted by Sanco/Division of the Hell, and Cavalier Enu],-men ...... ompany. Inc., trucks and bodies for use ~-.- +~- ,~-~ ~ E ~ ~-orporauon, to provide ~'~ ~,~ ~eruse Collection De,~ar*~-- -- refuse 30941~040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting · ' ~"~-~. ~tesolution No. held on Monday, April 6, 1992. On behalf of the Mayor and Member · . appreciation for submittin~ your ~.,., ~s.. o.[ C~t~y Council, .I would like to express ..... ,,- me re,use collect]on equipment ~ Sincerely, MFP: sw Ma~ F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk Eric. Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 6th day of April, 1992. No. 30941-040692. A RESOLUTION accepting bids for certain vehicular equipment and rejecting certain other bids for such equipment. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The bids in writing of the following named bidders to furnish to the City the items hereinafter set out and generally described, such items being more particularly described in the City's specifications and any alternates and in each bidder's proposal, and the City Manager's report dated April 6, 1992, are hereby ACCEPTED, at the purchase prices set out with each item: Item Successful Purchase Number Quantity & Description Bidder Price 1 1 - New Cab/Chassis for 20 cu.yd. Packer Body McCormack International Trucks $ 46,712.20 2 1 New 20 cu.yd. Mid-State Packer Body Equipment Co. , Inc. 3 1 - 4 1 - New Cab/Chassis for Bulky Item Refuse Body New Bulky Item Refuse Body $ 20,220.00 Sanco/Division $ 32,856.00 of the Heil Cavalier Equipment Co., Inc. $ 23,828.00 2. The City's Manager of General Services is hereby authorized to issue the requisite purchase orders for the above- mentioned items, said purchase orders to be made and filled in accordance with the City's specifications, the respective bids made therefor and this measure, as more particularly set out in a report to this Council dated March 16, 1992. 3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid items are hereby REJECTED; notify each such bidder appreciation for each bid. and the City Clerk is directed to so and to express to each the City's ATTEST: City Clerk. Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #60-144-472 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30940-040692 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 General Fund Appropriations, providing for the transfer of $126,324.00, in connection with purchase of refuse trucks and bodies for use by the Refuse Collection Department. Ordinance No. 30940-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE' City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. Jerry R. Chocklett, Jr., Acting Manager, Refuse Collection Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Administration and Public Safety Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke1 Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 AN 1991-92 emergency. WHEREAS, Government of exist. IN THB COUNCIL OF THB CITY OF ROANOKE, The 6th day of April, 1992. No. 30940-040692. ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain General VIRGINIA Fund Appropriations, sections of the and providing 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 General Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Public Works Refuse Collection (1-2) ............................ Nondepartmental Contingency - General Fund (3) ..................... 1) Vehicular Equipment (001-052-4210-9010) 2) Other Equipment (001-052-4210-9015) 3) Equipment Replace- ment Contingency (001-002-9410-2202) $ 123,616 2,708 (126,324) $19,600,176 4,267,409 $12,364,041 677,891 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, April 6, Virginia 1992 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: SUBJECT: Report on Refuse Trucks, Bid No. 92-2-83, and Fund Appropriation I. Back,round Two (2) Refuse Trucks have been identified for replacement. One (1) unit is a 20 cu. yd. Packer and one (1) , is a Bulky Item Refuse Truck. Bid specifications were developed and along with request for quotations were sent to Twenty-Five (25) vendors currently listed on the City's bid list. A public advertisement was also published in the Roanoke Times and World News. Bids were received after due and proper advertisement and were publicly opened and read at 2:00 p.m. on March 5, 1992, in the Office of the Manager of General Services. Bid tabulation is attached. II. Current Situation ao Ail bids received were evaluated in a consistent manner by representatives of the following departments: Fleet Management Refuse Collection General Services Refuse Trucks Page 2 Bid No. 92-2-83 III. B. Bid evaluations are as follows: Item #1. One (1} cab/chassis for 20 cu. yd. Refuse Body - The lowest bid submitted by McCormack International Trucks took exception to the Engine C.I.D. The engine that they bid meets all torque and horsepower requirements. This exception has been determined to be an informality as defined in the Code of the City of Roanoke, Section 23.1-3. The cost of the unit bid is $46,712.20. Item #2. One (1} new 20 cu. yd. Refuse Body to be mounted on Item #1. The lowest bid submitted by Mid-State Equipment Co., Inc. meets all City requirements for the total amount of $20,220.00. Item #3. One (1) new Cab/Chassis for a Bulky Item Refuse Body. The lowest bid submitted by Sanco/Division of the Hell, meets all requirements for the cost of $32,856.00. Iten #4. One (1) new Bulky Item Refuse Body to be mounted on Item #3. The lowest bid submitted by Cavalier Equipment Corporation meets all requirements for the cost of $23,828.00. Co Appropriation of Fundm are necessary to provide for two (2) mobile radios to provide for appropriate communications with the above units. Radios compatible with the existing radio system will cost $1,354.00 per unit. Issues A. Need B. Compliance with Specificationm C. Fund availability Refuse Trucks Paqe 3 Bid No. 92-2-83 IV. Alternakives Council accept the lowest responsible bids for Refuse Trucks and bodies as follows: Item #1. One (1) new Cab/Chassis for 20 cu. yd. Refuse Packer as submitted by McCormack International Trucks for a cost of $46,712.20. Item #~. One (1) new 20 cu. yd. Packer Body to be mounted on Item #1, as submitted by Mid-State Equipment Co., Inc. for a cost of $20,220.00. Item #3. One (1) new Cab/Chassis for Bulky Item Refuse Body, as submitted by Sanco/Division of the Meil, for a cost of $32,856.00. Item #4. One (1) new Bulky Item Refuse Body to be mounted on Item #3 as submitted by Cavalier Equipment Corporation for a cost of $23,828.00. Need - Requested units are necessary to continue to perform required duties of Refuse Collection in the most effective manner. b) c) Compliance with Specification~ - The units recommended meets those necessary requirements of the City. Fund availability - Funds are available in the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program Account #001-004-9410-2202. B. Re~ct all Bids. Need - Required duties of the Refuse Collection department may not be accomplished in the most efficient manner. Refuse Trucks Page 4 Bid No. 92-2-83 o Compliance with Specifications would not be a factor in this alternative. Fund availability - Funds available for this purchase would not be expended. Recommendation ao Council concur with Alternative "A" - award bids for the purchase of Refuse Trucks and Bodies as follows: Item #1. Item #2. Item #3. Item #4. One (1) new Cab/Chassis for 20 cu. yd. Packer Body to McCormack International Trucks for the total cost of $46,712.20. One (1) new 20 cu. yd. Packer Body to be mounted on Item #1 to Mid-State Equipment Co., Inc. for a total cost of $20,220.00. One {1) new Cab/Chassis for Bulky Item Refuse Body to Sanco/Division of the Meil for a total cost of $32,856.00. One (1] new Bulky Item Refuse Body to be mounted on item #3, to Cavalier Equipment Co., Inc. for a total cost of $23,828.00. Transfer $126,324.20 from Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program as follows: $123,616.20 to Refuse Collection department Account No. 001-052-4210-9010 for the purchase of the trucks and bodies. $2,708.00 to Refuse Collection department Account No. 001-052-4210-9015 for the purchase of Mobile Radios. Refuse Trucks Page 5 Bid No. 92-2-83 C. Reject all other Bids. Respectfully Submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager cc: City Attorney Director of Finance Bid Tabulation Bids received and opened in the Office of General Services, 2:00 p.m., March 5, 1992 For Refuse Trucks Bid Number 92-2-83 Virginia McCormack Fulton Mid-State Truck Center International Trucks Equipment Trucks Inc. Co., Inc. Mid-State Equipment Co., Inc. Alternate Bid Item #1 ~ New Cab/Chassis for a 20 cu. yd. High Compaction Refuse Body N/B * $46,712.20 $56,463.00 N/B NIB Item #2 1 New 20 cu. yd. High Compaction Refuse Body to be mounted on Item #1 N/B N/B N/B * $20,220.00 $22,470.00 Item #3 1 New Cab/Chassis for a Bulky Item Refuse Body $35,098.00 $35,191.82 N/B N/B N/B Item #4 1 New Bulky Item Refuse Body to be mounted on Item #3 N/B N/B N/B N/B N/B Delivery 90-120 Days 110 Days 90-120 Days 30-45 Days 30-45 Days * Indicates Recommendation Bid Tabulation Bids received and opened in the Office of General Services, For Refuse Trucks Bid Number 92-2-83 2:00 p.m., March 5, 1992 Dempster Solid Waste Solid Waste Inc. Equipment Co. Equipment Co. Alternate Bid Cavalier Equipment Corporation Sanco/Division of the Heil Item #1 i New Cab/Chassis for a 20 cu. yd. High Compaction Refuse Body N/B N/B N/B N/B N/B Item #2 1 New 20 cu. yd. High Compaction Refuse Body to be mounted on Item #1 $23,270.00 $23,099.00 $22,347.00 $20,768.00 $23,704.35 Item #3 1 New Cab/Chassis for a Bulky Item Refuse Truck N/B N/B N/B N/B * $32,856.00 Item #4 1 New Bulky Item Refuse Body to be mounted on Item #3 N/B N/B N/B * $23,828.00 $26,475.00 Delivery Committee: 30-45 Days 30 Days 30 Days William F. Clark V Jer~y R. Chocklettz, Jr. 30-45 Days 60-90 Days D. Darwin Roupe * Indicates Recommendation Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #70-472 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30943-040692 accepting the bid of Chief's Fire and Rescue, Inc., in the total amount of $136,096.00, for one new hazardous material vehicle for use by the Fire Department. Ordinance No. 30943-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. pc: Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Administration and Public Safety Mr. Rawleigh W. Quarles, Fire Chief Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #70-472 Mr. Jerry O. Evans Sales Manager ESV Division Hackney and Sons, Inc. 400 Hackney Avenue Washington, D. C. 27889 Dear Mr. Evans: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30943-040692 accepting the bid of Chief's Fire and Rescue, Inc., in the total amount of $136,096.00, for one new hazardous material vehicle for use by the Fire Department. Ordinance No. 30943-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed equipment. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc o Room 4S6 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue. S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #70-472 Mr. Richard K. Ashley Vice President Chief's Fire and Rescue, Inc. P. O. Box 305 Warrensville, North Carolina 28693-0305 Dear Mr. Ashley: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30943-040692 accepting the bid of Chief's Fire and Rescue, Inc., in the total amount of $136,096.00, for one new hazardous material vehicle for use by the Fire Department. Ordinance No. 30943-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/~AE City Clerk MFP: sw Ene o Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 6th day of April, 1992. No. 30943-040692. VIRGINIA, A RESOLUTION accepting the bid of Chief's Fire and Rescue, Inc. to provide a hazardous material vehicle to the City, upon certain terms and conditions and rejecting all other bids made to the City for such vehicle. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The bid of Chief's Fire and Rescue, Inc. made to the City in the total amount of $136,096.00 for providing a hazardous material vehicle to the City, such bid being in full compliance with the City's plans and specifications made therefore as modified through negotiations between the City and the bidder in accordance with S23.1-14.C., Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, as more full set forth in the report of the City Manager dated April 6, 1992, which bid is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, is hereby ACCEPTED. 2. The City's Manager of General Services is authorized to issue the requisite purchase order for the above-mentioned vehicle, said purchase order to be made and filed in accordance with the City's specifications, the bid made therefor and in accordance with this ordinance. 3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforementioned vehicle are hereby REJECTED, and the City Clerk is directed to so notify each such bidder and to express to each the City's appreciation for such bid. ATTEST: City Clerk. Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #60-70-472 Mr. Joel M. Schianger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30942-040692 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 General Fund Appropriations, providing for the transfer of $14,200.00, in connection with acceptance of the bid submitted by Chief's Fire and Rescue, Inc., for one new hazardous material vehicle for use by the Fire Department. Ordinance No. 30942-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Administration and Public Safety Mr. Rawleigh W. Quarles, Fira Chief Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 XN THE COONCXL OF THE CXTY OF RO~OKEv The 6th day of April, 1992. VIR~XNXA AN ORDINANCE No. 30942-040692. 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: Publlc Safety Fire Operations Capital Maintenance & Equipment Replacement Program - City Unappropriated (2) .................. 1) Other Equipment (001-050-3213-9015) $ 14,200 2) CMERP - City (001-3323) (14,200) $29,513,261 10,120,365 $ 211,188 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia April 6, 1992 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia SUBJECT: Bids for Hazardous Material Vehicle, Bid Number 92-2-17 Background ae State Grant Funds, appropriately accepted, for an amount of $121,896 are available for the purchase of a Hazardous Materials Vehicle. Specifications were developed and sent specifically to thirty-one (31) vendors that are currently listed on the City's bid list. A public advertisement was also published in the Roanoke Times and World News. February 28, 1992 bids were received, after due and proper advertisement were publicly opened and read by the Manager of General Services. Bid tabulation is attached. Bond requirements - Performance bond in the amount of 100% of the bid was specifically identified in the specifications as a requirement. Bid specifications did allow for the flexibility to negotiate with the lowest responsible bidder if bids received exceeded available funds. This is pursuant to Section 23.1-4 (c) of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1979, as amended. II. Current Situation Ail bid responses were evaluated in a consistent manner by representatives of the following departments: Administration and Public Safety Fire Department General Services Hazardous Material Vehicle April 6, 1992 Page 2 Be Evaluation of bids received for the Hazardous Material Vehicle, Bid Number 92.2.17 is as follows: Two (2) bids were received. Both of those responses offered bids with exceptions. The lowest bid submitted by Chief's Fire and Rescue, Inc. took some exceptions to the specifications. These exceptions are determined to be informalities as defined in section 23.1-3 of the Code of the City of Roanoke. Negotiations with Chief's Fire and Rescue, Inc. were conducted as allowed by the Code of The City of Roanoke. Those negotiations resulted in the reduced price including operational equipment and performance bond of $136f096.00. The negotiated amount still exceeds available funds by $14,200.00. This amount ($14,200.00) has been identified in Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program. III. Issues A. Need B. Compliance with Specifications C. Funding IV. Alternatives A. Accept the lowest responsible bid meeting specifications on Hazardous Material Vehicle as follows: 1. One (1) new Hazardous Material Vehicle from Chief's Fire and Rescue, Inc. for a total cost of $136,096.00. Hazardous Material Vehicle April 6, 1992 Page 3 Ve a) Need - Requested unit is needed for and will provide for necessary hazards and fire protection to the citizens of the City of Roanoke. b) Compliance with Specifications - Units requested by this alternative meets City specifications. c) Fund Availability - $121,896.00 is available in Fire and Hazardous Materials Grants Programs. $14,200.00 is available in the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program. B. Reject Ail Bids Need - The necessary fire and hazards protection to the citizens would not be accomplished in the most effective and efficient manner. Compliance with Specifications - would not be a factor in this alternative. Fund Availability - designated funds would not be expended under this alternative. Recommendation Council concur with Alternative "A" accept the bid submitted by Chief's Fire and Rescue, Inc. to provide One (1) New Hazardous Material Vehicle for the total amount of $136,096.00. ADpropriate $14,200 - from Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program to Fire Operation account 001-050-3213-9015. Funding is available for the remaining $121,896.00 in the following accounts. Hazardous Material Vehicle April 6, 1992 Page 4 $80,000.00 from Hazardous Material Vehicle Grant Fund account number 035-050-3221-9015. $10,000.00 in Hazardous Material Program Grant Fund account number 035-050-3220-9015. $31,896.00 in Fire Programs Grant Fund account 035-050-3222-9015. D. Reject the other bid. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager cc: City Attorney Director of Finance 0 0 0 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #24A-86-5 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30945-040692 amending the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by amending §6-22, Definitions, of Division 1, Generally, of Article II, Dogs Generally, of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl; amending §6-42.1, License fee imposed, of Division 2, License, of Article II, Dogs Generally, of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl; and adding a new Division 3, Dangerous and Vicious Dogs, to Article II, Dogs Generally, of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl; the amended and added sections providing definitions, establishing a procedure for declaring a dog to be dangerous or vicious, requiring a special license for a dangerous dog and establishing a fee therefor, establishing conditions for the keeping of a dangerous dog, providing for disposition of a vicious dog, setting penalties for violations and providing for exceptions; and repealing §6-27, Vicious dogs, of Division 1, Generally, of Article II, Dogs Generali¥, of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl. Ordinance No. 30945-040692 was adopted by the. Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. pc: The Honorable Kenneth E. Trabue, Chief Judge, Circuit Court, 305 East Main Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 The Honorable G. O. Clemens, Judge, Circuit Court, P. O. Box 1016, Salem, Virginia 24153 The Honorable Roy B. Willett, Judge, Circuit Court The Honorable Clifford R. Weckstain, Judge, Circuit Court Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 Mr. W. Robert Herbert April 9, 1992 Page 2 pc: The Honorable Diane M. Striekland, 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 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 Honorahie 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 Arthur B. Crush, Clerk, Circuit Court The Honorable Gordon E. Peters, City Treasurer Ms. Patsy Bussey, Clerk, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Mr. Ronald Albright, Clerk, Generel District Court Mr. Raymond F. Leven, Public Defender, Suite 4B Southwest Virginia Building, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 ' Mr. Bobby D. Casey, Office of the Magistrate Ms. Clayne M. Calhoun, Law Librerian Mr. Robert L. Laslie, Vice President - Supplements, Municipal Code Corporation, p. O. Box 2235, Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Administration and Public Safety Mr. M. David Hooper, Chief, Police Department Ms. Lauren G. Eib, Risk Management Officer Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #24A-86-5 Ms. Marlene Halsey, President Roanoke Kennel Club, Inc. Route 3, Box 155-D Vinton, Virginia 24179 Dear Ms. Halsey: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 30945-040692 amending the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by amending §6-22, Definitions, of Division 1, Generally, of Article II, Dogs Generally, of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl; amending §6-42.1, License fee imposed, of Division 2, License, of Article II, Dogs Generally, of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl; and adding a new Division 3, Dangerous and Vicious Dogs, to Article II, Dogs Generally, of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl; the amended and added sections providing definitions, establishing a procedure for declaring a dog to be dangerous or vicious, requiring a special license for a dangerous dog and establishing a fee therefor, establishing conditions for the keeping of a dangerous dog, providing for disposition of a vicious dog, setting penalties for violations and providing for exceptions; and repealing §6-27, Vicious dogs, of Division 1, Generally, of Article II, Dogs Generally, of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl. Ordinance No. 30945-040692 was adopted by theCouncil of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, City Clerk MFP: sw Enc o Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 6th day of April, 1992. No. 30945-040692. AN ORDINANCE amending the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by amending S6-22, Definitions, of Division 1, Generally, of Article II, Dogs Generally, of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl; amending S6-42.1. License fee imposed, of Division 2, License, of Article II, Dogs Generally, of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl; and adding a new Division 3, Dangerous and Vicious Dogs, to Article II, Doqs Generally, of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl; the amended and added sections providing definitions, establishing a procedure for declaring a dog to be dangerous or vicious, requiring a special license for a dangerous dog and establishing a fee therefor, establishing conditions for the keeping of a dangerous dog, providing for disposition of a vicious dog, setting penalties for violations and providing for exceptions; and repealing S6-27, Vicious dogs, of Division 1, Generally, of Article II, Dogs Generally, of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl, and providing for an emergency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Section 6-22, Definitions, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is amended and reordained as follows: ~6-22. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Article, shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning. Danqerous doq: Any dog: (a) which has caused a wound to any person without provocation on public or private property; (b) which, while off the property of its owner, has killed a domestic animal; (c) which is owned or harbored primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting or any dog trained for dog fighting; (d) which, unprovoked, chases or approaches persons upon the streets, sidewalks or any public or private property other than the owner's property in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack; (e) which has a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury or otherwise to threaten the safety of human beings or domestic animals; or (f) which has been declared dangerous by any general district court or circuit court of the Commonwealth. Owner: Every person having a right of property in a dog, or who keeps or harbors a dog, or who has a dog in his care, or who acts as a custodian of a dog, or who permits a dog to remain on or about any premises occupied by him. In the case of a minor who owns, keeps, harbors or acts as custodian of a dog, the parent or parents or other lawful guardian of such minor shall be deemed to be the owner of the dog. Vicious dog: Any dog which has (1) killed a person; (2) inflicted serious injury to a person, including multiple bites, serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health or serious impairment of any bodily function; or (3) continued to exhibit the behavior which resulted in a previous finding by a court that it is a dangerous dog, provided that the owner has been given notice of that finding. Wound: Any physical injury which results in a laceration, puncture wound or broken or fractured bone. 2. Section 6-42.1, License fee imposed, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is amended and reordained as follows: 2 S6-42.1. License fee imposed. (a) An annual license fee is hereby imposed on dogs required to be licensed under this division in the following amounts: (8) Any dog declared dangerous by any general district court or circuit court of the Commonwealth (in addition to the applicable fee under (1), (2) or (3) above) ........ $50.00 3. The Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is amended and reordained by the addition of the following new Division 3, Danqerous and Vicious Doqs, to Article II, Doqs Generally, of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl: DIVISION 3. DANGEROUS AND VICIOUS DOGS S6-50. Procedure for declaring dog to be dangerous or vicious; keeping of dangerous dog; destruction of vicious dog. (a) Any animal warden, police officer or other person who has reason to believe that a dog within the City is a dangerous dog or vicious dog may apply to a magistrate of the City for the issuance of a warrant requiring the owner, if known, to appear before a General District Court on a specified date. The animal warden or owner shall confine the dog until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. The court may, through its contempt powers, compel the owner of the dog to produce it. (b) If, after hearing the evidence, the Court finds that the dog is a dangerous dog, the court shall order the dog's owner to comply with the provisions of ~6-52 of this Code. If, after hearing the evidence, the Court finds the dog to be a vicious dog, the Court shall order the animal warden to euthanize the dog. $6-51. Licensure of danqerous doq. (a) The owner of any dog found by a court to be a dangerous dog shall, within ten (10) days of such finding, obtain a dangerous dog license from the City Treasurer by paying the fee required by $6-42.1 of this Code. The City Treasurer shall provide the owner with a uniformly designed tag which identifies the dog as a dangerous dog. The owner shall affix the tag to the dog's collar and ensure that the dog wears collar and tag at all times. Ail licenses issued pursuant to this section shall be renewed annually as required by $6-42.1 of this Code. (b) No dangerous dog license shall be issued until the applicant has filed with the City Treasurer the insurance certificate required by $6-52(c). The Treasurer shall i~u~ediately forward such certificate to the City's Risk Manager for review and filing. The Risk Manager shall immediately notify an Animal Warden of any noncompliance with the provisions of $6-52(c) of which the Risk Manager becomes aware. $6-52. Keepinq of dangerous doqs; conditions. It shall be unlawful for any owner of any dangerous dog to own, keep or harbor any such dog within the City except in compliance with each of the following conditions and specifications: (a) Any dangerous dog shall be securely confined indoors or, if kept outdoors, shall be kept in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure adequate to confine the dog and located upon the premises of the owner of the dog. Any such pen or structure shall have secure sides and a secure top and, if it has no bottom secured to the sides, the sides shall be imbedded into the ground no less than two (2) feet. Such pen or structure shall provide any such dog with adequate space and protection from the elements and shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. (b) The owner of any dangerous dog shall display two (2) signs on his property stating: "Dangerous Dog on Premises". One sign shall be posted at the front of the property, and the second sign shall be posted at the rear of 4 the property. Each sign shall be capable of being read from a distance of fifty (50) feet. (c) The owner of any dangerous dog shall procure and maintain public liability insurance in the amount of $50,000 insuring the owner for any injury or damage caused by such dog. The owner shall maintain a valid policy and certificate of insurance issued by the insurance carrier or agent as to the coverage required by this subsection at the premises where such dog is kept and shall, upon request, display such policy and certificate to any animal warden or police officer. (d) The owner of any dangerous dog shall have such dog permanently identified by means of a tatoo on an inside thigh, and the owner of any dangerous dog shall provide the animal warden with a color photograph of the dog taken within the last twelve (12) months, suitable for use in identifying the dog. (e) If any dangerous dog is taken off the property of its owner, such dog shall be muzzled and restrained by a substantial chain or leash not exceeding six (6) feet in length, and such dog shall at all times be kept under the control of a responsible person. Such muzzle shall be constructed in such a manner that it will prevent the dog from biting any person or animal, but such that it will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration. (f) The owner of any dangerous dog shall notify the animal warden within twenty-four (24) hours if such dog is loose or missing; if such dog has attacked or wounded a human being or another animal; or if such dog has been sold, leased, given away, died or custody has been transferred to another person for more than forty-eight (48) hours. If such dog has been sold, leased, given away or custody has been so transferred, the owner shall provide the animal warden with the name, address and telephone number of the new owner, lessee or custodian who shall be required to comply with the conditions of this section if the dog is kept within the City. If the owner of a dangerous dog moves with such dog to a 5 different address, such owner shall notify the animal warden of such fact and the new address within twenty-four (24) hours. (g) The animal warden shall be permitted the right to inspect the enclosure in which any dangerous dog is kept at any time. (h) In addition to the conditions and specifications established by this section with respect to dangerous dogs, the owner of any dangerous dog shall meet all other requirements established by this Chapter for keeping any dog. (i) The animal warden shall have the right to seize and impound the dog if any of the conditions and specifications established by this section for the keeping of a dangerous dog are not being met. S6-53. Violations. It shall be a Class 1 misdemeanor for the owner of any dog which has caused a wound to any person to conceal or cause to be concealed such dog from any animal warden or police officer. Violation of S6-52 of this Code or any other violation of this Division shall constitute a Class 2 misdemeanor; provided, however, that a second violation of this Division by any person shall constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor. ~6-54. Exceptions. (a) No dog shall be deemed or declared to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog if the threat, wound, injury or damage was caused by any person who, at the time, was (1) assaulting the owner of the dog, (2) committing a willful trespass or tort upon the premises of the owner of the dog, or (3) provoking, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog or can be shown to have repeatedly provoked, tormented or abused the dog at other times. (b) No animal which, at the time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury, or was protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring or its owner's property, shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog. (c) This Division shall have no application to any dog owned by a federal, state or local law enforcement agency. (d) No dog shall be found to be a dangerous dog or a vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed. Roanoke 5. Section 6-27, Vicious Dogs, of the Code of the City of (1979), as amended, is hereby repealed. 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. The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Roanoke, April 6, Virginia 1992 Dear Mayor and Members of City Council: Subject: Dangerous Dog Ordinance I. Background: The City's dog ordinance, including the section on vicious dogs, was adopted by Council in 1956. Be Increased public attention to the issue of vicious dogs has been brought about over recent years by news media coverage of several incidents involving "pit bull" dogs and other atrocities involving dangerous and vicious dogs. II. Current Situation: A. The present ordinance limits the City's ability to deal with potentially dangerous dogs: 1) More than one incident is often necessary before a dog will be considered "vicious." 2) The range of penalties is limited. The penalty is a fine of up to $100, but the judge must then decide whether to have the dog euthanized or to return it to the owner. These are the only options. Be The City's ordinance does not place responsibility on the owner of the dog to take steps insuring that the dog will not harm another person. With the growing popularity of large and/or aggressive dogs, it is more and more likely that a dog's first bite may be severe or even fatal. Ce Enforcement efforts are hampered, as the present ordinance allows the dog at least "one bite" and does not vest the judge with the authority to require the owner to assume responsibility for the dog. The attached ordinance generally follows the Guidelines for Regulating Dangerous or Vicious Dogs published by The Humane Society of the United States. De Various states and localities have adopted comprehensive ordinances as recommended by The Humane Society of the United States. E. The attached letter from the Roanoke Kennel Club, Inc., endorses the proposed ordinance. Mayor and Members of City Council Page 2 April 6, 1992 III. Issues: IV. A. Public Safety B. Enforcement C. Legality Alternatives: A. City Council adopt the attached comprehensive ordinance which defines and regulates dangerous dogs. Public safety would be enhanced as the "one bite" rationale of the present ordinance would be replaced with rationale that allows the City to regulate dangerous dogs before they bite someone. Enforcement would be enhancedr as a comprehensive ordinance holds the owner responsible for the actions of the dog and provides sanctions for non-compliance. The present animal control staff would not be overburdened. Legality would not be an issue as the City Attorney is of the opinion that Section 2 (19) of the City Charter authorizes the adoption of the attached ordinance. Constitutionality does not appear in question. City Council adopt a "breed-specific" ordinance which prohibits or controls only certain breeds of dogs. 1) Public safety would be somewhat enhanced. 2) Enforcement would be difficult as it is often difficult to state with certainty whether a dog is of a given breed. 3) Legality is uncertain and of great concern as court challenges to breed-specific ordinances in other cities have resulted in some of the ordinances being ruled unconstitutional. Mayor and Members of Page 3 April 6, 1992 City Council City Council take no action to amend the current ordinance. 1) Public safety would not be enhanced or further jeopardized. Enforcement would continue with present constraints. 2) Leqality is not an issue. Recommendation: City Council adopt the attached ordinance which defines and regulates dangerous dogs and further provides additional options for the presiding judge to protect public safety through restrictions imposed on the dangerous dog's owner. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert city Manager wilburn C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney WRH/WCD/MDH:mr attachments Pleese address your reply MR. & MRS. CHARLES D. KERFOOT Rt. 3 Box 155D, Vinton, VA 24179 RECEIVED Off;':3 cf C.fy UAR 80 1992 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #60-79-1 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30946-040692 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 General Fund Appropriations, providing for certain revenue adjustments within the fiscal year 1991-92 budget. Ordinance No. 30946-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S,W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, V~RG~NIA The 6th day of April, 1992. No. 30946-040692. 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: General Property Taxes $ 50,536 300 Public Service Tax (1) ............................. 3,174 300 Other Local Taxes 38,284 556 Sales Tax 1% State (2) ............................. 11,977.000 Utility Consumer Tax (3) ........................... 9,130.000 Revenue from Use of Money/Property 766.740 Interest on Investments (4) ........................ 50.000 1} Public Service Corporations 2) Sales Tax 1% State 3) Electric Service 4) Interest Revenue (001-020-1234-0140) (001-020-1234-0201) (001-020-1234-0203) (001-020-1234-0501) $ 560,000 (740,000) 330,000 (150,000) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: this City Clerk. April 6, 1992 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Fiscal Year 1991-92 Revenue Adjustments Approximately one year ago I addressed City Council and said, "Although most economic experts do not predict a recession through fiscal year 1992, the United States economy is experiencing a slow down which has been called a soft landing by the media. In recent months we are seeing all the signs of a recession without really calling it one." How wrong the "economic experts" were! It got worse - consumers were caught in a downward spiral of weak job markets, sagging confidence, negligible income growth, and the resultant restraint on spending. The sad state of the labor markets killed any chance for a successful holiday shopping season as the unemployment rate in December/1991 rose to 7.1~, the highest in five and one-half years. Spring buds are beginning to come out and along with that consumers are prowling again. February/1992 sales were strong across the country, suggesting that the economy could be breaking out of its three year stagnation. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council April 6, 1992 Page 2 But caution remains, and it should. Recovery begins with consumers - and consumers have led the way with strong gains in discretionary item purchases which are usually postponed when times are tough. But one must remember several factors. One possible reason for the recent increase in consumer spending might be the IRS's electronic tax filing system that brings refunds into the consumers hands faster than ever before. In fact tax refunds through February were up 36% or $4.1 billion over last year. Other factors in the equation that could exaggerate the economy's strength is the extra day because of leap year, the warmest winter in 97 years, and last years war-depressed numbers. One must remain cautious. Consumers are not capable of maintaining their spending at the first quarter pace, since it is far above the growth of their incomes. Because of huge debt, households have become hesitant to borrow, and because savings are already low, consumers will depend heavily on income growth to finance their outlays - and thus the recovery is likely to be historically slow and uneven. The City of Roanoke's General Fund Revenue base has weathered the recession storm, except for sales tax and interest income. The revenue estimates adopted in the current year's budget related to State reimbursement revenues appear to be on target, because City Council anticipated and approved reductions in State Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council April 6, 1992 Page 3 revenue estimates in developing the fiscal year 1992 General Fund revenue base. Recommended corrsction~ Real Estate Tax collections compare favorably with the revenue estimate. The increase in the amount of delinquent taxes is noticeable, but not alarming. The adopted estimate for Real Estate Tax will be collected. I will be formulating a policy on stronger and more aggressive tax collections in all categories to ensure that the few who do not consider paying their taxes a priority, think differently. Personal Property Tax collections as of February 28, 1992 are 20% over the prior year collections. This indicates that our citizens are trading vehicles and the value of pro-ration. I anticipate that after the May 31, 1992 personal property payment deadline that this revenue estimate will be collected. Public Service Corporation Taw - This revenue source represents real estate taxes and personal property taxes collected from utility companies and railroads. The related assessments are developed by the State Department of Taxation. The assessment procedures were modified in FY 1991 which has resulted in a one- time revenue increase related to the assessments for 1989, 1990, Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council April 6, 1992 Page 4 and 1991 of $320,000. Recurring annual revenues generated by the modification of assessments procedures has increased this revenue source by $240,000. I recommend that this revenue estimate be increased by $560,000. Sales Tax (1% Local ODtion) through the March 16, 1992 collection is (3.35%) below the eight months collection for fiscal year 1991. I estimated in the fiscal year 1992 Budget that this revenue source would increase by 2%. Based on current information, I estimate that we will fall short approximately (6.3%) resulting in a revenue adjustment of ($740,000). Utility Tax revenues collected through February 15, 1992 are 5.9% above the adopted revenue estimate. I anticipate the trend to continue based on current utility rates. I recommend that this revenue estimate be increased by $330,000. Interest on Investments continues to decline as interest rates decline. The interest rates on Short-term Investments have declined from 8.5% to just under 4%. I recommend this revenue source be reduced by ($150,000). The other major revenue sources appear to be on target with the adopted revenue estimates. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council April 6, 1992 Page 5 The attached budget ordinance will adjust the following revenue estimates: Public Service Corporation Tax Sales Tax Utility Tax Interest Income Net Revenue Adjustment $560,000 (740,000) 330,000 (150,000) I recommend your adoption of this budget ordinance. JMS:s Joel M. Schlang~ cc: W. Robert Herbert, city Manager Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #468B Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30948-040692 approving issuance of Change Order No. 1 to the City's contract with Dewberry & Davis, for additional engineering services required for design and related construction documents and administration for a pump station and elevated storage system to provide adequate service to the Mount Pleasant area, in connection with Carvins Cove Improvements, Phase II, in the amount of $22,000.00, for a total contract amount, including Change Order No. 1, of $1,094,816.00. Resolution No. 30948-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. pc; Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Ms. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations Mr. M. Craig Sluss, Manager, Water Department Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue. S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #468B Mr. Steven E. Hively, P. E. Project Manager Dewberry & Davis 5238 Valley Point Parkway Suite 1-B Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Dear Mr. Hively: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30948-040692 approving issuance of Change Order No. 1 to the City's contract with Dewberry & Davis, for additional engineering services required for design and related construction documents and administration for a pump station and elevated storage system to provide adequate service to the Mount Pleasant area, in connection with Carvins Cove Improvements, Phase II, in the amount of $22,000.00, for a total contract amount, including Change Order No. 1, of $1,094,816.00. Resolution No. 30948-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 6th day of April, 1992. No. 30948-040692. VIRGINIA, A RESOLUTION approving the City Manager's issuance of Change Order No. 1 to the City's contract with Dewberry & Davis, for the engineering services in connection with the Carvins Cove Improvements, Phase II. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager is authorized and empowered to issue, for and on behalf of the City, upon form approved by the City Attorney, Change Order No. 1 to the City's contract with Dewberry & Davis, related to engineering in connection with the Carvins Cove Improvements, Phase services II. 2. Such Change Order shall provide for additional engineering services required for design and related construction documents and administration for a pump station and elevated storage system to provide adequate service to the Mount Pleasant area, as more specifically set forth in the City Manager's report to this Council dated April 6, 1992, and shall be in the amount of $22,000.00, with the total contract amount with this Change Order to be $1,094,816.00. ATTEST: City Clerk. Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #60-468B Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 30947-040692 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 Water Fund Appropriations, providing for the transfer of $22,000.00, in connection with execution of Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Dewberry and Davis, for additional engineering services required for design and related construction documents and administration, Carvins Cove Improvements, Phase II. Ordinance No. 30947-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, C City Clerk MFP: sw Ene. pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Ms. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations Mr. M. Craig Sluss, Manager, Water Department Room 456 Municipal ilding 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 ZN THZ COUNCZ~. OP TRZ CZT¥ OF ROANOKBvVZRGZNZA The 6th day of April, 1992. No. 30947-040692. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain 1991-92 Water Fund emergency. WHEREAS, for the Government of the City exist. THEREFORE, BE IT Roanoke that Appropriations, Appropriations, certain sections of the and providing for an usual daily operation of the Municipal of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to ORDAINED by the Council of the City of certain sections of the 1991-92 Water Fund be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Capital Outlay Carvins Cove Improvements, Retained Earning- Phase II Retained Earnings Unappropriated 1) Appropriations from General Revenue 2) Retained Earnings Unappropriated (1) ........... (2) .............. (002-056-8364-9003) (002-3336) $ 22,000 (22,000) $31,451,415 1,164,816 $16,679,880 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia April 6, 1992 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Change Order No. 1 Carvins Cove Improvements, Phase II The attached staff report was considered by the Water Resources Committee at its meeting on March 23, 1992. The Committee recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Dewberry & Davis in the amount of $22,000.00 and authorize the Director of Finance to appropriate $22,000.00 from the Water Fund Retained Earnings to Account No. 002-056-8364-9055, Carvins Cove Improvements, Phase II, in accordance with the conditions stated in the attached report. Respectfully submitted, ETB:KBK:afm Attachment Cc: lizab~h T. Bowles, Chairman Water Resources Committee City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Utilities & Operations Director of Public Works City Engineer INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION DATE: TO: FROM: THRU: SUBJECT: March 23, 1992 .rce Committee lser, Direc~of Utilities W. Robert Herber ,~ity Manager Change Order No. 1 Carvins Cove Improvements, Phase II & Operations II. Backqround: ae Design Phase II contract, issued to Dewberry & Davis, for the expansion of and renovation to the Carvins Cove gravity distribution system was approved by City Council on September 9, 1991, for $1t072~816.00. Be Extremely low pressures in the Mount Pleasant and adjacent areas have prompted numerous complaints from residents in these areas. These areas are currently served by the gravity system, however, some of the areas are too high in elevation to receive adequate service. Pump station and elevated storage system are needed to provide adequate service. Current Situation: A. Additional work has been requested by the City to study this area as the current planned renovations will not significantly improve these conditions. Scope of work to be performed in Change Order No. 1 includes: Location of a storage tank which will best serve the immediate needs and be able to serve the potential needs of these areas. Pumping station near the intersection of Rutrough and Mt. Pleasant streets. Page 2 III. IV. 3. Construction Documents 4. Construction Administration C. Cost would be $22,000.00. Issues of Importance: A. Time B. Availability of funds C. Cost Alternatives: Committee recommend that City Council approvo Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $22,000.00. 1. Time is critical because citizens are experiencing extremely low water pressures. 2. Funds are available from the Water Fund Retained Earnings. Cost is reasonable based on guidelines set forth in the Commonwealth of Virginia Capital Outlay Manual. B. Committee recommend that City Council reject Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $22~000.00. 1. Time of completion would be jeopardized. 2. Funds would remain available in the Water Fund 'Retained Earnings. 3. Cost would be deferred to the Water Department for installation at a later date. Recommendation - Committee recommend the following to City Council: Concur with the implementation of Alternative 'A'. Authorize the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Dewberry & Davis in the amount of $22~000.00. Page 3 Authorize the Director of Finance to appropriate $22~000.00 from the Water Fund Retained Earnings to account number 002-056-8364-9055, Carvins Cove Improvements, Phase II. KBK/DLL/mm CC: City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Public Works City Engineer Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #253-144 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30950-040692 approving the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Fiscal Year 1993 Annual Operating Budget, in the amount of $320,321.00. Resolution No. 30950-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. ~arker, City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. pc: Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations Mr. Jeffrey A. C~omer, Manager, Roanoke Regional Landfill Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #253-144 Mr. Gardner W. Smith, Chairman Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 3433 Brambleton Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Mr. Smith: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30950-040692 approving the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Fiscal Year 1993 Annual Operating Budget, in the amount of $320,321.00. Resolution No. 30950-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eric o pc: Ms. Mary H. Allen, Secretary, Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, P. O. Box 29800, Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #253-144 Mr. John H. Parrott, Chairman Roanoke Valley Regional Solid Waste Management Board 714 Wildwood Road, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dear Mr. Parrott: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30950-040692 approving the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Fiscal Year 1993 Annual Operating Budget, in the amount of $320,321.00. Resolution No. 30950-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, E City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 6th day of April, 1992. No. 30950-040692. A RESOLUTION approving the Fiscal Year 1993 Annual Operating Budget of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, upon certain terms and conditions. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that in accordance with the requirements of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Members Use Agreement dated October 23, 1991, the City of Roanoke hereby approves the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Fiscal Year 1993 Annual Operating Budget, as more particularly set forth in a report from the City's representatives on the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, dated March 31, 1992. ATTEST: City Clerk. March 31, 1992 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Request for Approval - Fiscal Year 93 Annual Operating Budget of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Section 5.9, Annual BudKet, of the October 23, 1991 Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Member Use Agreement requires the Authority to submit its annual operating budget to the Charter Member jurisdictions by April 1 each year prior to the start of the upcoming fiscal year. Council approved the interim, five (5) month, budget for February thru June, 1992, on February 18, 1992. Transmitted herewith is the letter of transmittal, dated March 20, 1992, from Authority Chairman Gardner W. Smith and the accompanying Fiscal Year 1993 annual budget of $320,321. Funding for this budget will come from the Roanoke Valley Regional Solid Waste Management Board. This is to request your approval of the Fiscal Year 1993 annual operating budget of the Authority in the amount of $320,321. Respectfully submitted, Kit B. Kiser, Roanoke City Representative ~presentative Roanoke Valley Resource Authority KBK:JMS:afm Attachment CC: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, City Attorney Mr. Gardner W. Smith, Chairman, RVRA ROANOKE VAIJLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY 3433 BrambletonAvenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA24018 (703) 772-2130 March 20, 1992 Mr. Kit Kiser City of Roanoke Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue Roanoke, VA 24011 Room 354 Re: Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 1992-93 Annual Budget JRH/GWS:wr Attachment Dear Kit: On March 19, 1992, the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority approved its 1992-93 Annual Operating Budget. The budget totals $320,321 and will be funded by an appropriation from the Roanoke Valley Regional Solid Waste Management Board in the amount of $250,000 and $70,321 from the current $3 million Assignment Agreement. Attached is a budget summary for your information. In accordance with the Member Use Agreement, this annual budget is being submitted for approval by the Council. The Resource Authority looks forward to serving the Council in the upcoming years. If you have any questions or need additional information, please let me know. .... ~ectfully, /./Gardner W. Smxth ~ Chairman BUDGET PROJECTIONS 5-HCXdT#S FEB-JUNE F.Y. F.Y. CATEGOEy I~Z 1~*~ 1993-9~ Pers~neL S 52,~5 S 12~,921 bratt~ 101,~ 1~,~ Capltat E~i~nt 32,000 TOT~ S 185,155 S 320,321 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 April 20, 1992 eOARD OF SUPERVISORS (703) 772-2005 Mr. Gardner Smith, Chairman Roanoke Valley Resource Authority 1216 Kessler Mill Road Salem, VA 24153 Dear Mr. Smith: Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 41492-4 approving the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Budget for the year ending June 30, 1993, upon certain terms and conditions. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, April 14, 1992. If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Enclosure cc: Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance John Hubbard, CEO, RVRA Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council Carolyn S. Ross, Clerk, Town of Vinton AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1992 RESOLUTION 41492-4 APPROVING THE ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY BUDGET FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1993, UPON CERTAIN TERMB AND CONDITIONS WHEREAS, Section 5.9 of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Members Use Agreement provides that the Authority shall prepare and submit its operating budget for the forthcoming fiscal year to the Board of Supervisors of the County, the City Council of the City of Roanoke, and the Town Council of the Town of Vinton; and WHEREAS, by report dated March 20, 1992, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board, the Chairman of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority has submitted a request that the County approve the budget of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority for the year ending June 30, 1993. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia that the budget for the year ending June 30, 1993 for the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority as set forth in the March 20, 1992, report of the Authority Chairman, a copy of which is incorporated by reference herein, is hereby APPROVED, and the County Administrator and the Clerk are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the County, any documentation, in form approved by the County Attorney, necessary to evidence said approval. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke, Minnix, Nickens, Eddy, NAYS: None cc: A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors File Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Gardner Smith, Chairman, RVRA John Hubbard, CEO, RVRA Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council Carolyn S. Ross, Clerk, Town of Vinton Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #20-77-488 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30951-040692 authorizing you to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Greater Deyerie Neighborhood Association, effective April 7, 1992, relating to traffic regulations and signage and providing for certain procedures to be followed, under certain circumstances, when the City Manager proposes to remove traffic control signs or eliminate turning restrictions, upon certain terms and conditions. Resolution No. 30951-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. pc' Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. John R. Mariles, Chief, Community Planning Mr. Robert K. Bengtson, Acting Manager, Signals and Alarms Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Ms. Stephanie A. Cicero, Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Coordinator Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 Office of the City C~erk April 9, 1992 File #20-77-488 Ms. Sherry H. Buckner City Co-President Grandin Road-Windsor Avenue Neighborhood Association 3547 Grandin Road, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Ms. Buckner: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30951-040692 authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association, effective April 7, 1992, relating to traffic regulations and signage and providing for certain procedures to be followed, under certain circumstances, when the City Manager proposes to remove traffic control signs or eliminate turning restrictions, upon certain terms and conditions. Resolution No. 30951-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AA City Clerk MFP: sw mnc. Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 Office of the City Clerk April 9, 1992 File #20-77-488 Mr. Hugh A. Meagher, President Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association 3612 Keagy Road, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Mr. Meagher: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 30951-040692 authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association, effective April 7, 1992, relating to traffic regulations and signage and providing for certain procedures to be followed, under certain circumstances, when the City Manager proposes to remove traffic control signs or eliminate turning restrictions, upon certain terms and conditions. Resolution No. 30951-040692 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Ene. Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 6th day of April, 1992. No. 30951-040692. VIRGINIA, A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association, dated April 7, 1992. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the City, to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association, dated April 7, 1992, relating to traffic regulations and slgnage and providing for certain procedures to be followed, under certain circumstances, when the City Manager proposes to remove traffic control signs or to eliminate turning restrictions, and upon such other terms and conditions as are provided therein. e Attorney. The form of such Memorandum shall be approved by the City ATTEST: City Clerk. '92 Roanoke, April 6, Virginia 1992 Honorable Mayor Noel C. Taylor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Taylor and Council Members: SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association I. Background: ae City Council approved the alignment of the proposed extension of Peters Creek Road between Melrose Avenue, N. W., and Brandon Avenue, S. W., on March 5, 1990. Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association (GDNA) supported the recommended alternative following an extensive and relatively novel conflict resolution process. Neighborhood concerns for thru traffic were addressed in a series of recommendations involving stop signs and other control measures, and the proposed widening of Brandon Avenue. Implementation of certain of the agreed-upon traffic mitigation measures proved to be unworkable and unnecessary. Ultimately signs prohibiting left turns from Grandin Road onto Mud Lick Road during the morning peak hour Monday through Friday were removed. II. Current Situation: City administration has met numerous times with representatives of GDNA to review the understanding. A Memorandum of Understanding has been reached between the City administration and GDNA which reiterates the original consensus as the basis for ongoing efforts to mitigate traffic impacts on the neighborhood. III. Issues: A. City control over traffic. B. Neighborhood concerns. Mayor Taylor and Council Members Page 2 IV. Alternatives: ae City Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding with Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association. City control over traffic regulation and traffic control signage will be maintained. Neighborhood concerns will be addressed as the Memorandum of Understanding prescribes appropriate notification procedures and an opportunity for the neighborhood to express any disagreement to City Council prior to any modification of traffic control measures. City Council not approve the Memorandum of Understanding with Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association. City control over traffic regulation and traffic control signage will still be maintained. Neighborhood concerns will not be directly addressed. While the Memorandum of Understanding generally sets forth good communication procedures which the City tries to maintain with all neighborhood organizations, these will not be formalized as desired by GDNA. V. Recommendation: City Council approve Alternative A, and authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding with the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH:WFC:pr CC: Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Hugh Meagher, Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association Ms. Sherry H. Buckner, Grandin Road-Windsor Avenue Neighborhood Association Roanoke, Virginia April 6, 1992 III. Honorable Mayor Noel C. Taylor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Taylor and Council Members: SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding - Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association I. Background: City Council approved the alignment of the proposed extension of Peters Creek Road between Melrose Avenue, N. W., and Brandon Avenue, S. W., on March 5, 1990. Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association (GDNA) supported the recommended alternative following an extensive and relatively novel conflict resolution process. Neighborhood concerns for thru traffic were addressed in a series of recommendations involving stop signs and other control measures, and the proposed widening of Brandon Avenue. Implementation of certain of the agreed-upon traffic mitigation measures proved to be unworkable and unnecessary. Ultimately signs prohibiting left turns from Grandin Road onto Mud Lick Road during the morning peak hour Monday through Friday were removed. II. Current Situation: City administration has met numerous times with representatives of GDNA to review the understanding. A Memorandum of Understandinq has been reached between the City administration and GDNA which reiterates the original consensus as the basis for ongoing efforts to mitigate traffic impacts on the neighborhood. Issues: A. City control over traffic. B. Neighborhood concerns. Mayor Taylor and Council Members Page 2 IV. Alternatives: with council approve the Memorandum of Understanding Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association. City control over traffic regulation and traffic control signage will be maintained. Neighborhood concerns will be addressed as the Memorandum of Understanding prescribes appropriate notification procedures and an opportunity for the neighborhood to express any disagreement to City Council prior to any modification of traffic control measures. City Council not aDDrovm the Memorandum of Understanding with Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association. City control over traffic regulation and traffic control signage will still be maintained. Neighborhood concerns will not be directly addressed. While the Memorandum of Understanding generally sets forth good communication procedures which the City tries to maintain with all neighborhood organizations, these will not be formalized as desired by GDNA. Recommendation: WRH:WFC:pr City Council apDrove Alternative A, and authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding with the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager CC: Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Hugh Meagher, Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association Ms. Sherry H. Buckner, Grandin Road-Windsor Avenue Neighborhood Association