HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 07-13-92BOW~.PS
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
July 13, 1992
7:30 p.m.
AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL
Call to Order Roll Call.
The Invocation was delivenxl by The Reve~nd Harold S. Moye~,
Pastor, William~n Road Church of the B~d~n.
The Pledge of AHegiance to the Flag of the United St.~ of America
was led by Mayo~ David A. Bowers.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ae
Public heming on a request of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment
and Housing Authority that portions of the Pla~ of Subdivision of
Deanwood Terrace, Linwood Land Company and the Deanwood
Community Development Program be vacated in order to develop the
entire u~ct into a single large tract to be used for commercial and
industrial purposes, including the closing of all existing streets and
alleys within the boundaries of the subject property. Mr. Daniel F.
Layman, Jr., Attorney.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
C-1
C-2
(A RO 7-ol.
CITY COUNCIL AND WILL '~" '~' ..... AND Mi~-MBERS OF
· -,,-, ..... °'~'
_r~s~vL OK FORMS, LISTI~.n BFJOW. 'rI--iP.i~ um,-'~'~ '~
~EPAPu~TE DISCUSSION OF
DES~,ED ____--_ ,,~uv., ,~r_.m~. il-' DISCUSSION IS
u~ . , 'l'l-l/~ fFEM vsrllJ. BE RF. MOVF. D FP,~ ~ ,",',,.,,',,-.-.
AGENDA Al'O) CX)NSH)ERF..n SEPARATRLy.
A communication from Mayor David A. Bowers 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
variou.s authorities, boards, commissions and
comrmttees appointed by Council, pursuant
to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended.
A communication from the Honorable Roy B. Willett, Judge, Twenty-
Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia, transmitting the Annual Report of the
Board of Equalization for the taxable year July 1, 1992 through June 30,
1993.
C-3
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
A report of the City Manager with regard to the status of Minority and
Women-Owned Business Participation relative to the City of Roanoke.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
2
C-4 A report of the City Manager with regard to the proposed false alarm
ordinance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
C-5 A list of items pending from July 10, 1978 to June 22, 1992.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
C-6
Qualification of Mr. Clubert G. Poff and The Reverend C. Nelson
Harris as Trustees of the Roanoke City School Board for terms of three years,
each, commencing on July 1, 1992 and ending June 30, 1995.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
C-7
Qualification of Mr. Willis M. Anderson as a member of the City of
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Board of Commissioners,
to fill the unexpired term of Ms. Hallie B. Albergotti, ending August 31,
1994.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
C-8
Qualification of Mr. Richard I. Huddleston as a member of the City of
Roanoke Transportation Safety Commission for a term ending October 31,
1992.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
C-9
Qualification of Mr. Edward S. Allen as a member of the Roanoke
Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee for a term ending
November 11, 1993.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
REGULAR AGENDA
3. HEARING OF CITIT .NS UPON PUBLIC MATI'F RS:
3
Request to address Council with regard to benefits of a community
project which is similar to the Carter Center's "Atlanta Project." Mr.
H. Joel Kelly, Spokesperson.
4. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
A communication from Council Member James G. Harvey, II,
requesting a further review by the City Attorney of the City's
"dangerous and vicious dog" ordinance.
A report of the Citizens Task Force to Study Alternative Election
Procedures for Roanoke City Council. Dr. Wendell H. Butler,
Chairperson.
A communication from the Roanoke Ci'ty School Board requesting
appropriation of funds for certain school grants.
A report of the City's Representatives to the Roanoke Valley Resource
Authority pertaining to ratification of previous agreements with the
Authority, and acknowledgement of intent to sell Solid Waste System
Revenue Bond Series 1992, in an amount not to exceed
$40,000,000.00.
A communication from the Honorable Donald S. Caldwell,
Commonwealth's Attorney, recommending acceptance of a grant from
the Department of Criminal Justice Services for the
Victim/Wimess/Juror Assistance Program, in the amount of
$36,706.00, with the City to provide a local cash match in the amount
of $21,419.00; and appropriation and transfer of funds in connection
therewith.
A communication from the Honorable Donald $. Caldwell,
Commonwealth's Attorney, recommending execution and submittal of
the Statement of Grant Award and Acceptance of Special Conditions
to the Department of Criminal Justice Services for continuation of the
Roanoke City Pre-Trial Services Program; and appropriation of funds
in connection therewith.
5. REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
a. CITY MANAGER:
B ~E___~.E_.~_G_~ None.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION;
1.
A report with regard to certain adjustments to the City's Fee
Compendium.
5
2. A report recommending the carry-over of certain funds
previously appropriated in fiscal year 1991-92 for Bloodborne
Pathogens Standard funding, the recycling program, and the
Family Oriented Group Home program.
Adoln~ Budget ~ No. 31092-071392. C/_O),~
3. A report recommending appropriation of funds to the Fifth
District Employment and Training Consortium, in the amount
of $5,000.00, received from the Virginia State Water Control
Board for funding the "EPA: Youth and the Environment"
Project.
A report recommending execution of a Service Delivery Area
Agreement between the Governor's Employment and Training
Department, the Fifth District Employment
and Training
Consortium, the Fifth District Employment and Training
Consortium's Private Industry Council, and the City of Roanoke
for program year July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993.
A report recommending execution of a grant agreement with the
State Department of Education in connection with award of a
Demonstration Grant from the State Council on Community
Services for Youth and Families; and appropriation and transfer
of funds in connection therewith.
.m 3mm;.071392. (7-o)
A report recommending execution of Amendment No. 1 to the
Contract for Services with Mental Health Services of the
Roanoke Valley for the Adolescent Detoxification Program.
6
10.
11.
A report recommending execution of an agreement with
Southwest Virginia Community Development Fund for
administration and implementation of the Western Virginia
Revolving Loan Fund.
Adopted Re~olmion No. 31098-071392. (7-0)~
A report recommending execution of an agreement with the
West End Center to provide a $55,000.00 grant of Community
Development Block Grant funds for acquisition of a new
facility.
Adopled Resolmioa No. 31099-071~ (7-0)
A report recommending execution of appropriate documents
accepting a State grant award from the Department of Youth
and Family Services to provide for continuation of coordinated
planning and program implementation of the Office on Youth;
and appropriation and transfer of funds in connection therewith.
No. 3!
A report recommending execution of an Allocation Agreement
with the Virginia Housing Development Authority, in
connection with the Authority's offer of Home Purchase Loan
Funds to the City, in the amount of $5,000,000.00, effective
through May 27, 1993.
A report recommending execution of real estate options with
owners of property located at 1326 Campbell Avenue, S. W.,
and 3031 Melrose Avenue, N. W., which properties were
selected for the Home Purchase Assistance Program.
7
12.
A report recommending approval of major design features of the
extension of Peters Creek Road from Melrose Avenue, N. W.,
to Brandon Avenue, S. W.
13. A report recommending execution of Change Order No. I to the
contract with Contracting Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of
$25,412.50, for underground traffic signal and fire ala~-m work
at various locations throughout the City.
14. A report recommending designation of an authorized agent to
act on behalf of the City to receive official correspondence and
funding for subgrant reimbursement from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, in connection with federal
disaster assistance for public property damage which was caused
by flooding in the City on April 21, 1992.
15.
16.
A report recommending concurrence in immediate and long-
term recommendations submitted by "Youth Summit"
participants; and mmsfer of funds in connection therewith.
A report recommending award of a lump sum contract to I. N.
McNeil Roofing and Sheet Metal Co., Inc., in the combined
amount of $30,599.00, for roof projects for the Commonwealth
Building and Fire Station No. 6; and transfer of funds in
connection therewith.
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
1. A report with regard to ret '~ropriation of certain prior year
encumbrances.
31112-07139= 31113-071392, 31114-071392, 31115-071392
c. CITY ATFORNEY:
A report re, ommending adoption of a measure amending
Ordinance No. 31062--061592 with respect to the annual salary
of the Director of Real Estate Valuation.
6. REPORTS OF COMMITrF~F.S:
ao
A report of the committee appointed to tabulate bids received for
construction of the Roanoke City Jail Infill, Second Floor,
recommending award of a contract to Q. M. Tomlinson, Inc., in the
amount of $405,317.00; and transfer of funds in connection therewith.
Council Member William White, Sr., Chairperson.
0.~
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None.
No.
ge
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION
ORDINANCF~ AND RESOL~ONS: None.
9. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
OF
Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City
Council.
9
Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees
appointed by Council.
10. OTI~-R HEARINGS OF C1TIT~,NS:
CERTIFICATION OF ~ SESSION. 7-0.
10
David A. Bowers
Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 452
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1594
Telephone: (703) 981-2444
July 13, 1992
The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
I wish to request an Executive Session to discuss vacancies on various authorities,
beards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-
344 (A) (1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Sincerely,
Mayor
DAB: se
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W, Room 456
Roanoke. Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 27, 1992
File #109-162
The Honorable Roy B. Willett, Judge
Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Judge Willett:
Your communication transmitting an Annual Report of the Board of Equalization for
the year July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting held on Monday, July 13, 1992.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the report was received and
fried.
Sincerely, fo~J~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
pc:
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
The Honorable Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge, Circuit Court
The Honorable Diane M. Strickland, Judge, Circuit Court
Mr. W. G. Light, Chairperson, Board of Equalization, 2066 Kenwood Blvd.,
S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013
TWENTY-THIRD JUD. I~IAL CiRcUIT
OF VIRGINIA
July 1, 1992
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
Members of City Council
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Room 456
Roanoke, VA 24011
Re: 1991 Report of the Board of Equalization
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of Council:
I am enclosing the original Report of the Board of
Equalization for the taxable year July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993,
inclusive. The Board received 167 appeals; there were 31
commercial and industrial appeals considered, and 129 residential
appeals considered. Seven appeals were withdrawn. The members
of the Board advised me that they had been quite active, and had
considered some unusual and complex matters; it appears that
there were more large, complex appeals this past year than in
other years.
The members of the Board unanimously requested and
recommended that the Board's necessary access to computer service
continue. The Equalization Board must have computer access to
adequately deal with its duties. The Board requested that future
Equalization Boards continue to have separate office space from
the Real Estate Evaluation Office.
Additionally, the Board of Equalization has respectfully
requested that the City of Roanoke provide the Board with a room
assignment by March 1 of each year, so that the Board can begin
its work as soon as the oaths of the respective members are
taken. The Board advised the undersigned that the location to
which it was assigned this year worked quite well. This year the
Board conducted its business in room n~mber 162. Room number 162
is accessible and convenient to the public; it affords convenient
access to Roanoke City personnel, and is well suited to the needs
of the Board. The Board has requested that the Equalization
Board that is appointed next year be assigned to the same room
for its work. The upcoming Board should have at least as much
work area as this Board had, as the space provided is the minimum
amount needed for the proper conduct of the Board's work.
~onorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
Page 2
July 1, 1992
The members all indicated their gratitude to the Office of
Real Estate Evaluation for the cooperation they had from persons
in that Office. The Office of Real Estate Evaluation provided
them with needed data and met with Board members as needed. This
continued assistance should be available for future Equalization
Boards.
I met with the members of the Equalization Board on July 1,
1992 at 8:30 a.m. and generally discussed its activities. Each
of the members of the Board exhibited a positive attitude toward
his work, and the working relationship between the Equalization
Board and the Roanoke City Administration. Each is willing to
serve next year.
If you are aware of any problems, or if you wish to offer
any suggestions for the improvement of the appointment process
for the Equalization Board, please advise us. I am providing
copies of this letter to those persons indicated below.
You will recall that by Order entered in this Court on
December 21, 1990,, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 58.1-3384
the Board of Equalization of the City of Roanoke was and is
required to keep minutes of its meetings and to enter in the
minutes all orders it makes. I have also provided you with a
copy of that Order, and a copy of the form used for recording the
required minutes, as well as a copy of the Order appointing the
present Board members.
It has been a pleasure working with this Board.
advise me if I can be of
information to you.
RBW/bc
Please
further assistance or provide further
Enclosures
CC:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Honorable Clifford R. Weckstein
Honorable Diane McQ. Strickland
Mr. W. G. (Bill) Light, Chairman
Mr. Rutledge W. Robertson, II, Vice-Chairman
Mr. Randolph E. Harrison, Jr., Secretary
Mary F. Parker, CMC, City Clerk
July 1, 1992
The Honorable Roy B. Willett
Judge of the Circuit Court
The City of Roanoke
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Judge Willett:
We wish to inform you that the Board of Equalization has completed
its work for the taxable year July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993.
The Board received 167 Appeals. Ail properties were inspected with
the following results:
167 Assessments were considered
31 Commercial and Industrial
12 Commercial and Industrial Affirmed Value
19 Commercial and Industrial Decreased Value
129 Residential
64 Residential Affirmed Value
64 Residential Decreased Value
1 Residential Increased Value
7 Appeals were withdrawn at site or before
Letters dated June 30, 1992 were mailed on June 30, 1992 informing
each taxpayer of our decision.
It is recommended that future Equalization Boards continue to have
access to the computer service in their work. Also, it is recommended
that future Equalization Boards continue to have seperate office space
from the Real Estate Valuation Office.
Our thanks to the Office of Real Estate Valuation for their coop-
eration for supplying property data and their time to meet with us on
their assessed values. We trust that this assistance will be available
for future Equalization Boards.
The Honorable Roy B. Willett
Page 2
July 1, 1992
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
Board of Equalization of Real Estate
Assessments for the City of Roanoke
Randolph ~. Harrison, JrT~cretary
WGL/pl
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
IN RE: )
)
CITY OF ROANOKE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION )
ORDER
In accordance with Section 32-39, Code of the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, and Section 58.1-3370 of the Code of
Virginia, of 1950, Randolph E. Harrison, Jr., Willard G.
Light and Rutledge W. Robertson, freeholders and citizens of
the City of Roanoke, Virginia, are hereby appointed to the
Board of Equalization of Real Estate Assessment for the City
of Roanoke, Virginia, for an additional term beginning
March 1, 1992, as provided by law; but before entering upon
their duties as such, each shall take and subscribe the oath
of office prescribed by law and shall complete the
requirements of serving on a board of equalization required
by law. It appears and the Court finds that the herein
appointees have completed the required basic course of
instruction given by the Department of Taxation under Section
58.1-206 of said Code of Virginia.
It is further ADJUDGED, ORDERED and DECREED that each
member of the Board of Equalization of Real Estate Assessment
shall be compensated for his duties at such rate as may be
fixed by City Council as required by law, and they shall be
provided such secretarial and logistical support as Council
feels appropriate.
ENTER this 24th day of February, 1992,
by th~ Judg~in the Circuit.
G. O. Clemens, Chief Judge
Kennet r~bue~,~ dg
~Roy~ ~.--Will, et~c~, ,J~udg, e
Cli~ ~fd R. We-6~i'n, Judge
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF ROANOKE
RE: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 58.1-3384, 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended, the Board of Equalization of the City of Roanoke is
required to keep minutes of its meetings and to enter in the
minutes all orders made. It appearing to the Court that access
to such minutes would be beneficial to the property owner and to
the City of Roanoke Office of Real Estate Valuation and that such
access may be limited by virtue of Section 58.1-3, 1950 Code of
Virginia, as amended, it is, therefore, ORDERED that the minutes
of the Board of Equalization of the City of Roanoke shall be open
to inspection and copying by the owner of the property which is
the subject of the minutes or the owner's designee and to the
Office of Real Estate Valuation of the City of Roanoke.
JUDGE
JUDGE
JUDGE
, 19~O .
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
Official Tax Number:
Property Address:
Name of Owner:
Address of Owner:
Telephone Number of Owner:
Date Complaint Received:
Date(s) of Site Visit:
Taxpayer's Position:
Assessor's Position:
Date of Board Action:
Reasons for Board Action:
Vote on Action Ordered (Record Names if Dissenting Vote):
Date Order Transmitted to Owner, Commissioner of Revenue, and Office
of Real Estate Valuation:
Roanoke,
July 13,
Virginia
1992
Honorable Mayor David Bowers
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Subject: Status of Minority and Women-owned Business
Participation with the City of Roanoke
I. Background:
City Council approved a Minority and Women-Owned
Business Enterprise Plan for the City of Roanoke by
Resolution No. 31012-051892 on May 18, 1992.
Be
Council requested a report on past participation by
Minority Business Enterprises (MBEs) and Women-owned
Business Enterprises (WBEs) and asked for a projected
level of MBE and WBE participation under the new plan.
Ce
The new MBE/WBE plan is currently being implemented by
city staff with guidance from local contractors --
minority and non-minority.
II. Current Situation:
City-funded contracts and purchase orders have always
been awarded to the lowest responsive bidder without
regard to, or record of, race or gender of the
contractor. Therefore there were no records kept as to
how many contracts were awarded to MBEs or WBEs. In
addition, the bid lists kept by the city did not
designate firms as minority or women-owned.
Federal programs such as CDBG require the City to report
MBE and WBE participation in federally-funded contracts.
MBE and WBE participation on CDBG-funded projects during
the past two years (April 1990 thru March 1992) is shown
on Attachment A. MBE/WBE statistics for materials and
services purchased under CDBG-funded purchase orders are
not available.
In summary, the results of efforts to use MBEs and WBEs
on CDBG funded contracts are as follows:
MBE Liaison Officer has maintained a list of
approximately 57 minority and women-owned
businesses in the Roanoke Valley market area, and
distributes this list to contractors, the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority and others upon
request. This list is added to and updated
constantly.
Percentage rates of MBE participation has varied
greatly from year to year, under the CDBG program.
a. Total percent MBE contracts 1990-1991 34.3%
Total value MBE contracts - 13.9%
b. Total percent MBE contracts 1991-1992 - 21.9%
Total value MBE contracts - 2.1%
c. Total percent and value WBE contracts both
years 0.
CDBG contracts are predominantly small
rehabilitation or demolition contracts, in which
specialty there are a number of minority
contractors. Therefore the CDBG record for MBE
participation may be more successful than will be
for the city as a whole.
It is difficult to set realistic objectives for the
first year of the MBE/WBE plan with no history of
statistics for MBE and WBE participation for city-funded
contracts. Staff's intention was to use the first year
of the plan's implementation as an indication of what
were reasonable objectives.
It may be reasonable to use the track record of CDBG
funded contracts to establish objectives for all city
contracts - but at a lower percentage, recognizing the
mix of contracts awarded by the city.
III.
Rec¢,..,~-~-dFuture Policy and Procedures:
A. MBE/WBE plan as implemented will require contractors to
contact minority subcontractors and to report these
contacts as part of a responsive bid.
B. This process will be monitored and records will be kept
of numbers and values of MBE and WBE contracts and sub-
contracts awarded.
Annual status report will be made to City Council
reporting results of MBE/WBE plan efforts and
recommended changes in procedures, if any.
Internal, administrative objectives will be that 10% of
the total contracts and subcontracts awarded for
construction and purchasing will be to minority and/or
women-owned firms. This is not to be construed to be a
quota or set-aside in any way, but a measure of the
plan's success or lack of success. It is an
administrative tool and does not constrain the City from
awarding contracts to the lowest responsive bidder.
E. Roanoke's new Minority Business Network headed by Stan
Hale, Ken Haley, Herb Chappelle and Charles Price will
advise the Liaison officer and provide coordination with
minority and women-owned businesses.
This report is intended to brief City Council in response to
requests for additional information. No action is requested.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/MTP
cc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Public Safety
Director of Public Facilities
Director of Human Development
City Engineer
Manager, General Services
Grants Monitoring Administrator/MBE Liaison Officer
MC:MBESTATU.RPT
ATTACHMENT A
MBE and WBE Contract and Subcontract Activity Report
April 1990 thru March 1992
April 1990 April 1991 -
March 1991 March 1992
Prime Contracts 83 120
Value of Prime Contracts $1,108,964 $6,512,880
MBE Prime Contracts 33 36
Percent 39.8% 30.0%
WBE Prime Contracts 0 0
Value of MBE Prime Contracts $209,652 $119,822
Percent 18.9% 1.8%
Value of WBE Prime Contracts $0
**
Subcontracts 19 67
Value of subcontracts $485,659 $1,355,983
MBE Subcontracts 2 5
Percent 10.5% 7.5%
WBE Subcontracts 0 0
Value of MBE Subcontracts $12,000 $42,316
Percent 2.5% 3.1%
Value of WBE Subcontracts $0 $0
**
Total Contracts 102 187
Value of Total Contracts $1,594,623 $7,868,863
Total MBE Contracts 35 41
Percent 34.3% 21.9%
Total WBE Contracts 0 0
Total Value of MBE Contracts $221,652 $162,138
Percent 13.9% 2.1%
Total Value of WBE Contracts $0 $0
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #5
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
Your report with regard to the proposed false alarm ordinance, suggesting that a
program be established within the next 60 to 90 days, effective January 1, 1993, was
before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the report was received and
filed.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
pc:
Mr. Seth P. Oginz, Regional Vice President, cio Security Consultants
Unlimited, 4333 Old Cave Spring Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. Philip A. Jones, Corporate Loss Prevention Manager, Leggett, P. O. Box
1689, Danvilie, Virginia 24543
Mr. Edward A. Natt, Attorney, Osterhoudt, Ferguson, Natl, Aheron & Agee,
P. C., P. O. Box 20068, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. R. E. Hilton, Jr., Electralarm Systems, .~nc., 720 Rorer Avenue, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Mr. Franklin D. Kimbrough, Executive Director, Downtown Roanoke, Inc.,
310 First Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Mr. Martin Etzler, President, State Security Systems, 2311 Sanford Avenue,
S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Puhlic Safety
Mr. M. David Hooper, Police Ct'Aef
Roanoke, Virginia
..-~ Ju~y 1,3, t992
Honorable David A. Bowers
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
subject: Briefing on the False Alarm Ordinance
Following Council's discussion of the False Alarm Ordinance
at its regular meeting of June 15, my staff has done several
things to include Council's wishes in the ordinance and to assure
that alarm providers are well informed.
Meetings have been held with Mr. S. P. Oginz, Vice
President, Western Region of the Virginia Burglar and Fire Alarm
Association and owner of Security Consultants, Unlimited, Mr.
Martin Etzler, President, State Security Systems, and Mr. R. E.
Hylton, Jr., Electralarms Systems, Inc.
As a result of those meetings, the alarm ordinance has been
amended in its latest draft to provide:
- Written notice of false alarm occurrences to the user or
users agent.
Appeal process for exceptions from the false alarm
designation or imposition of false alarm fees from the
time of written notice to within ten (10) calendar days
following receipt of the notice of a false alarm.
A new section titled "Duties of the User and Alarm
Companies."
A fee schedule revision to include two occurrences of a
false alarm within the six month period without charge and
an escalated rate for the fourth and subsequent false
alarms during the same period. Proposed fee schedule and
latest draft of proposed ordinance is attached.
The forms and procedures necessary to capture the
information required in order to notify an alarm holder of the
number of times that alarm has been reported within the given
reported period and to advise them upon first written notice of
the latest alarm and their liability for that and subsequent
alarms are being developed.
Honorable David A. Bowers
and Members of City Council
Page 2
July 13, 1992
We are trying to develop one program to capture all of the
information and develop the computer program for notification and
billing. I would like for that program to be operational, fully
tested, and as error free as we can make it prior to the publics
being subject to paying the first false alarm fee. Therefore, I
am suggesting that program be put in place during the next 60 to
90 days when I will return with a proposed ordinance to Council
to become effective January 1, 1993. In the interim, any minor
changes needed for the ordinance can be acco~modated during the
test period.
Thank you for your indulgence in the development of this
program in order that we may present to you a quality ordinance
and false alarm program.
Respectfully,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:MDH:mr
attachment
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE amending the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979),
as amended, by adding a new Article IV, False Alarms, to Chapter
23, Police; such new Article providing for and establishing fees to
be assessed by the City for certain false alarms responded to by
the Police Department and providing for an appeal procedure and
exceptions; and providing for an emergency and an effective date.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as
follows:
I. Chapter 23, Police, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979),
as amended, is amended and reordained by the addition of the
following new Article IV, False Alarms, such new Article IV to read
and provide as follows:
ARTICLE IV. FALSE ALARMs
S23-50. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in
this Article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in
this section, except where the context clearly indicates
a different meaning:
Alarm Company: Any firm, partnership, association of
persons, corporation, organization or any other group
acting as a unit, as well as an individual, engaged in
the business of selling, leasing, installing,
maintaining, altering, servicing or monitoring any
security alarm or which responds to any security alarm.
Disruption of telephone circuits: A disruption of
telephone circuits that causes multiple false alarms on
the same circuit when the disruption was beyond the user
and user's alarm company's, if any, control, and which
disruption has been corrected.
False alarm= Any security alarm slgnal which, directly
or indirectly, causes a police response to the premises
in or to whlch the security alarm Is located or connected
and where no actual threat of criminal activity has
caused such signal.
Notice: Written notification of a false alarm by the
Chief of Police or his designee to the user of the
security alarm transmitting a false alarm or the user's
agent. Notice shall be hand delivered to the user or
user's agent or mailed, postage prepaid, to the current
address of the user or the user's agent. Notice shall
advise the user or user's agent of (I) the number of
false alarms recorded for the user's security alarm
during the current recording period; (2) the proposed fee
to be assessed against the user; and (3) the user's right
of appeal pursuant to S23-§1 of this Article.
Security alarm: Any mechanical or electrical device or
system of devices located In or connected to a premises
that is designed or used to signal an occurrence of
burglary, robbery, unauthorized entry or any other
criminal act or activity that threatens property and or
persons and which Indicates a need for a police response.
Severe weather: An electrical storm, snow storm, ice
storm, flood, hurricane, tornado or other act of nature
which causes multiple false alarms withln the City of
Roanoke.
S23-51. False alarm fees; appeal.
(a) To reduce the number of false alarms requiring
a police response and to decrease the unnecessary risk to
citizens and police officers resulting from false alarms,
a fee shall be imposed upon any user of a security alarm
which transmits a false alarm. The schedule of fees
applicable to any such user shall be established by
Resolution of City Council and published in the City's
Fee Compendium.
(b) Any such user may appeal for an exception from
a false alarm designation or imposition of a false alarm
fee within ten (10) calendar days after recelpt of first
notlce of the occurrence of the false alarm by flllng the
appropriate appeal form with the Chlef of Police or his
designee. Any appeal shall be accompanied by evidence
and documentation to support the appeal. Upon receipt
of an appeal, the Chief of Police or his designee shall
schedule a hearing for the user or decide the matter upon
the user's written submission if requested by the user.
If the Chief of Police or his designee finds satisfactory
proof that a false alarm was caused by disrUption of
telephone circuits or severe weather, the Chief of Pollce
or his designee shall except such alarm from designation
as a false alarm and waive imposition of any fee. Wlthin
ten (10) calendar days after any hearing or after receipt
of user's written submission if user has requested that
the matter be declded upon hls written submission, the
Chief of Police or bls designee shall notlfy the user of
his decision.
(c) The Director of Finance shall bill any false
alarm fee to the user after final resolution of any
appeal. Any unpaid false alarm fee shall be due and
payable upon receipt of invoice and shall be deemed
delinquent thirty (30) days thereafter.
S23-52. Duties of user and alarm company.
(a) Each user of a security alarm shall be
responsible for maintaining such alarm in good working
order, providing or causing to be provided the necessary
service to prevent false alarms. Each user shall cause
his Security alarm to be inspected regularly by a person
qualified to inspect and service Such alarm. Inspections
shall particularly address conditions that have the
potential of causing false alarms.
(b) Bach alarm company selling, leasing or
installing a security alarm within the City shall at the
time of sale, lease or lns~allation of a security alarm
provide the user or potential user of such security alarm
with a copy of this ordinanc~ (Article IV, False Alarms,
Chapter 23, Police) and the cu=rent resolution of City
Council establishing a schedule of fees for false alarms.
S23-53. Exemptions.
No alarm Shall be designated a false alarm, and no
fee shall be imposed, upon the user of any security alarm
under the following circumstanceS:
(a) When the security alarm is located in or
connected to any premises owned, leased or occupied or
controlled by the United States, Commonwealth of
Virginia, City of Roanoke or City of Roanoke School
Division.
(b) When the security alarm is located within or
attached to a motor vehicle except when such vehlcle is
inside the premises to which the police response is made
and the motor vehicle securlty alarm generated the signal
which caused the false alarm response.
(c) When a newly installed security alarm transmits
a false alar~during the first twenty (20) days after its
installation provided the user, user's alarm company or
user's agent has given prior written notice to the Police
Department of the date of installation and any service or
adjustment during such time period that might cause a
false alarm.
(d) When advance notice is given by the user,
user's alarm company or user's agent to a police
dispatcher that a security alarm is being repaired,
serviced or is malfunctioning so that police response may
be suspended until the user, user's alarm company or
user's agent gives notice that the repairs or services
have been completed.
2. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this
ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon and after July l,
1992.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION providing for fees to be assessed by the City for
certain false alarms responded to by the Police Department.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. Pursuant to Artlcle IV, False Alarms, Chapter 23, Police, Code
of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the following fees are
established for "false alarms" as defined by such Article IV:
a. Fees shall be assessed on a graduated basis
according to the number of false alarms received
from a premises during the first six months (January
1 through June 30) of each calendar year and the
second six months (Julf 1 through December 31) of
each calendar year.
b. Fee schedule
(1) First and second false alarm within six-month
period ................................. No fee
(2) Third false alarm within the same six-month
period ............. % ................... $45.00
(3) Fourth false alar~ within the same six-month
period ................................. $75.00
(4) Fifth false alarm and each subsequent false alarm
within the same six-month period ..... $100.00 each
2. 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 fees established by this resolution.
3. Fees established by this resolution shall be effective on and
after July 1, 1992, and shall remain in effect until amended by thls
Council.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
Cky Cl~rk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
July 10, 1992
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Seth P. Oginz
Security Consultants Unlimited
P. O. Box 4693
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear Mr. Oginz:
Please be advised that the enclosed report is included on the
agenda for the regular meeting of Roanoke City Council on Monday,
July 13, 1992. The City Council meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m.
in the City council Chamber, fourth floor of the Municipal
Building.
slhcerely,
:se
Sandra H. Eaktn
Deputy City Clerk
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
July 10, 1992
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Franklin D. Kimbrough
Executive Director
Downtown Roanoke, Inc.
310 First Street, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Mr. Kimbrough:
Please be advised that the enclosed report is included on the
agenda for the regular meeting of Roanoke City Council on Monday,
July 13, 1992. The City Council meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m.
in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor of the Municipal
Building.
Sincerely,
:se
Eno.
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
July 10, 1992
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Philip A. Jones
Corporate Loss Prevention Manager
Leggett Stores
P. O. Box 1689
Danville, Virginia 24543
Dear Mr. Jones:
Please be advised that the enclosed report is included on the
agenda for the regular meeting of Roanoke City Council on Monday,
July 13, 1992. The City Council meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m.
in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor of the Municipal
Building.
Sincerely,
:se
Enc.
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
21~ Church Avenue, S.W., Room
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 98142~41
July 10, 1992
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Edward A. Natt
Attorney
P. O. Box 20068
Roanoke, Virginia
24018
Dear Mr. Natt:
Please be advised that the enclosed report is included on the
agenda for the regular meeting of Roanoke City Council on Monday,
July 13, 1992. The City Council meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m.
in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor of the Municipal
Building.
Sincerely,
:se
Enc.
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Vir~ima 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
July 10, 1992
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Mr. R. E. Hilton, Jr.
Electralarm Systems, Inc.
720 Rorer Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dear Mr. Hilton:
Please be advised that the enclosed report is included on the
agenda for the regular meeting of Roanoke City Council on Monday,
July 13, 1992. The City Council meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m.
in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor of the Municipal
Building.
Sincerely,
:se
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Eric.
~R¥ F. PA RKF~
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2~011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
July 13, 1992
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Martin Etzler
State Security Systems
2311 Sanford Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear Mr. Etzler:
Please be advised that the enclosed report is included on the
agenda for the regular meeting of Roanoke City Council on Monday,
July 13, 1992. The City Council meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m.
in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor of the Municipal
Building.
sihcerely,
:se
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
July 13, 1992
SANDRA H. EAK1N
Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Robert P. Tully
2203 Shenandoah Valley Avenue, N.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Dear Mr. Tully:
Please be advised that the enclosed report is included on the
agenda for the regular meeting of Roanoke City Council on Monday,
July 13, 1992. The City Council meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m.
in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor of the Municipal
Building.
slhcerely,
:se
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
~..nc.
Misc. Council, C. Att., D. Fin., C. Mgr., - 7/13/92
FIRE ALARM
Chartered State Association
VIRGINIA BURGLAR & FIRE ALARM ASSOCIATION, INC.
P.O. BOX 14577, RICHMOND, VA ~32.2~
Regional Chapters
[] Hampton Roads
[] Central Virginia
[] Northern Virginia
[] Western Virginia
June 2,t, 1992
C~/C~tdC~ Counc,
C[y of Reenoke
215 Church
Roanoke, VA 24011
RE: Proposed False Alarm Ordinance
Enclosed Con'~unication to May<x'and Council Members
Please find enclosed a copy of the prepared siatement wflich was read to Ciy Council on June
15, 1992 relative to the proposed ordinance.
Also, please find enclosed a letter of today's date relative to the same matter.
Your assis~nce in making sure that all ~ of council and the mayor receive copies of both
documents would be grea~ apprecia['ed.
When this malter is placed on the ciy council agenda I would greatly appreciate a phone call so
that I may be in altendance at that council session.
Many tha~s for your help in this matter.
Regional Vice President
c/o sscw~z~ CONSm~TS
703/982-0639
"Dedicated to High Quality Standards"
FIRE ALARM
VIRGINIA BURGLAR & FIRE ALARM ASSOCIATION, INC.
P.O. BOX 14577, RICHMOND, VA 23221
Regional Chapters
[] Hampton Roads
[] Central Virginia
O Northern Virginia
[] Western Virginia
June 24, 1992
Mayor and C~ Council
C~ of Roanoke
215 Church Sb'eet
Roanoke, VA 24011
RE: Proposed False Alarm Ordinance
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of City Council
Subsequent to ~ June 15 council meeting at which tine the above referenced proposed
ordinance was ad(t'essed, changes to the ordinance and addl$onal infom3atk)n have come to
light which should be considered relate b~is ordinance.
It was sl3.ted before council by Chief of Police, Mr. Hooper, ~at a~rn companies had been
f[rnished copies of the proposed ordinance and (x)nm~nls and observations were requested
and that several alarm companies had indicated a favorable response. Please be advised that
these alarm companies indicated that they were not opposed to an ordinance to reduce or
conlrol false alarms. However, the fact is that they were opposed to the proposed ordinance for
the same reasons outlined in bhe prepared slatement read to council June 15.
The Chief also mentioned that an i'npromptu sizvey of several alarm usem was made and that
their response to ~ proposed ordinance was favorable. I have surveyed a small cross section
of residential and commercial alarm customem and have learned that tl~ese alarm users are not
opposed to the concept of con,oiling and reducing false alarms, but when ~ learned of the
delaiis of the prop<m~ed ordinance, 100~ of these alarm usem were opposed on the same
grounds as outlined in my June 15 slatement.
Recent revisions to ~ proposed ordinance will allow 2 false alarms in 6 months before a
penally is assessed. The iniial penaty is twice the amount of penalty assessed by other
localities cIted by Chief Hooper as having false alan'n ordinances that are w(xking. Subsequent
penalties are COITespondingly higher. Are the c~zens and businesses in Roanoke Ci[y so
affluent that they ~ such high penalties to enslxe thei' cooperation?
The City of Lynchburg has a false alarm ordinance that allows 6 false alarms in one year w~th a
penalty then assesses of $ 25.00, increasing bherealter in incremenls of $ 25.00 to the 10th
alarm.
1
"Dedicated to High Quality Standards"
FIRE ALARM
Chartered State Association
VIRGINIA BURGLAR & FIRE ALARM ASSOCIATION, INC.
P.O. BOX 14577, RICHMOND, VA 23221
R~egional Chapters
[] Hampton Roads
[] Central Virginia
[] Northern Virginia
A . -- [] Western Virginia .......
Faiffax [~ounty has an ordinance that assesses no penaky un(l~ a~er me 3rd alarm in 4 monks,
or the 5th in one year, or the 3rd in one month. The pena~ is $ 20.00, increasing to $ 50.00,
then in $ 25.00 inc~ernenls to $150.00.
The C[-y of Noffo~( assesses no penalty for the fi'st 2 raise alarms in 6 months and the 3rd alarm
comes ~ a penalty of $ 25.00. The 4th and al_~l subsequent alan'ns is $ 45.00.
Roanoke Counb/allows 4 false alarms in one year w~th the inl~.l penaiy at $ 25.00 and then
$ 50.00, $100.00 and a maxima'n of $150.00.
I'the Ifue purpose of the proposed ordinance is to reduce ~alse alan, s'and as slated by Chief
I-k>o~er, the Iocal~Jes mentioned above are achieving desirable resuls, t is certainly reasonable
to assurne that the same resuEs could be achieved by Roanoke City wi/1 the same fee stnx~ure
as employed by these localities.
One addlional major probiem wth the ordinance as proposed is the fact that the only
exemptions to the ~fa~e alarm' designation is pro~ that the alarm was caused by disr~ion of
telephone circuils or severe weather. All of the jurisdictions referred to above have provided in
their false alarm ordinances for other cond~ons that are beyond the conll'ol of the alarm user.
Contemporary electronic alarm systems are much easier to repair than those systems of a few
years ago because of built in diagnostic tools, but of ~ estimated 3,000 to 5,000 alarm systems
in the ciy only a s~all percenlage are recent enough installations to employ this technology.
Even with the vel7 best el~orts of a good alarm company, solving a problem may lake several
atternpls. I' the alarm system is laken out of service for repair, no one can tell if repair efforls
were successtul untll the system is back in service. There are many other sels of circurnstances
where an alarm may occur through no fault ofthe user and as a result of circ~nsfances beyond
their conb'ol. The alarm ordinances in the jurisdictions refen'ed to above all address this
problem and exhibit bhe willingness of the police deparlment to work w~ the alarm user and
alarm companies to solve the problems causing the 'false alarm' situabon.
In conclusion, the '?alse alarm' problem can only be conlrolied or reduced by a cooperative
efforton the paftofthe alarm user, the alarm indusl~ and the police deparln~ent. An elt~ctive
ordinance must refied:this spirit of cooperation as well as provide the means of effective
communication bet¥:ccn the parties involved.
C/O Securib/Consul~nls Unlimited
703/982-0639
2
"Dedicated to High Quality Standards"
Pending Items from July 10, 1978 through June 22, 1992
Referral Date
Referred To
Item
7/10/78
2/11/91
5/28/91
City Manager
Architectural Review
Board
City Manager
Mayor's 1978 State of the City
Recommendation No. 11
(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.
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.
Pending Items from July 10, 1978 through June 22, 1992
Referral Date
Referred To
Item
8/12/91
City Manager
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.
8/12/91
City Manager
Director of Finance
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.
8/12/91
City Manager
City Attorney
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.
Pending Items from July 10, 1978 through June 22, 1992
Referral Date
Referred To
Item
2/3/92
City Manager
City Attorney
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. Vinyard to be
combined with adjoining lots in
the Town of Vinton.
2/3/92
Roanoke City School
Board
Matter of possession of firearms
on school property.
2/10/92
City Attorney
Request to study the matter of
regulating the sale of "look-
alike" weapons.
3/16/92
City Manager
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
Pending Items from July 10, 1978 through June 22, 1992
Referral Date Referred To Item
~13~2
6/22/92
6/22/92
City Manager
City Attorney
City Manager
City Manager
City Attorney
Commissioner of
Revenue
Matter of establishing a Special
Service District for the
Williamson Road area, and
negotiating a contract to be
entered into by the City and the
Williamson Road Area Business
Association setting forth the
terms and conditions of the
Special Service District.
Request to study the feasibility
of relocating the Frisbee Disc
Golf Course in Fishburn Park to
another area of the City.
Matter of increasing the total
combined income of any elderly
or disabled property owner
claiming real property tax
exempt status from $22,000.00
to $26,000.00, and increasing
the first $4,000.00 of income of
each relative, other than the
spouse of the owner, who is
living in the dwelling, to
$4,750.00.
4
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2~011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #15-467
Mr. Finn D. Pincus, Chairperson
Roanoke City School Board
1116 Winchester Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear Mr. Pincus:
This is to advise you that Mr. Clubert G. Poff and The Reverend C. Nelson Harris
have qualified as Trustees of the Roanoke City School Board for terms of three
years, each, commencing on July 1, 1992 and ending June 30, 1995.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
pc:
Dr. Frank P. Tota, Superintendent of Schools
Mr. Richard L. Kelley, Executive for Business Affairs and
Clerk of the Board
Ms. June S. Nolley, Secretary to the Superintendent of Schools
0-2
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Stat~ o] Virginia, City o] Roanoke, to.wit:
I, Cl~hert G. Poff , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that
will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Virginia, and that
will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me aa
member of t:he Roanoke Cit;y School Board for a ~erm of t;hree years, commencing
on gu~_y 1, 1992, and ending .lune 30, 1995.
according to the best of my ability. So help me God. _~~
0-2
Oath or Affirmation of Office
State o] Virginia, C, it~ o] Roanoke, to
I, C. Nelson Harris ~ do solemnly swear (or a~rm) that
I will support the Constitution of the United States. and the Constitution of the State of Virginia, and that
I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as
a member o£ the Roanoke City S¢hool Board for a term of three years, commencing
on July 1, 1992, and ending June 30, 1995.
according to the best of my ability. So help me God.
Subscribed and sworn to before ~ne, this ~L-/~o~~~~~ ~'~----~ '
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. ~N
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #15-178
Mr. Robert W. Glenn, Jr., Chairperson
City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority, Board of
Commissioners
1878 Arlington Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear Mr. Glenn:
This is to advise you that Mr. Willis M. Anderson has qualified as a member of the
City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Board of Commissioners, to
fill the unexpired term of Ms. Hallie B. Albergotti, ending August 31, 1994.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Mr. H. Wesley White, Acting Executive Director, City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 2624 Salem Turnpike, N. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24017
0-2
Oath or Affirmation of Office
State of Virginia, Ci~l of Roanoke, to.~vi~:
I, Willis M. Anderson
., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that
I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Virginia, and that
will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as
a member of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Board of
Commissioners, to fill the unexpired term of Ms. Hallie B. Albergotti, ending
August 31, 1994.
according to the best of my ability. So help me God.
Subscribed and sworn ,obefore me, thJ, ~ 'day of , ~ /~
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #15-20
Mr. Robert K. Bengtson, Chairperson
City of Roanoke Transportation Safety Commission
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Bengtson:
This is to advise you that Mr. Richard I. Huddleston has qualified as a member of the
City of Roanoke Transportation Safety Commission, for a term ending October 31
1992. '
MFP: sw
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
Oafh ~r ~ ~irmpfi°n o{ Of{ice
Stat~ o~ Virginia, City ot Roanoke, to ,ugt: ___, do solemnly swear (or a~rm) that
l, Richard I. ttuddleston
I will suppOrt the Constitution of the United States, and the ConstitutiOn of the State of Virginia, and that
! will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upOn me as------------'---
a member of the City of Roanoke Transportation Safety CommissiOn for a term
ending October 31, 1992.
according to the best of my ability· So help me God.
· day
, Subsc~bed and sworn to before me, th~ ~ ~ - Clerk
NL~R¥ F.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City C~erk
July 17, 1992
File #15-488
Mr. Charles W. Hancock, Chairperson
Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership
Steering Committee
1016 Estates Road, S. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Hancock:
This is to advise you that Mr. Edward S. Allen has qualified as a member of the
Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee, for a term ending
November 11, 1993.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
pc: Mr. John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning
Oafh or ^ffirm°fion °f Of %e
St~t~ o~ Virgi~/~, Cit~/o~ ~oa~e, ~'~:"~ ~, do solemnly sw~r (or ~) ~at
I, Ed~rd S. All~
I ~1 sup~ ~e Constitution o~ the Unit~ Btates, and the Constitution o[ the Bta~ o~ Virgln~, ~d ~t
I w~l iaitMully and impaq{ally discharge and ~do~ all the duties incumbent u~n me a! ~
a member of ~he Roanoke ~ei~hbo~hOOd par~nershiP S~eerint Co~ee for a ~erm endin~
Sovembe~ ~1, 1993-
according to the best of my ability. Bo help me God. _~ ~-
· ~-7 -L~ _day of ~f
me, ttfi~----~--~~~____~, De
~ub~fibed and sworn to be{ore puty Clerk
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOK
OFFICE OF THE CITy CLERK
215 Church Avenue, $.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
July 17, 1992
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
File #72
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held on Monday, July 13,
1992, Mr. H. Joel Kelly addressed Council with regard to benefits of a community
project which is similar to the Carter Center's "Atlanta Project."
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the matter was referred to you
for appropriate response.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
pc: Mr. H. Joel Kelly, 740 - 13th Street, S.W. Apartment 15, Roanoke, Virginia
24016-3738 '
THE
CARTER CENTER
THE ATLANTA PROJECT
June 18, 1992
H. Joel Kelly
740-13th Street SW #15
Roanoke, VA 24016-3738
Dear Mr. Kelly:
We have received your letter dated May 11, 1992, requesting
additional information on The Atlanta Project.
As you are probably aware, we are still in the inception stages
of the program, but are enclosing a copy of The Atlanta Project's
Strategic Plan which I am sure will be helpful to you.
I apologize for the delay in getting this information to you, but
we have been inundated with correspondence regarding our project.
If you have any questions, or we can be of any further help,
please contact our office.
Sincerely,
Secretary
The Atlanta Project
Enclosure
ONE COPENHILL.ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30307.(404) 331.3900. TELEX 543236
Jan. 7, 1992
, ;,( .,! F R 0 M
Contact: Carrie Harmon
Director, Public Information
404/420-5107
THE ATLANTA PROJECT
The Atlanta Project, an initiative of former President Jimmy
Carter and The Carter Center, Inc., seeks to tap the enormous
reservoir of talent and goodwill that exists throughout the Atlanta
area in an effort to reduce poverty, hopelessness, and despair.
The heart of The Atlanta Project is to connect people with
people--rich with poor, young with old, and people of all ethnic,
racial and religious origins in ways that will enrich the lives of
all involved.
The Atlanta Project is an unprecedented community-wide effort
to attack the social problems associated with poverty in urban
areas. It will create friendships and partnerships among state,
local, and federal government agencies, nonprofit service
organizations, the business community, and large numbers of
volunteers drawn especially from universities and religious
institutions. The Atlanta Project will address the problems that
most afflict eoonomically depressed families:
and dropout rates, juveDile delinquency,
homelessness, drug abuse, and unemployment.
school-age pregnancy
crime and violence,
F R O M
THE
CARTER
CENTER
The United
Each state in the nation faces similar challenges.
States by far has more citizens in prison than any other nation.
Homelessness has become a national shame, yet federal housing funds
continue to diminish. Forty-five percent of black children now live
in poverty, and 25 percent of young black men are in prison or on
probation.
By initially focusing on selected neighborhoods in the metro
area, The Atlanta Project hopes to evolve a model that can be
adapted by other American cities to address these and other
increasingly urgent needs.
THE PROBLEM
Metropolitan Atlanta is one of the most dynamic cities in
America. Its robust business and commercial activity continues to
thrive in spite of the current national recession. A recent
Fortune 500 magazine survey of major corporate executives rated
Atlanta as the single best place in America to do business.
Its race relations, while far from pez-fect, are the envy of
many other metropolitan cities.
Cooperation among government and private industry, civic and
business leaders, academic institutions, and private citizens has
resulted in Atlanta being chosen to host the 1996 Summer Olympic
Games, an event of monumental proportions. The 1991 World Series
catapulted the Atlanta Braves and the city to the head of the class
F R O M
· THE i..
CARTER
CENTER
in major league baseball, and in 1994, Atlanta will be the site of
the National Football Leagues Super Bowl XXVIII.
It would appear that Atlanta is on a roll and that all its
citizens are enjoying its good fortune.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. While Atlanta is one of
the most progressive cities in the United States, it is also among
the poorest. Atlanta is really two cities: one for the affluent
and well-educated, who are able to realize their dreams, and one
for those who lack the education and skills to function in a modern
and complex urban society.
It is time for Atlanta to become one city, a city that devotes
as much time and energy to those in need as it has to bringing home
the Olympics or cheering the Braves. Our inner-city neighborhoods
are in crisis, and we all have something at stake. Crime, drugs
and violence are precipitating the breakdown of families and
communities, as seen in the ~rowing number of men, women and
children who fill our streets, our social service offices, and our
jails and detention centers. The statistics are startling:
* Atlanta has a higher proportion of families
with incomes below 50 percent of the average national poverty level
than any other city in the U.S., with the single exception of
Newark, N.J.
* Among all states, Georgia ranks highest in infant
mortality, has the 3rd highest numJ~er of babies born underweight
and the 2nd highest number of high school dropouts, and ranks last
in the overall well-being of children.
F R O M
THE :',i
CARTER
CENTER
* Seventeen percent of all newborn babies at Grady Hospital
in downtown Atlanta are born to mothers who abuse cocaine. Thirty
percent of all babies born there are to women who have had little
or no prenatal care.
9 There are an estimated 12,000-15,000 homeless people in the
Atlanta area. Yet nearly 12 percent of the housing units owned by
the Atlanta Housing Authority stand vacant.
* In the past five years in Fulton County Juvenile Court,
drug cases ha~e increased by 1,700 percent, weapons charges by 73
percent, robbery by 240 percent, and all violent crime has
increased by nearly 300 percent.
THE APPROACH
Despite the best efforts of government, business, and civic
leadership, these and other problems are getting worse. It should
be apparent that more money and traditional programs alone are not
the solution.
The Atlanta Project is predicated on the idea that solutions
lie in the creative talents and energies of individuals and are
only fully-realized when people pool their efforts and resources.
This includes less fortunate people as well as those more affluent.
It is not and cannot be a one-way street. Each and every person
involved must be part of a dialogue, must both give and receive.
To start this dialogue, the Project will address the needs of
20 troubled neighborhoods in south Fulton and DeKalb counties and
northwest Clayton county. In each neighborhood, we will hire two
F R O M
THE
CARTER
CENTER
people who will represent the needs of the community to an Atlanta
Project advisory board and secretariat. By involving parents,
students, teachers, law enforcement officers, health officials,
religious leaders, and others, we hope to marshall all the
available resources into one concerted effort to improve people's
lives. Volunteers also will play a key role. We hope to
coordinate a massive number of volunteers, who can help teachers in
city schools, assist in community health centers, work as volunteer
probation officers, or just be a mentor to a child who needs a
friend.
The Carter Center will be the home base from which the Project
secretariat and advisory board will coordinate city-wide efforts,
to bring about maximum teamwork and put in place coalitions for
long-term effectiveness. Six full-time professionals on the
secretariat, under the direction of Atlanta business leader Dan
Sweat, bring expertise from the fields of community development,
criminal justice, health, education and housing. Representatives on
the advisory committee come from local, state and federal agencies,
non-profit organizations, universities, and community groups.
THE HOPE
We envision a better Atlanta, one where a middle-class family
and a needy family get to know each other and establish true bonds
of friendship, This can be an Atlanta where religious
congregations in different neighborhoods work together to build ~a
home or renovate a boarded-up building for a needy family, or help
F R 0 M
GARTER
CENTER
pay for the college education of a student who might otherwise nc~c
have the opportunity to develop his or her full potential. Tt~is
can be a city where every pregnant mother has access to prenatal
care and every child is immunized against diseases we know how to
prevent. This can be a place where young juvenile offenders have
the help and support they need to turn from a life of crime. With
your help, we want to connect people in our communities in ways
never before attempted to make this the city we all envision it can
be.
You might think this is an impossible dream, and you might be
right. But, working together, we're bound to succeed in improving
life for some people in some ways, and that's progress. As
President Carter says, the only real failure would be not to try.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Vir ~nia 2~11
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #54-86
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr.
City Attorney
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Dibling:
I am attaching copy of a communication from Council Member James G. Harvey, II,
requesting that you give further review to the City's "dangerous and vicious dog"
ordinance, which communication was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting held on Monday, July 13, 1992.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the matter was referred to you
for study and report to Council.
Sincerely
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Eric o
pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
CITY OF ROANOKE
CITY COUNCIL
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
David A. Bowers
Mayor
Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. July 8, 1992
Vice-Mayor
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Council Members:
Elizabeth T. Bowles
James G. Harvey, II
Delvis O. "Mac" McCadden
Howard E. Musser
William White, Sr.
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
The events of this week concerning the unprovoked attack of a young girl by a non-
vicious dog appalls me as a member of this Council elected to supposedly protect the
safety and welfare of our citizens. This most serious tragedy has happened at least
five times during my ten years as a member of Council which is five times too many.
I was stunned by the comments of the Judge and the Commonwealth's Attorney on the
resulting trial related to this most recent incident. Apparently, we have overlooked
one of the most important circumstances in passing our vicious dog ordinance, and
that is the responsibility of the owners of such animals.
Today's society excuses and yes, sometimes condones, the lack of responsibility of
parents concerning the actions of their children. But I'll be damned if I, as a
member of this Council, will allow that to transcend to owners of non-vicious animals.
For the most part, dogs are not born vicious. They are either trained to be so or
through seemingly innocent rough-housing with the animal, they learn this trait.
At any rate, the final responsibility rests with the owner.
In my opinion, we must send a clear and forceful message to those folks who live
within the boundaries of the City of Roanoke that if you raise and harbor a vicious
animal and some innocent child or person gets hurt by this animal, you will ultimately
be held criminally responsible for the actions of your "pet".
Apparently, we need more vigorous criminal penalties in our courts, and therefore,
I would respectfully ask that this matter be referred to our City Attorney for his
review and report back to Council with the toughest measures allowed by law to
assure that the responsibility rests with the supposedly intelligent owner of such
animals and not with the animal itself.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Council Member
JGHII: sw
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2,1011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
July 17, 1992
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
File #40-132
Dr. Wendell H. Butler, Chairperson
Citizens Task Force To Study Alternative
Election Procedures For City Council
2118 Andrews Road, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Dear Dr. Butler:
The final report of the Citizens Task Force to Study Alternative Election Procedures
For City Council, recommending that the current at-large system be retained, was
before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, Council concurred in the recommendation to
retain the current at-large system.
Sincerely, ~p.~__.__
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
pc:
Members, Citizens Task Force To Study Alternative Election Procedures
For City Council
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning
Mr. Wayne G. Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth Planning District
Commission, 313 Luck Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISS
313 Luck Avenue. S.~:~''' Ph: (703)3,
Post Office Box 2569 Fax: (703)3,
Roanoke, Virginia 2.~t~ 0~; i, ,~'>:~
June 25, 1992
Mrs. Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
Roanoke City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, SW, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Mrs. Parker:
On behalf of the Citizens Task Force to Study Alternative Election
Procedures for Roanoke City Council, I am requesting that the Task
Force be placed on the July 13 City Council agenda for the purpose
of reviewing their "Final Report" to Council. Dr. Wendell Butler,
Chairman of the Task Force, will be presenting an overview of the
"Final Report" and the Task Force recommendations. A copy of the
"Final Report" is enclosed. It is assumed that each member of
Council will receive a copy of this report.
The Task Force appreciates your help in placing their report on the
July 13 Roanoke City Council agenda.
Sincerely,
Wayne G. Strickland, Executive Director
Fifth Planning District Commission and
Staff to the Citizens Task Force
WGS:jlp
Enclosure
cc: Dr. Wendell Butler, Chairman, Task Force
AlleghanyCounty · BotetourtCounty · Craig County · Roanoke Count3
CityofClifton Forge · Cit)~fCovington · CityofRoanoke · Cilyof'Salem · Town o1' Vint.n
CITIZENS TASK FORCE
TO STU DY
ALTERNATIVE ELECTION PROCEDURES
FOR
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
FINAL REPORT
JULY 13, 1992
Task Force Member~
Dr. Wendell tt. Butler, Chairman
Jan B. Garrett, Vice-Chairman
David A. Camper
Robert E. Firebaugh
Steven D. Goodwin
Charlie W. tlancock
Reverend Nelson I larri.s
Stephen .I. Jone.s
Thomas II. Rothe
A. Byron Smilh
Thoma.s W. Throckmorton, Sr.
Michael F. Urban,ski
Connie Wade
Onzlee Ware
Wayne G. Strickland, Staff
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CITIZENS
TASK FORCE TO STUDY ALTERNATIVE ELECTION
PROCEDURES I~OR THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
The following are recommendations presented by the Citizens Task
Force to Roanoke City Council for their consideration.
RECOMMENDATION #1
The current at-large election system should be maintained.
RECOMMENDATION #2
It is recommended that a Council member serve only three
consecutive, 4-year terms, except if the Council member decides to
run and is elected as Mayor, then as Mayor he/she can serve three
consecutive 4-year- terms in this position. After serving three
consecutive terms as Mayor, a candidate can run again for Council
and can serve another three consecutive, 4-year terms on Council.
RECOMMENDATION #3
It is recommended that another Task Force be appointed in the year
2000, or sooner if the need arises, to study the election system
issue to see if the at-large system is still serving the needs of
the citizens of Roanoke.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
PROCESS OF THE STUDY ........................ · ............... 2
P~IASE I -- THE FACT-FINDING PROCESS ........................ 3
PHASE II -- DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ELECTION
SCENARIOS ................................................ 21
PHASE III -- CITIZEN WORKSHOPS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVE
ELECTION PROCEDURES ...................................... 26
PHASE IV -- TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY
COUNCIL .................................................. 29
ATTACHMENTS -- PERSONAL COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUAL TASK FORCE MEMBERS
INTRODUCTION
In a resolution adopted on November 18, 1991, the Roanoke City
Council approved and endorsed a joint report prepared by the City
Manager and the City Attorney which called for the establishment of
a Citizens Task Force to Study Alternative Election Procedures for
the City Council. As approved by the City Council, the study would
include: a) a review of the experience with alternative election
procedures in other communities; and b) a recommendation on
election procedures for consideration by the Council. Examples of
alternative election procedures to be reviewed include, but were
not limited to: a) at-large systems; b) a modified ward system,
majority of members elected at large; c) a modified ward system,
minority of members elected at large; d) nominations by ward,
elections at large; and e) all members elected by ward. Each City
Council member was to appoint two members to serve on the Task
Force.
The November 18 resolution also authorized the City Manager to
retain the services of the Fifth Planning District Commission (5th
PDC) to assist the Task Force in its study efforts. The City
Manager was requested by Council to provide administrative support
to the staff of the 5th PDC in their work on behalf of the City.
On December 9, the City Council appointed fourteen (14)
individuals to serve on the Task Force, and at the December 16
Council meeting, Dr. Wendell H. Butler was designated to serve as
the Chairperson of the Task Force. The staff of the 5th PDC
contacted Dr. Butler on December 17 and it was decided that the
organizational meeting of the Task Force would be held on December
18. At the December 18 meeting a process for the study and
schedule of activities was presented to the Task Force for
consideration. The study process is outlined in the section below.
The first regular meeting of the Task Force was scheduled for
January 8, 1992.
PROCESS OF THE STUDY
The study process was composed of four phases. Phase I was the
Fact-Finding Phase. It involved bringing in knowledgeable people
to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of alternative election
procedures, and to review key issues to consider if a change is
made from the current at-large system. Phase II was the
alternative election procedures phase and it involved assessing
various types of election systems as they might apply to Roanoke.
As a part of this phase, the Task Force used the knowledge gained
in Phase I to develop alternative election scenarios for the Task
Force to consider.
Phase III involved holding citizen workshops in four quadrants of
the City. The purpose of the workshops was to obtain citizen
comment on what residents liked and disliked about the current at-
large election system and what alternative system they would prefer
if the at-large system was eliminated. In the final phase in the
process, Phase IV, the Task Force, based on the knowledge gained in
the Fact-Finding effort and the citizen workshops, decided on the
election procedure to recommend to the City Council.
2
PHASE I -- THE FACT-FINDING PROCESS
The Fact-Finding effort called for the Task Force to listen to
practitioners, academicians, representatives of minority and other
interested groups, and persons having experience with changes in
election systems in other Virginia cities. These individuals have
been involved with (either directly or have written extensively on)
at-large, modified ward and ward electoral systems. The Task Force
established a Subcommittee, chaired by Michael Urbanski, to review
pertinent information from speakers and to develop a report on the
highlights of the fact-finding discussions.
The following practitioners and academicians were invited to speak:
Dr. Timothy O'Rourke, Professor at the University of
Virginia's Center for Public Service -- Dr. O'R0urke served as
an expert witness in the Norfolk redistricting case, staff to
the Charlottesville Election Study Commission, and a member of
the Mayor's Committee on Reapportionment for Virginia Beach.
The Reverend Doyle Thomas -- Reverend Thomas is a member of
the Danville City Council. He was on Council when Danville
investigated the need for a change in its at-large election
system. He served as a member of the Committee responsible
for assessing the need for a change in the City's election
system.
Mr. James Pates -- Mr. Pates is the City Attorney for
Fredericksburg. He was the City Attorney at the time
Fredericksburg went through the process of changing its
election system from an at-large to a modified ward system.
Dr. Joseph Freeman -- Dr. Freeman is a member of the Lynchburg
City Council. He represents one of the wards in Lynchburg's
modified ward system. He became a member of the Council
following Lynchburg's change from an at-large system to a
modified ward system.
Mr. Paul Fraim -- Mr. Fraim is a member of the Norfolk City
Council. Mr. Fraim, although agreeing to speak, was not able
to address the Task Force due to a conflict which arose at the
last minute.
Dr. Thomas Morris -- Dr. Morris is a Professor of Political
Science at the University of Richmond and has studied the
Richmond City Council extensively. He has also co-authored a
book on local government in Virginia.
Mr. Kent Willis -- Mr. Willis is the Executive Director of the
Virginia Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
3
The Task Force also invited citizen activists from various
quadrants of the City, as well as representatives of interested
community groups, to discuss their perspectives on Roanoke's
election system. It was noted during the panel discussions that
these individuals did not necessarily represent the views of their
neighborhood organizations or groups. The following individuals
spoke to the Task Force:
Ms. Carol Marchel -- Vice-Chair, League of Women Voters
Ms. Evangeline Jeffrey -- President, Roanoke Chapter, NAACP
MS. Majorie Jumper -- Northwest Environmental Association
Ms. Barbara Duerk -- Neighbors in South Roanoke
Mr. Roy Stroop -- Wildwood Civic League (northeast Roanoke)
Mr. Henry Craighead -- Northwest Roanoke
The Task Force also invited business groups from various areas of
the City to provide their perspective on Roanoke's election system.
Unfortunately, the business representatives were unable to address
the group because of scheduling conflicts and other problems.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS IN ROANOKE
AND MINORITY REPRESENTATION IN THE PROCESS
Between 1884 and 1918, Roanoke had a ward election system. Because
of problems associated with the system, and because of the changing
trends in government nationwide during the early part of the
1900's, Roanoke switched to an at-large election system after 1918.
Furthermore, the citizens of Roanoke voted to adopt a
council/manager form of government in the City in 1918.
Until 1976, the council members terms in office varied in that
three council members would be elected for a 4-year term while four
members would be elected for a 3-year term. Elections in the city
remained staggered after 1976, but each council member elected
would now serve a 4-year term. In 1964, Roanoke changed its City
Charter to allow the Mayor to be elected by popular vote. Until
that time, the mayor and vice-mayor were elected by the council.
Currently, the mayor is elected at-large, and the individual who
receives the most votes in the most recent council election becomes
the vice-mayor. The candidates for mayor and council are elected
on a partisan basis.
The following are some of electoral highlights of Roanoke City
gleaned from reviewing articles from the Roanoke Times & World News
concerning elections between 1966 and 1990. The highlights begin
with 1966 since this follows the promulgation of the federal Voting
Rights Act of 1965.
1966 -- 16,379 voters turned out for this election. 18% of
the total population of Roanoke was minority. Two black
candidates (running as Independents) ran for election.
4
Minority candidates asked that minorities follow "single
shotting" (where minority voters would vote for only minority
candidates) to ensure that a minority would win a seat on
Council. The two minority candidates finished 9th and 10th in
a field of 10 candidates.
1968 -- 13,737 voters turned out for this election. One
minority candidate (running as an Independent) ran for a
Council seat but was not elected. Ten candidates ran for
election that year.
1970 -- 12,000 voters turned out for this election. 19% of
the total population of Roanoke was minority at this time.
White voters outnumbered black voters 7 to 1. The first black
member of Council was elected (a Republican candidate). The
minority candidate was the best vote getter of the 10
candidates running in the election. It was noted that the
minority candidate projected both a city-wide as well as a
minority perspective.
1972 -- 13,670 voters turned out for this election (about 36%
of registered voters). One minority candidate (running as a
Democrat) ran for Council but was not elected. One minority
remained on Council at this time.
1974 -- 7,181 voters turned out for this election (only 18% of
the 38,863 registered voters). The incumbent Republican
minority candidate won re-election and became the City's first
black Vice-mayor.
1975 -- The Justice Department evaluated and approved
continuation of the City's at-large election system as a part
of the City's annexation process which went into effect on
January 1, 1976. The Justice Department said that the at-
large system did not dilute minority voting strength.
1976 -- 21,230 voters turned out for this election (52% of the
41,000 registered voters). As a result of the 1976
annexation, all 7 seats on City Council became open; also the
number of precincts in the City increased from 30 to 33
following annexation. Fourteen (14) candidates ran for the
six available Council seats; while five (5) candidates ran for
position of Mayor. The voters elected the first popularly
elected black Mayor in a predominantly white city. A second
minority candidate ran on a write-in vote campaign but was not
elected. The Roanoke Forward group (which was a non-partisan,
business supported group of candidates) spent approximately
$35,000 to field seven candidates for election.
1976 -- Newspaper reported on the cost of recent elections.
The cost for the City to sponsor an election was $.46 per
ballot. This cost included salaries of election officials,
extra help and overtime pay for deputy registrars, setting up
voting machines, custodians for voting places, advertising,
and other additional expenses.
1977 -- The League of Women Voters (in 1976), at the request
of City Council, prepared a study on the need to change
Roanoke's election system. Council set a public hearing on a
possible change in electoral system for April, 1977. The City
Council did not act on the League's recommendation that the
City should adopt a modified ward election system.
1978 -- 13,409 voters turned out for this election (32% of the
41,301 registered voters). One additional minority candidate
(an Independent) ran in this election but he was defeated.
The Mayor remained the only minority on Council. Nine
candidates ran in this election; the minority candidate (other
then the Mayor) came in 8th out of a field of 9.
1980 -- 14,675 voters turn out for this election (37% of the
registered voters). In 1980, minorities represented 18% of
the City's total population (from the 1980 Census). The
. Mayor, who w~s a minority, won re-election. A second minority
candidate (running as a Democrat) won a seat on Council and
became Vice-Mayor. Roanoke now had two minorities serving on
Council --the Mayor and the Vice-Mayor (minorities hold 28% of
City Council seats). The newspaper notes that in black
precincts many voters used "single-shotting" to ensure the
second minority candidate would be elected.
1982 -- No statistics were found on voter turnout. No
minorities ran in this election. Roanoke maintained two
minority members on Council.
1984 -- 16,811 voters turned out for this election (42% of the
registered voters). The Mayor (who was a minority) was re-
elected. The second minority incumbent on Council decided not
to seek re-election. Another minority candidate (running as
a Republican) ran for Council but was not elected. Eight
candidates ran for Council seats that year. The paper reports
that the four Republican candidates spent $30,000 combined on
the 1984 election, while the three Democrats and one
independent spent $44,000 on their campaigns.
1986 -- 7,199 voters turned out for this election (17.5% of
the 41,070 registered voters). There was no mention of a
minority candidate running for Council in this election.
1988 -- 11,800 voters turned out for this election (28% of the
40,535 registered voters). The Mayor (who was a minority)
maintained his seat on Council. There was no mention of
another minority candidate running in this election.
6
1990 -- 12,268 voters turned out for this election (31% of the
registered voters). In 1990, minorities represented 24% of
the total population of the City. A second minority candidate
(running as a Democrat) won election to the Council. Roanoke
once again had two minority Council members (28% of all
Council seats). The newspaper mentioned that the minority
candidate was elected without significant "single-shotting" by
minority voters. In fact, the minority candidate ran strongly
in several all-white precincts. The minority candidate ran
3rd in a field of six candidates.
1992 -- Two minority candidates (one running as a Democrat and
one running asa Republican) are nominated by their respective
political parties to run for Council seats in the 1992 council
election.
The next section of this report will present a general overview of
alternative election systems. The comments are based on remarks of
invited speakers.
A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE ELECTION SYSTEMS
Some of the current statistics on the structure of local
governments in the United States reflect the changing nature of the
electoral process since the early 1900's: (1) 75% of larger cities
in the U.S. elect councils on a non-partisan basis and the dominant
structure of local government is a council/manager form; (2) 82% of
council/manager cities elect on a non-partisan ballot, as opposed
to 61% for mayor/council cities; and (3) 68% of council/manager
cities elect members at-large. The "textbook" form of local
government in America involves non-partisan elections, with a small
council elected at-large.
A Brief Description of an At-Large Election System: In an at-large
election system all candidates are elected by registered voters
throughout the entire city. This is the system currently in place
in Roanoke City. Twenty-nine of the 41 cities (or 71%) in Virginia
elect their council members at-large.
A Brief Description of a Ward System: In this system, the city is
divided into voting districts (or wards). Candidates campaign only
in their respective wards and registered voters within each ward
select their council representatives. The mayor may be selected
from within the council, or in some ward systems, the mayor is
elected at-large. Eight of the 41 cities (or 19%) in Virginia
elect their council members through a ward system.
7
A Brief Description of a Modified Ward System: This system
combines features found in both the at-large and ward systems.
Some council members are elected by wards and some are elected at-
large. In most cases, the number of council members elected by
wards exceeds those elected at-large. Four of the 41 cities (or
10%) in Virginia elect their council members through a modified
ward system.
The list on the following page presents the distribution of cities
in the Commonwealth of Virginia and how their councils are elected
(total population for each city and percentage black population 18
years and over is also provided).
8
city
Type of
Election System
1990
Population
Alexandria
Bedford
Bristol
Buena Vista
Charlottesville
Chesapeake
Clifton Forge
Colonial Heights
Covington
Danville
Emporia
Fairfax City
Falls Church
Franklin
Fredericksburg
Galax
Hampton
Harrisonburg
Hopewell
Lexington
Lynchburg
Manassas
Manassas Park
Newport News
Norfolk
Norton
Petersburg
Poquoson
Portsmouth
Radford
Richmond
Roanoke
Salem
South Boston
Staunton
Suffolk
Virginia Beach
Waynesboro
Williamsburg
Winchester
At-large
At-large
At-large
Ward
At-large
At-large
At-large
At-large
Ward
At-large
Modified
At-large
At-large
Ward
Modified
At-large
At-large
At-large
Modified
At-large
Modified
At-large
At-large
At-large
Ward
At-large
Ward
At-large
At-large
At-large
Ward
At-large
At-large
At-large
At-large
Ward
At-large
At-large
At-large
Ward
Ward
Ward
Ward
Ward
111,183
45,656
18,426
6,406
40,341
151,976
4,679
16,064
6,991
53,056
5,306
19,622
9,578
7 864
19 027
6 670
100 375
30 707
23 101
6 959
66 049
27 957
6 734
170 045
261 229
4 247
38 386
11 005
103 907
15 940
203 056
'96 397
23 756
6 997
24 461
52 141
393,069
18,549
11,530
21,947
Source:
Virginia Municipal League, 1990 (for
information); and the U.S. Bureau of
(for demographic information).
% Black
Pop. 18
Yrs.& Over
20%
19%
5%
4%
18%
26%
14%
.8%
13%
32%
41%
5%
3%
51%
19%
5%
38%
6%
22%
11%
23%
10%
6%
31%
36%
6%
68%
.8%
44%
5%
5O%
22%
4%
34%
12%
42%
13%
8%
13%
9%
electoral system
the Census, 1990
9
Advantages of Disadvantages of Alternative Election Systems
The key to evaluating the advantages or disadvantages of any
election system is to look at it in the context of the community as
a whole. Current socio-economic conditions, growth or decline in
population, relations among racial groups (i.e., past trends or
current evidence of racial discrimination), all play a role in
assessing the election system which best serves the needs of
citizens. The advantages and disadvantages outlined below were
developed from material provided to the Citizens Task Force and
from the observations of invited speakers. Although this material
is presented in the context of the advantages and disadvantages of
an at-large system, it does illustrate the potential benefits and
weaknesses of both the at-large and ward election systems.
At-large Election System -- Advantages
The city council is more sensitive to the interests of all
voters because candidates must canvas for votes city-wide, as
opposed to a ward system in which candidates may appeal to the
narrow interests of their particular ward.
Citizens will get to vote for all candidates and this may
enhance voter turnout. Presumably, citizens in an at-large
system have a greater say over the activities of the council
rather then a limited say over the activities of only one
council member (in a ward system).
At-large elections tend to moderate the divisions that might
arise in a community with an all-ward system. These
divisions, which might be racial, class-related, or political
in nature, may impede the ability of council to conduct
business.
It was suggested by one speaker that where minority
candidates get elected at-large, their influence is more
substantial than if they are elected from minority wards in a
ward system (however, the Lynehburg experience suggests
otherwise).
At-large elected councils are more consensus oriented.
Council members represent the same constituency and will
presumably promote a city-wide perspective.
At-large councils are more effective in what might be called
the "foreign policy" of the city. The effectiveness of
promoting industry and negotiating with neighboring
communities is often enhanced when a common viewpoint is
shared.
10
At-Large Election System -- Disadvantages
In at-large elections,, candidates often come from the same
neighborhoods, same class, same profession, same race so that
while they are elected at-large, they may not be broadly
representative of the community.
At-large elections may enhance the influence of the media and
money because it is difficult to run a door-to-door campaign
running at-large, and access to the media is more important in
an at-large race.
Citizens may not feel that they have a council member
responsive to their needs, and that local government may be
more "distant".
At-large candidates tend to spend more
campaigns as opposed to candidates who are
election system.
money for their
running in a ward
If at-large councils tend to have a common consensus, this
consensus may. be somewhat artificial. That is, councils
elected at-large may not always represent the diversity within
the community. This "spirit of consensus" may come at the
expense of diverse interest groups.
At-large elections (and the consensus generated within the
council) tend to close off a lot of debate that would occur if
elections allowed various segments of the community to be
represented.
At-large elections tend to cause a feeling within the minority
community that their vote or participation is ineffectual.
Modified Ward System -- Advantages and Disadvantages
A modified ward system allows some council members to be elected by
ward and some to be elected at-large. In general, it is best for
the number of council members elected by wards to exceed those
elected at-large. The modified ward system attempts to address
some of the problems encountered in at-large or all-ward systems.
The members elected by wards provide diverse geographic
representation on the council and are directly accountable to
constituents who reside in a specific ward; those elected at-large
tend to take a more city-wide perspective on issues since their
constituency is the entire city. A disadvantage of this system is
that divisions on council may arise between ward members and those
elected at-large because ward members may feel more accountable to
citizens in one section of the city while at-large members may feel
more accountable to all citizens.
11
Other Alternative Election Procedures
There are other alternatives for election procedures which could be
considered if a community decides that electoral change is desired.
The procedures discussed below are held by some practitioners to be
cumbersome. These procedures may also be difficult for voters to
understand when they go to the polls to vote. Voter education
about these alternatives would be highly recommended if any such
system is instituted.
Cumulative Voting System: This alternative is best explained by an
example. If a community has three council seats up for election,
each voter may cast three ballots, which is equal to the total
number of representatives to be elected. A voter may then cast all
three votes for one candidate, two for one candidate and one for
another, or one for each of the three candidates. In regard to
minority election opportunities, this allows the minority voter to
cast all votes for those specific candidates who they want to see
elected. Presumably, other voters will spread their votes around
to other candidates.
Limited Voting System: This system ~works in the following way.
For example, there are seven members of city council to be elected,
and each voter is only allowed to vote for five of the seven
candidates. In regard to minority election opportunities this
would mean, if all the whites voted for white candidates, and all
the blacks voted for black candidates, the opportunity would exist
to ensure that a minority candidate is elected. A limited voting
system has been adopted by some municipalities in order to settle
some Voting Rights lawsuits (e.g., in Texas and Alabama),
particularly in those situations in which minority voters may not
be concentrated enough to have a majority in a single ward.
Nomination of Council Candidates by District and Elections At-
large: The discussion of this alternative system comes from
William Boyd's article, "Local Electoral Systems: Is There a Best
Way?" (National Civic Review, Vol. 65, No. 3, March, 1976). In
this system, candidates reside within and are nominated to run for
office from specific residency districts, but they are elected at-
large. This system attempts to give geographic representation to
the council. Voters know who the district council member is and
who to hold responsible for attention to neighborhood problems.
Furthermore, since the council representatives are elected at-
large, they cannot afford to be provincial in their attitudes. One
disadvantage is that the majority segment of the population will
have a dominant voice in electing representatives. Many minorities
feel that this system is worse than others because it tends to
confuse members of the minority community, dividing them and
placing them in an untenable position.
12
KEY ISSUES ARISING PROM DISCUSSIONS WITH SPEAKERS
INVITED TO ADDRESS THE TASK FORCE
Several issues dominated discussions between Task Force members and
invited speakers. The purpose of this section of the report is to
review these recurring issues and to summarize responses from
speakers about these issues. The issues outlined below are not
presented in any specific order of importance.
Issue: Why Would a Community Decide to Pursue a Change in its
Electoral System
The reasons why a community would pursue electoral change are
varied. The Task Force's guest speakers were asked why their
community, or other community's they have worked with, decided to
investigate an alternative electoral procedure.
Charlottesville -- a group of citizens thought that a modified
ward plan (4 candidates elected by wards and 3 at-large) would
encourage better representation of neighborhoods.
Virginia Beach -- a group of citizens felt that the system,
whereby nominations were made by residency districts and
elections were held at-large, was not providing adequate
representation, especially since the residency districts were
established many years ago and the population of these
districts changed significantly over the last two decades.
Norfolk -- The City's at-large system was changed to a ward
system as a result of a law suit filed by a citizen through
the Justice Department.
Danville -- Danville decided to consider a change from its at-
large election system as a result of a successful annexation
suit. A citizens' Committee, composed of minority interests,
was established by City Council to assess the need for
election change. Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the
Justice Department requires consideration of dilution of
minority voting strength if new areas are annexed. The
Committee recommended that the system not be changed. The
Justice Department allowed Danville to keep its at-large
system.
Fredericksburg -- A small group of all-white businessmen, with
support of one or two City Council members, pursued a
referendum to have the City's at-large system changed.
Initially, the idea was to reduce the size of the council from
11 members to 7 members (to help increase the efficiency of
the Council) and to keep the at-large system in place.
However, after this businessmen's group discovered that the
Justice Department probably would not approve a reduction in
Council size without changing the at-large system, this group
13
proposed a modified ward system be added to the referendum.
There was no consensus about this change within the minority
community in Fredericksburg; in fact, the NAACP filed suit
against the proposed change to a modified ward system. The
Justice Department approved the system. The City currently
has a modified ward system where 4 members are elected by
wards and 3 at-large.
Lynchburg -- Lynchburg changed from an at-large election
system to a modified ward system in the mid-1970's as a result
of a successful annexation suit. The City's modified ward
system has 4 members elected by wards and 3 at-large.
Richmond -- Richmond changed from an at-large election system
to a ward system in the 1970's as a result of a successful
annexation suit. All members of Council are elected by wards.
Issue: The Cost of Campaigning
The cost of election campaigning continues to rise from one
election to another. As these costs increase, many feel that good
candidates may be eliminated from the process because they do not
have the backing of "big money" organizations. Does the type of
electoral system affect the cost of campaigning?
The cost of campaigning is related to the size of the city as
much as the type of electoral system adopted by the city. If
a candidate is running at-large in a small city of 40,000
people, it will cost as much as running in a ward system in a
larger city in which each ward contains 40,000-50,000 people.
The Task Force's guest speaker from Danville, a minority
member of the City Council, noted that no candidate has spent
over $1,500 on an at-large campaign. In fact, he spent only
$250 on his last campaign. He felt that it was not a
financial question which kept people from running for City
Council. He felt that people were not necessarily interested
in serving because: 1) they did not have time because of
commitments to their work and their families, and 2) they felt
that they probably were not "electable".
In the case of the speaker from Lynchburg City Council, he
stated he spent about $1,300 on his last ward election. With
ward seats, you do not have to have vast contact with
political organizations. It is neighborhood contact and
direct mail which makes the difference. This approach helps
cut down on the costs. The speaker from Lynchburg felt that
a candidate running for a hotly contested, at-large council
seat might have to spend between $35,000 and $75,000 to get
elected.
14
* The ward system in Richmond has held down the cost of
campaigning for candidates running for city council seats.
Issue: The Economic Impact of an At-Large System
Versus a Ward System
Some political observers contend that the type of election system
adopted by a municipality may effect its economic development
activities. If it is assumed that in a ward system council members
will focus more attention on district interests and not on city-
wide issues, then who will be responsible for ensuring that the
city's long-range economic development goals receive adequate
consideration during council deliberations?
In cities that are considering a change in electoral system,
there are some consistent issues which seem to be a point of
concern. People who are critical of the at-large system say
that downtown development (under an at-large system) proceeds
because council may he dominated by a group sensitive to
business. The critics argue that a different method of
election would lead to a different orientation. Perhaps, more
attention would be paid to commercial areas out of downtown,
or more attention would be paid to other programs/services
which are deemed as important or more important than downtown
development.
If you read the newspaper, the Richmond City Council (where a
ward system is in place) is a very contentious Council and is
frequently divided about some fairly significant questions
relating to economic development.
In Fredericksburg, the impact of election change has had a
positive impact on economic development mainly because the
reduction of council members makes it appear that the Council
is being run more efficiently and more harmoniously. Large
city councils, particularly with the news media, tend to
highlight all the disagreements and not the agreements.
In Richmond, the ward system has created a division in
economic and political power that has hurt the climate for
economic development. The white business establishment has
economic power, but the black majority on Council has the
political power. This situation has produced tension. There
has been so much suspicion and mistrust, that it has not been
good for economic development.
15
Issue: Accountability to the Electorate in an At-Large
System Versus a Ward System
The question of accountability to the electorate arose a number of
times during the Fact-Finding work of the Task Force. The
following observations were presented by various individuals who
spoke to the Task Force.
A change in the local election system will change the
political process and how candidates will relate to voters and
constituents.
In regard to Danville (with its at-large system), the current
Council is diverse and tries to consider the interests of the
City as a whole. It makes no difference where you live or how
much money you make, if you have a complaint, you can bring it
to the City Council and the Council will see that something is
done. City Council has not had any serious complaints.
* In the case of Lynchburg, an issue of specific interest,
such as a rezoning, may generate much interest within a ward.
Individuals feel that~they have a greater impact on issues
such as zoning compared to broader issues such as financial
matters which are discussed in terms of the City as a whole.
It was suggested that in Lynchburg, constituents felt better
represented by the modified ward system as opposed to an at-
large system.
Issue: Voter Turnout in an At-Large System Versus
a Ward System
Some political observers suggest that ward systems may lead to
complacency among the voting public. In some cases, fewer
candidates run for these ward seats when compared to communities
that have at-large systems.
Where you have at-large seats, this system may encourage
greater voter turnout. This is particularly true where you
have competition for those at-large seats. In many instances
where a ward system is in place, often these seats go
uncontested, with an incumbent that coasts into office. There
is some evidence to indicate that whenever you have a chief
elected official, like a mayor or governor up for election,
this encourages greater voter turnout.
You have to accept this negative about any type of ward system
-- if you have a ward election in a "quiet year", who knows
how many voters will turnout. This situation focuses on one
of the problem areas of a full ward or modified ward system.
It is possible for many voters to "go to sleep", and then an
election ends up being determined by a couple of
16
neighborhoods. It depends on the level of competition in the
ward. Incumbency is a key factor in voter turnout. In
Lynchburg, there has been some introduction of new blood into
the system, but turnover of council seats has been relatively
localized with several new members coming only from one
particular ward.
Issue: Citizen Participation in the Process of Electoral Change
Some of the speakers invited to address the Task Force indicated
that the majority of citizens in a community may not be interested
in the process of electoral change. Citizens may be more concerned
about specific issues such as education.
One speaker noted that most people are not interested in the
local election system. In the case of Charlottesville's
process of considering electoral change, only 10 citizens
showed up at the Council's public meeting on changing the
City's election system. This point was reinforced in the case
of Virginia Beach. Virginia Beach, when it was considering a
change in its electoral process, had a public hearing and only
15 people showed up to speak and some of those people were
politicians.
One speaker noted that there are really only two groups that
push for electoral change: 1) minority voters (including the
NAACP); and 2) working-class whites who may not feel they are
represented on council.
When Danville was considering a change to its election system,
few people showed up at either of the Council's two public
hearings to argue for or against keeping the at-large system
(as was being recommended by the Committee appointed by the
City Council).
(The following observations were made by the speaker from
Fredericksburg and reflect the problems encountered with the
Justice Department as the City pursued the change from its at-
large electoral system to a modified ward system.) A change
in the election system requiring pre-clearance by the Justice
Department is an exercise in pure politics. The general
public really does not care if you have an at-large, ward
system, or modified ward system. But, the people who play the
"political game" will pay close attention and will try to
influence the election plan in a way that suits their own
purposes.
Citizen education is an important part of ensuring
participation in the election process. When a city is
considering electoral change, it is important to hold citizen
information hearings to obtain citizen comment. This process
17
may also be helpful in generating some consensus about how the
community feels about electoral change.
Issue: Competition between Districts in a Ward System
Critics of at-large systems often contend that this type of system
encourages attention to city-wide interests at the expense of
neighborhood issues. Furthermore, proponents of ward systems argue
that citizens are not allowed to participate as fully in at-large
systems as compared to a ward system where candidates are more
directly responsible to neighborhood constituents. Proponents of
at-large systems criticize ward systems because they say that ward
systems encourage divisiveness among neighborhoods and among ethnic
groups.
One key question relating to divisiveness on city council in
a ward system is whether a ward system would create divisions
that do not exist -- not whether it would mirror divisions,
but rather would it create artificial divisions.
In the ~ase of. Fredericksburg's modified ward system, the
process has raised the issue of race in people's thinking a
lot more than it would have under an at-large system.
Richmond has nine wards in its ward system. The five
predominantly minority wards elect black candidates and the
four predominantly white wards elect white candidates. The
ward system has discouraged new political leadership because
incumbents routinely are re-elected. Only a handful of
incumbents have been defeated since the ward system was
enacted in 1977.
In the City of Hopewell (which has a modified Ward system --
5 elected by wards and 2 at-large), the one black elected
official works closely with the white members of council to
ensure the City is progressing. The minority community uses
its elected official as a conduit to pursue federal grants for
their neighborhoods.
In Fredericksburg, a great debate unfolded about whether a
change to a modified ward system would bring about greater
competition by individual wards for special projects. That
competition among wards has not been found much at all. Some
areas that may have been under-represented now feel that they
are better served.
In Lynchburg, the ward-elected members of council ensure that
the neighborhood perspective is heard, and the at-large
council members ensure that the city-wide perspective is
evident in Council decision-making.
18
Often the distinction between ward council members and at-
large members in Lynchburg is blurred in the public's mind.
Council members sometimes receive calls from people who do not
reside in their ward. The general public does not keep close
track. The political people keep track of this distinction
closely.
In thinking about Lynchburg, those constituents who live in
wards would have to say that if you ask people, they would
probably say that they have not thought much about the idea of
how much better they are served by a modified ward system
versus an at-large system.
Issue: Criteria for Establishing Voting Districts
in a Ward Election System
To ensure adequate minority representation in a ward system, some
feel that all that is needed in a minority ward is a 51% majority.
However, others argue that this percentage must be significantly
higher to ensure that a minority candidate has a greater
opportunity to be elected.
In Danville, the Committee created to examine the need for an
alternative electoral system agreed that if a ward system was
pursued that they needed to be able to establish at least two
wards which would contain at least a 60%-65% minority
population. The Danville Committee was not able to find a
sufficient concentration of minority population to meet this
criterion. Without a high percentage of minority population,
the Committee felt that there was a good chance that a white
person could be elected to represent the proposed minority
ward.
The speaker from the ACLU felt that a minority ward, in order
to ensure a good opportunity for a minority to be elected,
should contain about a 60% minority population over the age of
18.
Issue: The Impact of Electoral Change on Minority Representation
on Council
One key question that arose from the Task Force's discussion was --
''Does a change in the electoral system result in greater
representation by the minority population, within the community.' ~"
In some areas where you have people who have suffered
discrimination of all sorts for a long time, or perceived a
certain level of discrimination, you have a difficult time
getting these people interested in the political system.
19
In Fredericksburg, black representation was strengthened
significantly, mainly because of the reduction in council
size. Before there were 2 minorities out of 11 Council
members, and now there are 2 minorities out of 7. Black
representation appears much stronger now. Fredericksburg was
a community that, over the years with an at-large system,
showed steady progress on minority success at the polls.
Fredericksburg now has a system that the black community did
not want, but they appear stronger for it.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS ABOUT ALTERNATIVE ELECTION SYSTEMS
The speakers who participated in the Task Force's Fact-Finding
efforts provided a diversity of opinions on issues related to
impacts associated with changing a community's electoral process
(issues such as current socio-economic conditions, growth or
decline in population, relations among racial groups, etc. play a
role in assessing the need for electoral change). There are
various advantages and disadvantages associated with at-large,
modified ward and ward systems. Each system, and its
appropriateness to a community, must be evaluated on an individual
basis. It should be understood that a specific electoral system is
not a panacea for curing all the problems of a city, but may
represent a mechanism for addressing some particular issues. A
number of factors must be incorporated into the "calculus" when a
change in the electoral procedures of a community are being
examined.
The Subcommittee responsible for working with the fact-finding
phase of the study process prepared a report which attempted to
highlight the key ideas presented. This report was reviewed with
all members of the Task Force, and subsequently, the report was
mailed to all City Council members.
2O
PHASE II -- DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ELECTION SCENARIOS
The purpose of this phase was to investigate in more detail various
alternative election scenarios based on the information obtained in
the Fact-Finding Phase. The Task Force in its deliberations had
decided that a full-ward system would not benefit the citizens of
Roanoke. Furthermore, practitioners and academicians who spoke to
the Task Force had noted that pursuing a modified ward system where
the number of at-large members exceeded the number of ward members
might present problems with the Justice Department and could
potentially cause strife between ward members and at-large members.
Additionally, the concept of nominations from wards and elections
at-large did not seem to be a viable alternative due to the
possible confusion it might cause among the electorate.
After deliberation on the above alternatives, the Task Force
decided that there were really only two alternatives which might
best serve the needs of Roanoke. The two alternatives given
careful consideration were: (1) an at-large system; and (2) a
modified ward system.
It was understood that the maintenance of the current at-large
system would not require, significant data analysis or detailed
mapping work since, if this alternative was chosen, citizens were
familiar with the process and election procedures were already in
place. However, if a modified ward system were chosen, the Task
Force would have to look carefully at the following.
(1) How should the Mayor be chosen?
(2) How should the Vice-Mayor be chosen?
(3) How many wards would be needed to adequately accommodate the
requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 19657
(4) Would there need to be a change in the size of the Council
based on the number of wards considered?
A Subcommittee of the Task Force, chaired by Onzlee Ware, was
established to investigate and respond to the above questions. The
Subcommittee, as a part of its investigation of modified ward
scenarios, was charged by the Task Force to examine specifically
the following scenarios:
For a 7-member council
4 ward/3 at-large
5 ward/2 at-large
6 ward/1 at-large
For a 9-member council
5 ward/4 at-large
6 ward/3 at-large
7 ward/2 at-large
The process of examining the various modified ward scenarios
outlined above entailed analyzing a substantial amount of 1990
Census data and developing statistics about alternative ward
21
boundaries. As a part of this process, the Planning District
Commission staff prepared, under the guidance of the Subcommittee,
eleven (11) different ward map alternatives to be reviewed by the
Subcommittee. Additionally,' the Planning District Commission staff
prepared a map showing the location of concentrations of minority
residents by Census Blocks for the entire City. The purpose of
this map was to provide additional information about the geographic
distribution of minorities when reviewing different ward map
alternatives.
The Subcommittee and the Task Force adopted the following
guidelines in drawing district boundaries:
1) Districts should be drawn to give, as nearly as is practical,
representation in proportion to the population of a district
(Article VII, Section 5, Constitution of Virginia). This
principle references the "one person-one vote" concept.
District plans will be drawn with the goal of substantial
equality among the districts and less than total deviation of
ten percent.
2) No proposed districting plan shall dilute minority voting
strength or otherwise violate the Voting Rights Act.
3) Districts shall be composed of contiguous and compact
territory (Article VII, Section 5, Constitution of Virginia).
4) In drawing district lines, population figures from the most
recent decennial United States Census (in this case, the 1990
Census) shall be used.
5) Election districts shall follow clearly defined and clearly
observed geographic features (Sections 24.1-40.7 and 24.1-
40.8, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended).
6) Census blocks shall not be split in drawing district lines.
7) In drawing district lines, every attempt will be made to
accommodate "communities of interest", where the drawing of
such lines will not violate the other guidelines outlined
above.
The Task Force, in developing district boundaries, utilized the
guidelines adopted. They recognized that from the seven guidelines
established, guidelines #1 and #2 were preeminent and must always
be observed.
Each of the eleven alternative modified ward boundary maps provided
statistical summaries. These summaries presented (by individual
voting district) the total population, total percent black
population, percentage of population 18 and older who are black,
and the percentage deviation from the ideal voting district
population. The ideal voting district population and total
deviation from the ideal population was also presented.
In reviewing the alternative modified ward boundary maps, the
Subcommittee discussed the question of achieving a 60% black voting
age population in each voting district. During the Fact-Finding
Phase, several speakers had noted that the Justice Department
22
wanted to see minority wards where the black voting age population
approached 60%. It was felt that this percentage would ensure that
the minority population had the opportunity to elect desired
candidates. The Subcommittee kept this percentage in mind when
reviewing the statistical summaries provided with each map.
The Subcommittee discussed in detail the pros and cons associated
with each alternative. After several weeks of discussion
concerning the alternative modified ward scenarios, the following
was found:
Under a 7-member Council
A 4 ward/3 at-large modified system did not appear feasible
since this system provided only one (1)black ward where the
voting age minority population reached approximately 60%.
This alternative had the potential to dilute minority voting
strength, since minority residents were assured of electing
only one of the seven Council members (or 14% of the Council).
The minority voting age population in Roanoke represents 22%
of the total voting age population. Additionally, the issue
of maintaining "communities of interest" was not addressed
well in this alternative scenario.
In the 5 ward/2 at-large modified ward alternative, only one
ward possessing 60% minority voting age population could be
drawn. This alternative had the potential to dilute minority
voting strength. Two wards composed of a simple majority
(i.e., 50%-53%) could be drawn. But, the Task Force felt that
the Justice Department might not be assured that minorities
could elect their desired candidates under this scenario since
the percentage of the voting age minority residents was not as
high as it should be (i.e., approximating 60%).
The 6 ward/1 at-large alternative was attractive because it
provided for two wards which contained about 60% voting age
minority residents and might be acceptable to the Justice
Department. This scenario would help to assure that at least
two seats on Council (or 28% of Council membership) would come
from wards possessing a relatively high percentage of voting
age minority residents. However, there was one major problem
with this scenario. The Task Force felt that with only one
Council member elected at-large, that this alternative was too
similar to a full-ward system. They felt that there needed to
be more at-large representation.
Under a 9-member Council
The 5 ward/4 at-large alternative was attractive to some Task
Force members because it provided a good split in the number
of Council members elected by ward versus those elected at-
large. However, there was a problem with this alternative
because only one ward possessing 60% minority voting age
23
population could be drawn. As with the 5 ward/2 at-large
system discussed previously, there was the potential in this
scenario to dilute minority voting strength.
A 6 ward/3 at-large system was very attractive to the Task
Force for two reasons. First, this alternative did not appear
to dilute minority voting strength since there was some
assurance that at least two seats on Council (or 22% of the
Council membership) would come from wards possessing a
relatively high percentage of minority voting age residents.
Second, the issue of "communities of interest" were fairly
well represented with six wards.
In the 7 ward/2 at-large scenario, provided for good
representation on Council from minority wards. Under this
alternative, two wards containing 60%-75% voting age minority
residents could be established. One problem with this
alternative was that as more wards were added, some
"communities of interest" began to be split.
The Subcommittee, after reviewing the pros and cons of each
alternative modified ward scenario, moved on to a discussion of the
other issues they were charged to consider: how the Mayor should
be elected, how the Vice Mayor should be elected, and what should
be the size of the Council.
It was the consensus of the Subcommittee that Roanoke citizens
would be best served by having both the Mayor and Vice Mayor
elected at-large. The thinking was that these individuals should
take a city-wide perspective on all issues brought before Council.
If the Mayor and Vice Mayor were elected at-large, then this
reduced the number of alternative modified ward scenarios to be
considered to the following: a 5 ward/2 at-large system, a 5 ward/4
at-large system, a 6 ward/3 at-large system, and a 7 ward/2 at-
large system.
Taking into account the critical need not to dilute minority voting
strength, the Subcommittee was able to reduce the number of
alternative modified ward systems even further. Only two of the
remaining alternatives provided the possibility for adequate
minority representation on Council: the 6 ward/3 at-large
alternative and the 7 ward/2 at-large alternative. The
Subcommittee felt that the 7 ward/2 at-large alternative should be
eliminated because it had the potential to more directly effect
"communities of interest" within the City. This left the 6 ward/3
at-large alternative as the favored scenario and also answered the
question as to what should be the size of the City Council.
The Subcommittee recognized its charge was to answer the questions
presented by the full Task Force. The Subcommittee also recognized
that the current at-large election system remained a viable system
for consideration by the full Task Force. It was understood that
any recommendations presented by the Subcommittee would only be
24
pursued with City Council if the full Task Force, following the
review of the citizens' comments at the May workshops, decided to
recommend an alternative to the current at-large system. With this
in mind, the Subcommittee presented the following 'recommendations
for consideration by the full Task Force:
(1) The Mayor should continue to be elected at-large.
2) The Vice Mayor should be elected at-large.
3) The size of the City Council should be increased to 9
members.
4)
If a modified ward system is chosen, 6 Council members
should be elected by wards, and 3 Council members
(including the Mayor and Vice Mayor) should be elected
at-large.
The following notes were also provided to the Task Force with the
above recommendations.
NOTES:
The Council members should serve staggered
terms, with the Mayor and 3 ward Council
members elected one year, and the 2 at-large
(one being the Vice-Mayor) and 3 remaining
Council members elected in the alternate
election year.
The Vice Mayor will be a candidate running at-
large, who obtains the most votes in the at-
large election in alternate election years.
Therefore, similar to the Mayor, the candidate
elected as Vice Mayor will serve a 4-year
term.
No specific voting district boundaries for the
6 ward/3 at-large alternative are proposed
since there are several map scenarios which
accommodate this system.
25
PHASE III - CITIZEN WORKSHOPS CONCERNING
ALTERNATIVE ELECTION PROCEDURES
This phase of the Task Force's work effort was intended to obtain
citizens' comments about the City's current at-large system and
their interest in changing from an at-large system to some
alternative election system. A Subcommittee, chaired by Jan
Garrett, was established to handle this phase of the study process.
During the first part of May, 1992 the Subcommittee to Assist with
Citizen Workshops held four workshops to obtain citizens' comments
about alternative election procedures. The workshops were held in
the following four quadrants of the City: Jackson Middle School
(southeast) on May 7; William Fleming High School (northwest) on
May 11; Patrick Henry High School (southwest) on May 12; and
Monterey Elementary School (northeast) on May 14.
The Subcommittee advertised the workshops by sending approximately
280 notices to neighborhood, civic and religious organizations.
The notices were accompanied by a cover letter from Chairman
Wendell Butler requesting that an announcement about the workshops
be noted in the organization's newsletter and that members be
encouraged~to attend the workshops. Furthermore, notices were sent
to local news media to inform them about the May workshops.
Workshop Format and Objectives
At each workshop, Chairman Butler reviewed the various elements of
the Task Force's study process, as well as the next steps to be
pursued by the Task Force after completion of the workshops. Jan
Garrett (Vice-Chairman of the Task Force and Chairman of the
Subcommittee to Assist with the Citizen Workshops) discussed the
objectives and the format of the workshop. The objectives of the
workshop were: (1) to share information about the process followed
by the Citizen Task Force as they examined alternative election
procedures; (2) to educate citizens about information obtained by
the Task Force during its Fact-Finding efforts; and (3) to obtain
citizen comments about specific questions involving the City's
current at-large election system and alternative election systems.
Wayne Strickland (Executive Director of the 5th PDC and staff to
the Task Force) provided an overview of the Fact-Finding phase of
the Task Force's work effort.
The workshop followed a small group "brainstorming" format. A
facilitator prompted the citizens to respond to the four specific
questions, while a recorder wrote the response from each citizen.
The four questions asked of citizens were: (1) What do you like
about the current at-large system?; (2) What do you dislike about
the current at-large system?; (3) What actions could be taken to
improve the current at-large system?; and (4) If the at-large
system were dropped, what election system would you like to see in
its place and why?
26
Following the conclusion of the small group session, the
facilitator reviewed responses to each question to ensure that each
response was recorded correctly. A total of thirty-one (31)
citizens attended the four workshops (some citizens attended more
than one workshop).
Summary of Key Issues
Following is a summary of the key issues brought out in response to
the four questions presented to workshop participants. These
issues are outlined under each specific question posed.
Summary of Key Issues for the Question -- What do you like about
the current at-large system?
Promotes a city-wide perspective
Council; it prevents divisions
creating artificial boundaries).
and unity within the City
within the City (by not
Candidates learn the needs of all communities in the City and
campaign city-wide, and candidates represent all people.
The at-large system is a simple, understandable election
system for voters.
Encourages better quality of candidates and voters have a
better knowledge of all candidates.
S,,mmar¥ of Key Issues for the Question -- What do you dislike about
the current at-large system?
Individuals may not be able to run for Council because of: (1)
the cost of campaigning, and (2) the problem of campaigning
door-to-door in a large city.
Candidates do not visit neighborhoods when campaigning and do
not maintain on-going contact with neighborhoods after they
are elected.
Council members are generally from the same area of the City
and are not aware of the problems in other sections of the
City (they are not representative of all sections of the
City).
Lack of accountability of Council members to the people.
Voter (and citizen) apathy -- lack of citizen participation.
Citizens do not know when Council meetings are held -- Council
meeting times are inconvenient for citizens.
27
S,,mmary of Key Issues for the Question -- What actions could be
taken to improve the current at-large system?
Council members should visit neighborhoods more regularly
after elections.
Council should establish neighborhood advisory groups to
obtain diversity of opinions on issues.
Encourage more citizens to vote and encourage greater citizen
involvement in neighborhoods.
Council should establish more acceptable meeting times to
allow working citizens to attend Council meetings; Council
should also provide greater publicity for Council meetings.
Limit the number of terms that Council members may serve and
reduce the length of term in office.
Make Council members more accountable to voters -- a system
for evaluating Council should be establ'ished.
* Limit campaign expenditures.
Summary of Key Issues for the Question -- If the at-large system
were dropped, what would you like to see in its place and why?
Modified ward system for better representation, more
accountability and more accessibility (better "checks and
balances").
Following the conclusion of the four workshops, the Subcommittee
reviewed the material discussed and prepared a summary of the
comments provided by citizens. This report was shared with the
Task Force and was also mailed to each member of the City Council.
28
PHASE IV -- TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL
The last phase of the Task Force's study effort was to prepare
final recommendations to City Council. To this point, Task Force
members had the opportunity to hear from practitioners,
academicians, and Roanoke citizens about the advantages and
disadvantages of alternative election systems. During their five
months of research, Task Force members were given much material to
read and evaluate. They had the opportunity to become very
knowledgeable about various aspects of electoral change. Using the
knowledge gained from months of discussions about various election
systems, they were asked to decide what election system would best
serve the interests of the citizens of Roanoke City.
The decision on the recommendation was pursued in the following
way. Chairman Butler stated that the Chair would entertain a
motion on a final recommendation to City Council. A motion was
made and seconded that the following recommendations be presented
to City Council:
#1 The Mayor should continue to be elected at-large.
~2 The Vice-Mayor should be elected at-large.
#3 The size of the City Council should be expanded to 9 members.
#4
If a modified ward system is chosen, 6 Council members should
be elected by wards, and 3 Council members (including the
Mayor and Vice Mayor) should be elected at-large.
Each member of the Task Force had an opportunity to discuss their
individual perspective on why these recommendations should or
should not be approved and presented to City Council. Chairman
Butler recognized that there might not be unanimous agreement on
the motion. He felt that, for the record, the opinions of both the
proponents of the motion and opponents to the motion should be
included in the final report.
When the Chairman called for the vote on the proposed modified ward
system, six (6) members voted in favor of adopting the modified
ward system as presented and eight (8) members voted against the
modified ward system as presented. Since the motion to approve the
modified ward system failed, the recommendation to maintain the
current at-large election system would be the recommendation to be
taken to City Council.
29
Following is the individual response of each Task Force member to
the motion. It is divided into two groups: (1) the "ayes" --
those who favored adoption of the proposed modified ward system;
and (2) the "nays" -- those who were against the proposed modified
ward system.
The "Ayes" -- The Perspective of those who Favored Adoption of the
Proposed Modified Ward System
Ware
I favor the modified ward system basically for the
following reason. I think everybody around this
table, if they chose to run for elected office in
the current at-large system, could put together a
good campaign and probably win. My concern is for
people in southeast and parts of northwest that
don't have the money and professional degrees to
compete effectively as a candidate and win in an
at-large system. I don't like the idea of someone
giving me anything. I like the idea of being able
to run for office on my merits, but I have to
become less selfish when I think about how the at-
large system can lock some people out of running
for office.
In this town not everyone can run for Council and
win -- they don't have the money. We talk about
racial tension, and that is what you will have if
you continue to lock out candidates from the
northwest section of the City. Race relations
aren't going to improve with an at-large system.
I have thought much about the at-large system after
the recent election. The new Mayor is not even in
office and already there is talk about fighting him
on the proposed economic summit. So I don't know
how much cohesiveness is gained from the current
at-large system. I have seen there are a lot of
personal attitudes that go along with an at-large
council. For me, I would rather keep the at-large
system, but for the larger community, I feel the
modified ward system would better address their
needs.
I feel people seem to think that when you mention a
ward system you specifically talk about the needs
of black citizens. I feel we need to look at the
needs of the people in southeast Roanoke. Those
people should feel they have a voice in the City
about such issues as economic development and new
jobs. I have no doubt that black candidates can be
elected at-large, but in my opinion the at-large
system is locking some folks out of the process and
30
that is not what the Constitution is suppose to be
about. The election system has got to give all
citizens the chance to voice their opinions about
neighborhood problems. They must have a voice on
Council to ensure that their concerns about drugs
and crime are heard. A change in the election
system may also help to smooth racial tensions.
For these reasons, I am in favor of adopting the
motion.
Firebaugh
My attention to the activities of this body has
been less than 100%, more like 40% because I think
I came on board as one of the only outspoken
committed people to the modified ward system. I
have not heard anything during the group's
discussion to change my mind and did not expect to.
Everything has been laid out fine and it has been
an extremely objective process. We have had
testimonies from many experts, including citizens.
We have heard arguments both pro and con and I
would like to thank and congratulate everyone who
has participated and hope it will continue.
I will speak in support of the motion, but not from
the point of view of the testimony that we have
taken and the opinions I have heard from the
sparsely attended workshops. You have to
understand that for people to speak about a change
in the system, they have to presume that the words
are going to lead to some sort of effective action.
I think that at this point in the City's history
many people are not speaking out because they are
unwilling to fight City Hall.
I have been involved from a practical and partisan
standpoint in City politics and to some degree I
have a personal interest as far as supplemental
income from City politics. I have watched City
politics carefully since 1976 when the unified
Roanoke Forward team swept into office. They
deserved to sweep the election because they had the
candidates and had the organization to win. But
ever since that time we have been in a reactive
mode to some degree.
I think many people feel that since the 1976
election, decisions on Council have been pretty
much cut and dry. Most Council votes are 7-0 and
there doesn't seem to be much people can say about
Council decisions. If you look at the election
results from 1978 on, you'll see the type of
candidates elected have tended to be more reactive.
31
Some candidates have been successful and some have
not. But overall their success at the polls, based
on their platforms, has not been translated into
public policy. I think many people feel that
candidates, once elected, have not met their
expectations as to why they were elected. I'll
cite one specific example. A very real threat to
the future growth of this community and its
businesses is flood control. We all went through
that damaging flood of 1985 and it is in the works
now that this issue is going to be addressed. But
if you look at the bond referendum that took place
in April 1989, there was a low voter turnout on
this critical issue and one thing that was striking
about that was the nature of financing.
The financing of those bonds would come from a 20%
increase in the utility tax. Now, who among us
would say it is not a worthy cause, but then who
among us would not see that people on low or fixed
incomes, knowing that having utilities is a
necessity, could have grounds for concern. One
idea I have considered in trying to explain the low
voter turnout was that a great segment of the
community felt that they were not represented.
Council, without dissent, accepted the City
Manager's recommendation about the bond financing.
Not that people disagreed about the objective, all
of us wanted it, but the means for financing
improvements was something that concerned low
income people. In those areas most affected by the
1985 flood, specifically the southeast, northeast
and northwest areas, 10 out of 11 of those
precincts voted against the bond referendum. The
idea I am trying to get across is that despite the
problems citizens in this area had with flooding,
they were not in a financial position to support
the bond referendum. Council members did not seem
to understand that these people could not support
flood reduction for industries near the river since
it would mean that they would have less money to
pay for necessities. My point is I don't think
there was any question about the need for flood
control, but the people in southeast, northeast and
northwest did not feel that Council was really
considering there needs when the bond referendum
decision was made.
As I said, this is just one example, but it is
clear that citizens want more input when Council is
making an important decision, such as the bond
referendum for flood control. If a modified ward
32
system had been in place at that time, citizens
would have had a way to give their input and maybe
there would have been more discussion on how to pay
for flood control. People would have felt that
their interests were being looked after. So the
motion for a modified ward system, I feel, is very
attractive.
In regard to the issue of a modified ward causing
divisiveness, I disagree. To say that because
people disagree on an issue, this leads to
divisiveness is to simple. People should be
willing to agree that it is OK to disagree on
issues when there are several points of view to be
considered. Otherwise, how can a group of people
ever come up with an acceptable answer that looks
at all points of view. Counties in Virginia are
organized through magisterial districts which is
like a ward system. You might say that Roanoke
County has a pure ward system. I have not seen
where counties suffer much more divisiveness than
other communities. If you can believe the National
Association of Counties and Virginia Association of
Counties, it appears that counties continue to
progress even though they have ward systems.
So, I would just say that from what I have
experienced in the trenches that the City would be
much better off to have a system that empowers
people to participate in government through better
representation, rather than a system where people
are discouraged from participating. I speak in
support of the motion as presented and see no
reason to change my original opinion about the need
for a modified ward system for Roanoke.
Jones
As I offered the motion, I would support the motion
of adopting the 6/3 modified ward system for
electing City Council members in the City. Being a
native of the City and being a minority, I find the
current system grossly unfair in that it isolates
certain areas of the City, and doesn't fairly offer
the opportunity to be elected to a seat on City
Council.
There is isolation in this City due to income and
status in community. There is isolation based on
race. There are a number of drawbacks to the
current at-large system that result in some
citizens not having an equal voice in Council
decisions. Speakers have come before us and
mentioned that the at-large system fosters a false
33
sense of cohesiveness among Council members.
Although there are currently two minority members
on the Council, I still don't feel that I am fully
and adequately represented as a minority and I am
sure there are many in my neighborhood and in the
City that feel the same way. I feel that the voice
of minority members on Council is moderated to
satisfy the larger constituency, which would be the
numerical majority of population in the City of
Roanoke.
Having lived away from the City for 13 years and in
a place where there was a ward system, I found the
members of that City Council to be much more in
tune with their constituents and to the
neighborhood that each individual ward member
represented. I discovered that a ward system, or a
modified ward system, provides an environment for
greater political participation and more contests
for seats on City Council. I found that a ward
system also spurs a great deal more interest in
City elections from citizens.
I feel that the current at-large system is
exclusive rather than inclusive of all citizens
within the City. I think that for the City of
Roanoke to continue with the at-large system is
inviting legal challenge. The recent election
demonstrates that the minority community in the
City of Roanoke is unable to elect a representative
of their choice which goes against the spirit of
the Voting Rights Act. Clearly the minority
representative of choice in the recent election,
Renee Anderson, was rejected by the larger majority
community and therefore did not win a seat on
Council. For better or worse, Ms. Anderson has
demonstrated numerically and statistically that she
was in fact the choice of the minority community.
As to the concern expressed about the costs
associated with expanding the number seats of
Council, I think it is a small price for the City
to pay for fair representation. I think that we
need to encourage, and by any means possible, youth
to become involved in the governmental system. I
think the modified ward system would enhance the
opportunity for younger people to participate in
the political process. I personally would prefer
another version of the modified ward system but I
am willing to compromise and accept the 6 ward/3
at-large distribution of Council seats.
34
I would like to further state that the modified
ward system has bi-partisan support. The fact that
the modified ward system is favored by both the
League of Women Voters and the NAACP should not be
ignored.
Smith
The modified ward system would be a good chance to
carry government to the people in a way that it
hasn't been before. You know that in an at-large
election everyone has a chance to vote, but when
the Council person votes, he doesn't feel the need
to tell all City residents what his vote is about.
In the case of a modified ward system, the Council
member would be more responsible to the community
and would carry the message back to constituents
loud and clear. In an at-large system there are
more people that don't know what is going on or
haven't heard what is going on simply because
nobody has the time to go back and explain
decisions to citizens. The at-large system
provides a good way for a Council person to be
elected by everybody but to have no accountability
to anyone in particular. In a ward system the
Council member is accountable to those who elected
him and citizens in that ward have a chance to work
with their Council member to make them accountable
and make them come back to talk to them. This is
the only way you are ever going to have
accountability in Roanoke City government. Mr.
Chairman I am in favor of the motion.
Rothe
Like Mr. Camper I came here thinking I really
didn't want to see a change, although the Council
member that chose me for this Task Force had
expressed concern about wanting more community
involvement with City Council or direct involvement
with the people.
The Councilman, more or less, indicated that a ward
system or something of that nature would be of some
interest to him. So, I feel an obligation to a
certain extent to consider the Councilman's
feelings. I like the ward system because it does
provide for more direct involvement by the people,
but I am concerned that there might be some racial
issues created by a ward system and unless I hear a
convincing argument one way or another, I am really
undecided at this point. I feel like I am sitting
on a jury that has to make a decision and it is
going to take some additional discussion.
35
Butler
My concern is for the future generations of
registered voters in the City. We don't know what
the future holds, and I think it would be better
if we had the option of going to a modified ward
system. That is the reason I voted for the motion.
The "Nays" -- The Perspective of those who were Against the
Adoption of the Proposed Modified Ward System
Harris
One concern I have about the motion is that we have
heard from two or three of our speakers that if the
City went to a modified ward system, it would be
better to have only one seat difference between
those members elected by wards and those elected
at-large (i.e., 4 wards/3 at-large, 5 wards/4 at-
large, etc.). But, I also understand that the
Subcommittee could not devise a plan that would
have any less than 6 wards because of need to
ensure adequate minority representation in wards.
It concerns me that two-thirds of City Council
would be elected by wards.
Another other concern is the cost to be incurred by
the City to expand the size of the Council.
My last concern is what would be the motivation for
a person to run for the two at-large seats, outside
of the Mayor's position, when they could run in a
ward and have the same voting power on Council. It
might be difficult to find two candidates who would
be willing to incur the large expense to run for
the at-large seats when they could run in one-sixth
of the City (i.e., in one ward) and have the same
voting power on Council.
Wade
I have the same concerns as expressed by Reverend
Harris. Another concern is that our City, in my
opinion, is a very nice city and I would hate to
see something that would cause racial divisions. I
feel now that the benefits of the at-large system
outweigh the modified ward system in my opinion.
Goodwin
I'm of the opinion that if there is a problem then
we need to address the problem. I am not sold on
the fact that a problem actually exists in terms of
the idea that the current at-large system is more
unequal to the black population and black
candidates than it is to the white population and
white candidates. I have been there, and it is no
36
Throckmorton
picnic for anybody. I think that the City of
Roanoke has in previous years, and in this past
election, shown fairness and equality through the
electoral procedure that is in place now.
I am very concerned that once a change in our
electoral system is made, there will be no going
back. I think it would be nice to try a modified
ward system on a test basis to see how it would
work and to see if it would be better. Just
because a ward system did not work well in
Richmond, doesn't mean it would not work here, or
just because it worked in Richmond doesn't mean it
would work here. It would be nice to have the
opportunity to test it out and then if it did not
work have the option to go back, but we will not
have that option and that concerns me.
I'm also very concerned about anything that will
further divide the City or the neighborhoods. From
the scenario maps I have seen here, I see real
weird things happening in both black and white
communities (i.e., with the ward boundaries). I
think that a modified ward system could further
deteriorate the cohesiveness of the citizens of the
City. I think that in different ways, we have had
enough things to come between and to separate the
northeast, northwest, southeast and southwest
sections of the City. That is a very strong
concern of mine.
I am also concerned about the negative reports that
came from the speakers who have a ward and/or
modified ward system. This goes back to my initial
comment, if its not a real problem, I would hate to
see us take the chance at further dividing the
community and people. I'm not blind enough to
think that racial inequality does not exist in the
City. I think it does in more areas then I
realize, but I think that there are some other less
destructive type things to try first before we try
something of this magnitude. I guess the bottom
line is that in my understanding of what has been
presented and what I have read, I would not be in
favor of the motion as stated.
I'm convinced that some of the issues that called
for this subject to be discussed to begin with are
valid and I realize that there are a lot of
apparent problems with any system you have. I
guess my main concern goes back to economics.
Regardless of what is done, it is going to be at
the taxpayers' expense -- that is the bottom line.
37
I want to know if the people who are being
represented are getting a good deal for their
money.
I don't know what all of the financial
ramifications of changing the electoral system
might be on the City. I don't know what the costs
would be in terms of salaries if the Council is
expanded, but regardless of whatever it cost to
implement and operate a new election system, you
can rest assured it is going to be passed along to
the citizens and community. I would certainly want
to make sure that citizens are getting good value
for their money, or they felt like the money it was
costing to implement a new system was benefitting
them through good representation. If that is the
issue, then maybe I could go along with it. But I
don't think we can spend enough money to resolve
all the individual problems.
Some of the problems I heard raised could be
addressed through means other than implementing a
modified ward system. I have not heard anything
that made me fully believe the kind of money it
would take to convert to and implement a new
election system would really benefit the people
without costing them a tremendous amount of money.
Urbanski I have thought about this issue a lot. I spent an
entire year of my life studying this issue. My
thesis in college was entitled "The Effect of
Progressive Municipal Reforms on the Urban Black
Population: A Case Study of Richmond". I think we
are very fortunate to live in Roanoke under Mayor
Taylor. We have been blessed by his tenure in the
8 years I have been here. Roanoke has come a long
way. We have been spared the problems that
Richmond and Norfolk have had.
I think Mr. Ware is right on the money when he says
that jobs are an essential issue to what we are
talking about. I think economic development is the
major issue as far as I am concerned. I think
bringing jobs to Roanoke is one of the most
important things to consider. I don't believe,
however, that voting for a modified ward system is
going to cure the problems of poverty. I don~t
think the proposed system is going to do anything
to help alleviate that problem. In fact, given
what we have heard from some of the speakers about
the potential for increased divisiveness from a
system in which Council will be dominated by
38
persons elected in a ward setting, a change to a
modified ward system may lead to divisiveness on
Council and more fragmentation. It could also lead
to employers and/or businessmen looking for places
other than Roanoke in which to place their
businesses and may cause us to lose jobs.
I'd like for Roanoke to be the kind of place where
my children aren't going to leave and look for
better employment opportunities elsewhere. I want
my children to stay in Roanoke, grow up and raise
their families here. For that reason, I am in
favor of maintaining the current at-large system.
The recent election demonstrates that we have an
electorate that, I think, feels fortunate to live
here. I think the election of Mac McCadden is a
great thing for Roanoke. I also think that with
the at-large system in Roanoke, given the
population and demographics we have, there is no
indication that black citizens are under-
represented on Council, just by the numbers.
Now, I have another issue which concerns me a great
deal about the particular proposal that we have
before us. The proposal calls for the increase in
Council size from 7 members to 9 members, which
allows for 2 predominantly black wards. Just
looking at it on a very superficial level, it
appears that we might perhaps institutionalize a
decrease in minority representation by increasing
the size of Council. Right now we have 2 of the 7
on Council who are minority members. I am
concerned that the Justice Department in Washington
may not look out for the best interests of all the
citizens of Roanoke. That is, the Justice
Department will be looking out for their own
bureaucratic interests, because in my experience
that is exactly what they do. I am very concerned
that the Justice Department will say no to our
proposal and do what they want. Politically, I am
concerned that if we moved from 2 minorities out of
7 to 2 minorities out of 9 that it may motivate
some bureaucrats in Washington to oppose our system
and impose their own system. I am concerned about
that.
I share Reverend Harris' concerns about exactly
what role that third councilman elected at-large
would have. Is that person intended to be a super
councilman? That person would have to have
significant financial support to run throughout the
entire City, yet has only the same vote as a ward
39
member. I am concerned we may not attract
candidates to run for that third at-large seat. I
am concerned about supporting any change in the
election system where may cause a $200,000 increase
in the budget for the City of Roanoke to pay for
expanding the size of Council.
Going back to my concern about the Justice
Department doing what they want to do in regard to
Roanoke's election system, I ask you to reflect
back on what Mr. Pates, Attorney for
Fredericksburg, said about the problems they
encountered ~n changing their election system. I
hear what Mr. Ware is saying about poverty and
problems with political participation and he is
exactly right. I think people are more
disenfranchised by poverty than anything else. I
don't think the present proposal is going to do
anything to improve race relations in Roanoke. I
share the view of Mr. Goodwin that if it is not
broke, don't fix it. I am in favor of keeping the
at-large system.
Garrett
A lot of my points have already been covered. I am
not going to reiterate them except to say that the
fact that we have the "correct percentage of
minorities" on Council now may be statistically
factual, but it is also true that we have heard
from people who don't feel that have a voice and
don't have access to City leaders. That is the
most disturbing thing I heard during all of the
workshops.
However, as upset as that issue makes me, I have to
wonder about the number of people who share that
feeling. Even though I think that if there is one
person who does not feel represented that is
something to worry about, I also look at the
turnout at the workshops and feel that the turnout
was somewhat "underwhelming". Experience shows us
that people who have a complaint are obviously more
vocal and will come out and talk about it-- not
many people showed up to talk about changing the
election system.
The reasons I heard at workshops from people who
were not happy with the at-large system were, in my
mind, not necessarily related to the method of
electing the Council members. I guess what I am
saying is I'm not sure that changing the system
would satisfy some of the complaints I heard. But,
the most important reason to me for not changing
40
Hancock
the current at-large system is I truly believe that
we have been blessed to live in an area that
possesses somewhat relative racial harmony. I
think if we make this change in the election
system, from which we can never turn back, we will
see race pitted against race and class pitted
against class in a way we have not experienced
before and in a way I don't want us to experience.
I hope we can come up with some plan, and I don't
know exactly what it is. However, I don't think
the answer is to change the at-large system.
I seconded the motion on the floor and stick by my
second. I am in favor of the modified ward system.
Basically why I am for the modified ward system
comes from my experience as a Dean at Patrick Henry
High School. I was from the southeast area and
when the kids from southeast realized that they had
a representative on the faculty, these kids became
more involved in school activities.
Since working with the civic league in the
southeast area, I have talked with a lot of people
and-~they have said the same thing Onzlee said --
people from southeast don't have representation,
and the City doesn't care about us. We need
representation on Council and we could get
representation if candidates from southeast had the
finances to run at-large. But you don't find too
many people that can afford do this. For this
reason, I feel that a modified ward system would be
the way to go.
I share Steve's feeling about the distribution of
ward versus at-large seats on Council. Even though
I was on the Subcommittee that recommended
increasing the size of Council, 9 is not what I
would have liked to have seen, but the majority of
the Subcommittee favored this number so I went
along with it. I think I would like to have seen 7
members like it is now and worked out a 4 ward/3
at-large system.
The City needs more representation for the
northwest and southeast sections. I know that when
I spoke at Villa Heights two weeks ago for the
Neighborhood Partnership, one of the things that
bothered them was the City had forgotten them and
didn't care about the drugs and crime in their
area. I think that if they had a representative
from the area, someone they could talk to like the
students at Patrick Henry had, they would feel
there is someone listening to them.
41
Camper
I came into this process looking at leaving the
system as it is now. I have probably changed my
mind a dozen times about changing the system, but I
am still in favor of leaving the at-large system
the way it is. If I put a lot of weight on citizen
comments provided at the workshops we had, where we
had a total of 31 people show up, I would think
that we would need to give some consideration to
the modified ward system. If there would have been
more people attending the workshops, it would have
carried more weight with me, but at this point I
would like to leave the election system as it is.
Other Recommendations Proposed by the Task Force
Term Limitations
Several Task Force members expressed concern about the issue of
term limitations on Council. It was noted that this issue was
brought up at several of the workshops. On a motion by a Task
Force member and seconded, the Task Force was asked to consider
recommending term limitations on City Council. The rationale was
that this would help to address the concerns presented at the
workshops by allowing ventilation on Council, new persons to come
on board, and allow persons to run for open seats and not face an
entrenched incumbent.
Many Task Force members stated that term limitations would have
appeal in either a modified ward system or in an at-large system.
If the Task Force would recommend term limitations, this would
create greater opportunities for new persons to run and have a
better chance to serve on Council. This would help to enhance
better representation throughout the City.
The Task Force agreed that they would recommend term limitations.
At this point, discussion moved to the type of term limitations to
be recommended to Council. After much discussion, it was agreed by
a vote of eight (8) in favor with two (2) abstentions (four members
were not present during this vote) that the Task Force would
recommend the following to Council:
It is recommended that a Council member serve only three
consecutive, 4-year terms, except if the Council member decides to
run and is elected as Mayor, then as Mayor he/she can serve three
consecutive 4-year terms in this position. After serving three
consecutive terms as Mayor, a candidate can run again for Council
and can serve another three consecutive, 4-year terms on Council.
42
Creation of Another Citizen Task Force in the Year 2000 to
Reexamine the Issue of an Alternative Election System for Roanoke
City
The Task Force held a general discussion about the possibility of
the City reexamining the issue of an alternative election system in
the future. Although the majority of Task Force members felt that
the at-large system was currently meeting the needs of Roanoke
residents, there was the potential for conditions to change over
the years; perhaps, requiring a change in the election system
sometime in the future. A motion was made, seconded and approved
that the Task Force recommend the following to City Council:
It is recommended that another Task Force be appointed in the year
2000, or sooner if the need arises, to study the election system
issue to see if the at-large system is still serving the needs of
the citizens of Roanoke.
Other Issues Discussed by the Task Force
The Issue of Neighborhood Advisory Councils
Another issue which was discussed at some of the citizen workshops
involved setting up neighborhood advisory councils to provide
neighborhood input to City Council. By establishing neighborhood
advisory councils, citizens would feel that they have an "official"
conduit through which they can pass their concerns to Council. The
advisory councils would also serve as a sounding board for Council
members and a mechanism to disseminate information about the
time/location of Council meetings as well as items to be discussed
on the Council agenda. The Task Force decided not to present this
issue as a recommendation to Council, but to highlight it in this
report and to request that Chairman Butler note this issue in his
presentation to City Council.
The Issue of Task Force Members including Personal Statements as a
part of the Final Report to City Council
Some Task Force members felt that they might want to develop a
personal statement as to why they voted the way they did on the
issue of the change in the current election system. It was noted
that the summary statements provided earlier in this report may not
cover all issues of concern to individual Task Force members. By
developing a personal statement, each Task Force member would have
a greater opportunity to fully express their opinions. Chairman
Butler stated that the personal statements of Task Force members
could be included as an attachment to the final report.
43
ATTACHNENTS
Personal Comments from Individual Task Force Members
SUMMARY COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF A MODIFIED WARD SYSTEM
FOR THE ELECTION OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
by Stephen J. Jones
A recurring thought in reviewing this process and the issues
related to the selection of an election system that fairly serves all
citizens is the quote or adage that "sometimes that which is right is
not always popular and that which is popular is not always right. I
believe this statement applies to this debate in that there has been
no great expression of interest or popularity on either side by the
general public and yet most citizens would strongly support the
concept of democracy, the principals of one man one vote and equal
representation, all ideals that in my opinion would be advanced by a
change to a modified ward system.
This country is witness to many issues of mass popularity that
crumble under the weight of fairness and justice. I most strongly
support a change in the election system for the City of Roanoke to a
modified ward system and believe it to be the most fair and just
system though it may not secure mass popularity. Even though the
majority of those who participated in the public workshops and
forums favored a change this is not a popular issue.
It is my further opinion that this matter is of great public
importance and little public interest and requires strong, decisive,
non-partisan leadership from our elected representatives advancing
the cause of fairness and justice for all.
After six months of thorough analysis of the issue and listening
to the views and opinion of various groups and individuals on both
sides, it seems clear and the record will show the widest support
among voters is for a change to better serve all people of the city.
The most prominent reasons cited in support of change were a
more accountable voice for all people regardless of class, economic
status, race or area of residence, representation that reflects the
interest and concerns and is closer to the neighborhoods and the
people.
It is my very strong opinion based on all information before
me that the only interest served by retaining the current at-large
system is the interest of denial of access and the benefits thereof to
those now shut out. Though the at-large system is said to provide a
city wide perspective neighborhood after neighborhood complain of
the lack of representation or redress to their concerns.
Many other reasons beyond those facts on surface support a
change in the current system. The Los Angeles riots and the l lth
Street bottle throwing and other similar reaction to systemic
indifference and isolation will not only continue but will escalate.
Also alarmingly clear is the fact the Roanokers of different class,
economic status and race often see very different things while
viewing the same set of circumstances. While I view the at-large
system as having impact similar to apartheid, others view it as
promoting racial harmony. It has been repeatedly stated that the at-
large system restricts true and open debate yet some would suggest
that because there is no discussion or debate there is no problem.
This in my view is classic denial and a head in the sand reaction to a
very oppressive system.
I would agree that Roanoke has some fine qualities for life but
also many deep rooted problems some of which would be eased and
improved by this change.
PERSONAL STATEMENT FROM CONNIE NADE
After six months of intensive study on the possibility
of changing the system of election in the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, I have come to the conclusion that
currently, the at large system should be maintained.
The modified ward system would, in my opinion, create
divided sectors, each with their own special interests
and goals, which may not be for the good of the entire
city. As an analogy, I offer the multi-government region
of the Roanoke Valley. On numerous occassions, the
various municipalities cannot reach a consensus on
issues and, as a result, bicker and debate, to the
detriment of the entire region. I believe the modified
ward system would parallel this situation.
Additionally, the proposed system would require that
districts be drawn. The boundaries on the scenario maps
(which will be followed to maintain racial balance) will
split neighborhoods along artificial lines and make some
areas, both black and white, radically different than
the present neighborhood voting patterns.
Thirdly, in the public workshops we held, only 31
citizens came to discuss this issue. I can hardly
believe that this constitutes an outcry for change by
the electorate. Also, the main concern expressed was not
the election process, but a feeling of voicelessness in
the affairs of the City. A change in the election
process would not change this frustration.
Another concern I have is the expense to the taxpayer
for the proposed change, when the taxpayers apparently
aren't mandating the change.
Lastly, Mr. Pates, Attorney for Fredericksburg,VA, told
the task force of the problems that locality encountered
upon changing to the modified ward system. The Justice
Department intervened and made legally binding decisions
and policies for Fredericksburg. I cannot believe that
the citizens of Roanoke City want the Federal Government
directing the day-to-day operations of the City.
Once the decision has been made to change, there is no
turning back. Therfore, for the above reasons, I believe
we should not make the change to the modified ward
system.
Dorothy/ "~onnie" 'Wade
PERSONAL STATEI~NT
June 24, 1992
As a member of the Task Force to Study Alternative Election
Procedure for the City of Roanoket I feel compelled to give the
most accurate accessment of what I feel the citizens of our city
expressed as their choice for our method of election.
The number of participants in the workshop was comparable
to the participants in similar workshops held on this issue in
other parts of the state.
A majority of all the citizens from all quadrants of Roanoke
stated a modified ward system would give more representation to
all citizens. The preception that this was an issue solely affect-
ing Blacks was not a key concern. Some of the key issues were the
adverse economies campaigning, unresponsiveness to the needs of
citizens by at large elected candidates, an unequal voice in
economic development, accountability and accessibilit~ as it
relates to representatives. These and many other issues were common
concerns of all of our citizens.
Five of the six citizen group activist polled by our Task Force
expressed the desire for the modified ward. One of those polled,
The League of Womens Voters, a respected voters league in our city
has conducted that the At Large system is not the best for our
city.
REA~.TOR~
Page (2
The recommendation of limiting the terms of at large elected
council persons to enhance this system is merely adding to the
ineffectiveness of our representation for our citizens.
Modified ward is a means of bringing government closer to
the citizens..The elected official must seek election from his
district, and be accountable to the district. That might represent
a burden not desired by some elected officials, who would rather
represent everyone, and be accountable to no one.
Areas surrounding Roanoke City such as Roanoke Count3 has
a ward system, the cities of Lynchburg and Fredericksburg have a
modified ward system.
The will of the people to keep an effectual council person
should not be restricted by term limitations. After listening very
closely and very carefully to expressions of our citizensr I could
but only vote one way and that is for a modified Ward system of
election. Members i0f the Task Force were appointed to educate
as well as extract citizens comments regardless of the views of
the council person making the appointment.
It would be a grievous error if we ignore the comments of
zens and not incorporate the at large system and the ward
to a more
our citi--
s3stem
representative, more accountable, more accessible form
Page (3)
1818 C~:NTI~E AVE. N.W.
P, O. BOX 312
['703 ) 343-5219
I~OANOI(E:. VA. 24003
of election procedure- the modified ward system.
Playing the "political game" and selecting the election plan that
best suits our present makeup of council and not listening to the
will of the people could be disastrous for our community. Public
appearances to influence the choice after making appointment of
citizens only serves to foster the perception that the will of
our citizens is not being seriously considered.
It was revealed to this Task Force that more non-minorities
desired a modified ward system than minorities.
Again casting my vote for a change from an at-large system
of election to a modified ward system is a vote for the will of
the people, the great citizens of the City of Roanoke.
~/q OVERVIEW OF THE CITIZENS TASK FORCE REPORT AND THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE TO CITY COUNCIL
PRESENTED BY DR. WENDELL H. BUTLER, CHAI~t%N
CITIZENS TASK FORCE TO STUDY ALTERNATIVE ELECTION PROCEDURES
BEFORE I BEGIN MY O~ERVIEW OF OUR FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
I WOULD LIKEATO INTRODUCE THE MEMBERS OF THE CITIZENS TASK FORCE
WHO ARE PRESENT.
IN NOVEMBER OF 1991, ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A RESOLUTION
WHICH ESTABLISHED A CITIZENS TASK FORCE TO STUDY ALTERNATIVE
ELECTION PROCEDURES FOR CITY COUNCILJ'~/~HE CITY ASKED THE FIFTH
PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION TO STAFF THE TASK FORCE. BY DECEMBER,
14 CITIZENS, REPRESENTING THE VARIOUS QUADRANTS OF THE CITY, WERE
SELECTED TO SERVE ON THE TASK FORCE~-~N THAT SAME MONTH, THE TASK
FORCE BEGAN ITS WORK IN STUDYING VARIOUS ALTERNATIVE ELECTION
PROCEDURES.
THE FIRST PHASE OF THE PROCESS WAS THE, FACT-FINDING PHASE.
NUMEROUS PRACTITIONERS AND ACADEMICIANS WHO WERE DIRECTLY INVOLVED
WITH, OR WHO HAD WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ON AT-LARGE, MODIFIED WARD AND
WARD ELECTION SYSTEMS IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA WERE INVITED
TO ADDRESS THE TASK FORCE.. ADDITIONALLY, CITIZENS FROM VARIOUS
CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS IN ROANOKE ALSO PROVIDED COMMENTS ON
ALTERNATIVE ELECTION PROCEDURES. THIS PHASE OF THE STUDY PROCESS
ENCOMPASSED ABOUT THREE MONTHS. A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE TASK FORCE
PREPARED A REPORT ON THE FACT-FINDING PHASE WHICH WAS DISTRIBUTED
TOi~ITY COUNCIL. T~S~ DISCUSSIONS DURING THE FACT-FINDING
-2-
PHASE LED THE'TASK FORCE TO ELIMINATE FROM FUTURE CONSIDERATION A
FULL WARD ELECTION SYSTEM FOR ROANOKE CITY, AS WELL AS A PROCESS
WHEREBY CANDIDATES WOULD BE NOMINATED BY RESIDENCY DISTRICTS BUT
WOULD BE ELECTED AT-LARGE. FOLLOWING THESE DISCUSSIONS, TWO
ALTERNATIVE ELECTION PROCEDURES REMAINED UNDER CONSIDERATION:~THE
AT-LARGE ELECTION THE MODIFIED WARD ELECTION SYSTEM.
PHASE II OF THE TASK FORCE'S WORK EFFORT INVOLVED AN ANALYSIS OF
VARIOUS MODIFIED WARD SCENARIOS,
~RR~kRDSE~Q~BE-RE-CO~]~ENDED~BY-THE TASK--~FORCE. A SUBCOMMITTEE WAS
ESTABLISHED TO EXAMINE THE VARIOUS SCENARIOS THAT COULD BE
DEVELOPED WITHIN A MODIFIED WARD ELECTION SYSTEM. BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE BEGAN ITS WORK, THE TASK FORCE DISCUSSED THE NEED TO
FOCUS DISCUSSIONS ON SPECIFIC MODIFIED WARD SCENARIOS WHICH THE
TASK FORCE DEEMED MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR CONSIDERATION. THE
SUBCOMMITTEE WAS INSTRUCTED TO FOCUS THEIR ATTENTION ON THE
FOLLOWING MODIFIED WARD SCENARIOS:
UNDER A 7-MEMBER COUNCIL
4 WARD/3 AT-LARGE
5 WARD/2 AT-LARGE
6 WARD/1 AT-LARGE
UNDER A 9-MEMBER COUNCIL
5 WARD/4 AT-LARGE
6 WARD/3 AT-LARGE
7 WARD/2 AT-LARGE
THE TASK FORCE CHARGED THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONS AS THEY EXAMINED MODIFIED WARD SCENARIOS. FIRST, HOW
SHOULD THE MAYOR BE ELECTED. SECOND, HOW SHOULD THE VICE-MAYOR BE
ELECTED. THIRD, WHAT SHOULD BE THE SIZE OF COUNCIL UNDER A
MODIFIED WARD SYSTEM. FOURTH,'WHAT SHOULD BE THE CONFIGURATION OF
THE MODIFIED WARD SYSTEM (I.E., HOW MANY CANDIDATES ELECTED BY
-3-
WARDS AND HOW'MANY ELECTED AT-LARGE).
THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND TASK FORCE ADOPTED GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING
THE ADEQUACY OF VARIOUS MODIFIED WARD SCENARIOS. THESE GUIDELINES
ADDRESSED CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, SUCH AS ONE PERSON ONE VOTE AND
REQUIREMENTS OF'THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 (WHICH CALLS FOR ANY
PROPOSED SYSTEM NOT TO DILUTE MINORITY VOTING STRENGTH). OTHER
GUIDELINES PERTAINED TO CONTIGUITY AND COMPACTNESS OF WARDS, AS
WELL AS ACCOMMODATING "COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST" IN DEVELOPING
WARDS.
THE STAFF OF THE FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION, USING 1990
CENSUS DATA, PREPARED 11 DIFFERENT MAPS SHOWING VARIOUS
CONFIGURATIONS OF POSSIBLE WARD BOUNDARIES. ACCOMPANYING EACH MAP
WAS A STATISTICAL CHART WHICH PROVIDED INFORMATION ON THE TOTAL
POPULATION OF EACH WARD, THE PERCENT TOTAL MINORITY POPULATION,
THE PERCENT MINORITY POPULATION OVER AGE 18, AND THE DEVIATION OF
THE TOTAL POPULATION OF THE WARD FROM THE IDEAL POPULATION.
THE MODIFIED WARD SCENARIO MAPS WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY
COUNCIL IF THEY WISH TO REVIEW T~HF,-MAPS. THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE'S WORK WAS THAT IF A MODIFIED WARD WAS SELECTED FOR
FUTURE CONSIDERATION, THAT A 6 WARD/3 AT-LARGE SYSTEM WOULD BE THE
PREFERABLE CONFIGURATION FOR A MODIFIED WARD ELECTION SYSTEM.
THE THIRD PHASE OF THE TASK FORCE'S STUDY PROCESS INVOLVED HOLDING
A CITIZEN WORKSHOP IN EACH OF THE FOUR QUADRANTS OF THE CITY. IN
-4-
EACH WORKSHOP~ CITIZENS WERE ASKED TO DISCUSS WHAT THEY LIKED AND
DISLIKED ABOUT THE CURRENT AT-LARGE ELECTION SYSTEM; HOW THE AT-
LARGE ELECTION SYSTEM COULD BE IMPROVED; AND IF THE AT-LARGE SYSTEM
WERE DROPPED, WHAT ALTERNATIVE WOULD THEY PREFER. THIRTY-ONE (31)
CITIZENS P;~RTICIPATED IN THE FOUR WORKSHOPS. THE TASK FORCE~J~~
EXPRESS~ ITS APPRECIATION TO THOSE CITIZENS WHO TOOK TIME FROM
THEIR BUSY SCHEDULES TO ATTEND THE WORKSHOPS TO PRESENT THEIR
COMMENTS.
A NUMBER OF CITIZENS DURING THE WORKSHOPS NOTED THEY DID NOT FEEL
ADEQUATELY REPRESENTED ON CITY COUNCIL AND THAT CITY COUNCIL NEEDED
TO WORK HARDER TO COMMUNICATE WITH CITIZENS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
IN RESPONSE TO THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED, THE TASK FORCE SUGGESTS THAT
CITY COUNCIL HAY WANT TO ~ONSIDER ESTABLISHING NEIGHBORHOOD
ADVISORY COUNCILS. THESE COUNCILS WOULD SERVE AS A CONDUIT FOR
OBTAINING CITIZEN OPINION ABOUT VARIOUS ISSUES OF CONCERN AND COULD
ALSO PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON THE NEEDS OF NEIGHBORHOODS. CITIZENS
COULD USE THE ADVISORY COUNCILS AS A MECHANISM FOR INTRODUCING
THEIR IDEAS TO COUNCIL.
THE LAST PHASE OF THE TASK FORCE'S STUDY PROCESS WAS THE
PREPARATION OF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL. TASK FORCE
MEMBERS WERE ENCOURAGED TO REVIEW THE MINUTES AND REPORTS PREPARED
UP TO THIS POINT. DURING THEIR DISCUSSION OF THE FINAL
RECOMMENDATIONS, EACH TASK FORCE MEMBER WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE THEIR
PERSPECTIVE ON THE ISSUE OF CHANGING FROM THE CURRENT AT-LARGE
SYSTEM TO A PROPOSED MODIFIED WARD SYSTEM. THE COMMENTS OF EACH
-5-
TASK FORCE MEMBER ARE PROVIDED IN THE FINAL REPORT. FURTHERMORE,
EACH TASK FORCE MEMBER WAS INVITED TO ELABORATE ON THEIR
PERSPECTIVE IN A WRITTEN "PERSONAL STATEMENT". THESE PERSONAL
STATEMENTS ARE PROVIDED AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE FINAL REPORT. THE
FINAL VOTE OF THE TASK FORCE TO RECOMMEND A MODIFIED WARD SYSTEM,
WITH 6 COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BE ELECTED BY WARDS, AND 3 TO BE ELECTED
AT-LARGE, WAS DEFEATED. EIGHT TASK FORCE MEMBERS VOTED AGAINST
CHANGING TO THE PROPOSED MODIFIED WARD SYSTEM, WHILE 6 VOTED IN
FAVOR.
AS A PART OF THEIR DISCUSSION ON RECOMMENDATIONS T0 THE COUNCIL,
THE TASK FORCE FELT THE NEED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF TERM
LIMITATIONS. TERM LIMITATIONS WAS CITED BY CITIZENS DURING THE
WORKSHOP AS SOMETHING WHICH WOULD HELP INTRODUCE "NEW BLOOD" INTO
THE CITY COUNCIL. FINALLY, THE TASK FORCE AGREED THAT OVER THE
YEARS SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN ROANOKE WILL
CHANGE, AND FOR THIS REASON, THERE MAY BE A NEED TO RE-EXAMINE
ALTERNATIVE ELECTION PROCEDURES IN THE FUTURE.
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITIZENS TASK FORCE:
RECOMMENDATION Il
THE CURRENT AT-LARGE ELECTION SYSTEM SHOULD BE
MAINTAINED.
RECOMMENDATION ~2
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT A COUNCIL MEMBER SERVE ONLY THREE
CONSECUTIVE, 4-YEAR TERMS, EXCEPT IF THE COUNCIL MEMBER
DECIDES TO RUN AND IS ELECTED AS MAYOR, THEN AS MAYOR
HE/SHE CAN SERVE THREE CONSECUTIVE 4-YEA/~ TERMS IN THIS
POSITION. AFTER SERVING THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS AS
-6-
MAYOR, A~ CANDIDATE CAN RUN AGAIN FOR COUNCIL AND CAN
SERVE ANOTHER THREE CONSECUTIVE, 4-YEAR TERMS ON COUNCIL.
RECOMMENDATION ~3
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT ANOTHER TASK FORCE BE APPOINTED IN
THE YEAR 2000, OR SOONER IF THE NEED ARISES, TO STUDY THE
ELECTION SYSTEM ISSUE,TO SEE IF THE AT-LARGE SYSTEM IS
STILL SERVING THE NEEDS OF THE CITIZENS OF ROANOKE.
I THINK I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF ALL TASK FORCE MEMBERS WHEN I SAY THIS
HAS BEEN A TRUE LEARNING EXPERIENCE. WE NOT ONLY LEARNED A LOT
ABOUT ALTERNATIVE ELECTION PROCEDURES, BUT WE ALSO LEARNED THAT A
GROUP OF DIVERSE PEOPLE CAN COME TOGETHER AND SHARE THEIR IDEAS AND
CONCERNS ABOUT A VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC AND DO THIS IN A VERY OPEN
AND OBJECTIVE WAY. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK EACH TASK FORCE MEMBER
FOR THEIR DILIGENCE IN. THE PROCESS AND THEIR WILLINGNESS TO
ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE. I WOULD ~ LIKE TO THANK THE FIFTH
PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR SERVING AS COORDINATORS OF THE
TASK FORCE ACTIVITIES, AND FOR THE PROFESSIONAL MANNER IN WHICH
THEY SUPPORTED THE EFFORTS OF THE TASK FORCE. ~
IF ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FINAL REPORT, OR
THE RECOMMENDATIONS, I WOULD BE GLAD TO RESPOND.6~"&~/~~-~
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I
Telephone: (703) 981-2~41
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #60-467
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31086-071392 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93 Grant and General Funds Appropriations, providing for
appropriation of funds for the following school grants: Chapter I Summer Program -
$200,277.00; 1992-93 Chapter II Program - $136,227.00; 1992-93 Eisenhower
Math/Science Title II Program - $55,099.00; Summer Youth Employment Program -
$34,221.00; Child Development Clinic Program - $51,734.00; Child Specialty Services
Program - $64,720.00; Juvenile Detention Home Program - $76,295.00; Specialist for
Occupational Transition Program - $45,862.00; 1992-93 Apprenticeship Program -
$168,421.00; 1992-93 Adult Basic Education Program - $70,223.00; Grants
Management Program - $39,012.00; and 1992-93 Governor's School Program
$790,066.00. Ordinance No. 31086-071392 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely, ~~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
pc:
Mr. Finn D. Pincus, Chairperson, Roanoke City School Board
Dr. Frank P. Tota, Superintendent of Schools
Mr. Richard L. Keliey, Executive for Business Affairs and
Clerk of the Board
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31086-071392.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1992-93 Grant and General Funds Appropriations, and providing for
an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the
exist.
THEREFORE,
Roanoke that certain sections
Funds Appropriations, be, and
reordained to read as follows,
City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
of the 1992-93 Grant and General
the same are hereby, amended and
in part:
Grant Fund
A ro riat'ons
Education
Chapter I Summer 124-92-2 (1-27) .................
Chapter II 92-93 (28-37) ......
Summer Youth Employment 92 (53-58) ...............
Child Development Clinic 92-93 (59-64) ...........
Child Specialty Services 92-93 (65-70) ...........
Juvenile Detention Home 92-93 (71-76) ............
Specialist for Occupational Transition
92-93 (77-83) ...................................
Apprenticeship 92-93 (84-90) ......................
Adult Basic Education 92-93 (91-100) ..............
Grants Management 92-93 (101-106) .................
Governor's School 92-93 (107-142) .................
$ 20,765,125
220,277
136,227
55,099
34,221
51,734
64,720
76,295
45,862
168,421
70,223
39,012
790,066
Revenue
Education $ 20,765,125
Chapter I Su~uner 124-92-2 (143) ................... 220,277
Chapter II 92-93 (144) ............................ 136,227
Eisenhower Math/Science Title II 92-93 (145) ...... 55,099
Summer Youth Employment 92 (146) .................. $
Child Development Clinic 92-93 (147) ..............
Child Specialty Services 92-93 (148) ..............
Juvenile Detention Home 92-93 (149) ...............
Specialist for Occupational Transition
92-93 (150).. .
Adult Basic Education 92-93 (153-154) .............
Grants Management 92-93 (155) .....................
Governorts School 92-93 (156-158) .................
34,221
51,734
64,720
76,295
45,862
168,421
70,223
39,012
790,066
General Fund
Appropriations
Education
Instruction (159-160) ..............................
Other Uses of Funds (161-162) ......................
67,800,155
50,309,094
1,044,251
1) Teachers
2) Counselors
3) Coordinators
4) Nurses
5) Teachers
Aide
6) Social
Security
7) Instructional
Travel
8) Guidance
Travel
9) Field Trips
10) Parent
Involvement
11) Instructional
Supplies
12) Guidance
Supplies
13) Clerical
14) Transporta-
tion of
Pupils
15) Delivery
Driver
16) Social
Security
17) Indirect
Costs
(035-060-6135-6449-0121) $ 93,418
(035-060-6135-6449-0123) 1,950
(035-060-6135-6449-0124) 3,714
(035-060-6135-6449-0131) 3,750
(035-060-6135-6449-0141) 33,972
(035-060-6135-6449-0201) 9,910
(035-060-6135-6449-0551) 390
(035-060-6135-6449-0554) 130
(035-060-6135-6449-0583) 5,000
(035-060-6135-6449-0585) 800
(035-060-6135-6449-0614) 22,500
(035-060-6135-6449-0615) 75
(035-060-6135-6549-0151) 2,500
(035-060-6135-6549-0171) 13,230
(035-060-6135-6549-0172) 878
(035-060-6135-6549-0201) 1,271
(035-060-6135-6549-0212) 3,683
Maintenance
Contracts (035-060-6135-6549-0331)
Nurse Travel (035-060-6135-6549-0553)
Administrative
Travel (035-060-6135-6549-0554)
Evaluation (035-060-6135-6549-0584)
18)
19)
2o)
21)
22) Miscellaneous
Materials
23) Inservice
24) office
Supplies
25) Food
26) Medical
Supplies
27) Curriculum
Materials
28) Visiting
Teachers
29) Social
Security
30) State
Retirement
31) Health
Insurance
32) Group Life
Insurance
33) Administrator,
Grants and
Research
34) Social
Security
35} State
Retirement
36) Health
Insurance
37) Group Life
Insurance
38) Math
Curriculum
Development
39) Substitute
Teachers
40) Social
Security
41) Contractual
Services
42) Math
Conference
Attendance
(035-060-6135-6549-0586)
(035-060-6135-6549-0129)
(035-060-6135-6549-0601)
(035-060-6135-6549-0602)
(035-060-6135-6549-0605)
035-060-6135-6549-0617)
035-060-6232-6231-0123)
035-060-6232-6231-0201)
035-060-6232-6231-0202)
035-060-6232-6231-0204)
035-060-6232-6231-0205)
(035-060-6232-6665-0114)
(035-060-6232-6665-0201)
(035-060-6232-6665-0202)
(035-060-6232-6665-0204)
(035-060-6232-6665-0205)
(035-060-6233-6308-0129)
(035-060-6233-6308-0021)
(035-060-6233-6308-0201)
(035-060-6233-6308-0331)
(035-060-6233-6308-0554)
$ 1,500
130
125
1,500
50O
12,263
1,080
5,108
40O
5OO
70,276
5,376
7,983
5,230
632
36,790
2,814
4,180
2,615
331
6,795
1,152
608
375
3,077
43) Roanoke
Catholic
Tuition
Costs
44) Software
45) Equipment
46) Science
Curriculum
Development
47) Substitute
Teachers
48) Social
Security
49) Contractual
Services
50) Science
Conference
Attendance
51) Software
52) Equipment
53) Teachers
54) Social
Security
55) Travel
56) Student
Participant
Allowances
57) Student Trade
Helpers
58) Social
Security
59) Educational
Coordinator
60) Social
Security
61) State
Retirement
62) Health
Insurance
63) Group Life
Insurance
64) Indirect
Costs
65) Educational
Coordinator
66) Social
Security
67) State
Retirement
(035-060-6233-6308-0587) $ 484
(035-060-6233-6308-0613) 6,160
(035-060-6233-6311-0821) 9,200
(035-060-6233-6311-0129) 6,795
(035-060-6233-6311-0021) 1,152
(035-060-6233-6311-0201) 608
(035-060-6233-6311-0331) 375
(035-060-6233-6311-0554) 2,958
(035-060-6233-6311-0613) 6,160
(035-060-6233-6311-0821) 9,200
(035-060-6432-6449-0121) 15,314
(035-060-6432-6449-0201) 1,172
(035-060-6432-6449-0551) 4,712
(035-060-6432-6549-0129
(035-060-6432-6549-0183
035-060-6432-6549-0201
035-060-6502-6554-0138
035-060-6502-6554-0201
035-060-6502-6554-0202
035-060-6502-6554-0204
035-060-6502-6554-0205
035-060-6502-6554-0212
035-060-6503-6554-0138
035-060-6503-6554-0201
035-060-6503-6554-0202
4,590
7,834
599
39,436
3,017
4,480
2,615
355
1,831
49,737
3,805
5,650
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79)
s0)
81)
82)
83)
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93)
94)
Health
Insurance
Group Life
Insurance
Indirect
Costs
Educational
Coordinator
Social
Security
State
Retirement
Health
Insurance
Group Life
Insurance
Indirect
Costs
Specialist
Social
Security
State
Retirement
Health
Insurance
Group Life
Insurance
Local Travel
Conference
Travel
Coordinator
Social
Security
State
Retirement
Health
Insurance
Group Life
Insurance
Part Time
Instructors
Travel
Teachers
Social
Security
State
Retirement
Health
Insurance
(035-060-6503-6554-0204) $ 2,615
(035-060-6503-6554-0205) 448
(035-060-6503-6554-0212) 2,465
(035-060-6504-6554-0138) 57,317
(035-060-6504-6554-0201) 4,385
(035-060-6504-6554-0202) 6,511
(035-060-6504-6554-0204) 5,230
(035-060-6504-6554-0205) 516
(035-060-6504-6554-0212) 2,336
(035-060-6752-6333-0124) 32,910
(035-060-6752-6333-0201) 2,518
(035-060-6752-6333-0202) 3,739
(035-060-6752-6333-0204) 2,615
(035-060-6752-6333-0205) 296
(035-060-6752-6333-0551) 3,284
(035-060-6752-6333-0554) 500
(035-060-6753-6138-0121) 44,711
(035-060-6753-6138-0201) 11,321
(035-060-6753-6138-0202) 5,080
(035-060-6753-6138-0204) 2,615
(035-060-6753-6138-0205) 402
(035-060-6753-6138-0313) 103,292
(035-060-6753-6138-0551) 1,000
(035-060-6754-6450-0121) 36,867
(035-060-6754-6450-0201) 2,820
(035-060-6754-6450-0202) 4,188
(035-060-6754-6450-0204) 2,615
95) Group Life
Insurance
96) Clerical
97) Social
Security
98) State
Retirement
99) Health
Insurance
100) Group Life
Insurance
101) Marketing
Specialist
102) Clerical
103) Social
Security
104) State
Retirement
105) Health
Insurance
106) Group Life
Insurance
107) Teachers
108) Social
Security
109) State
Retirement
110) Health
Insurance
111) Group Life
Insurance
112) Local Travel
113) Conference
Travel
114) Field
Trips
115) Textbooks
116) Director
117) Clerical
118) Social
Security
119) State
Retirement
120) Health
Insurance
121) Group Life
Insurance
122) Part Time
Teacher
(035-060-6754-6450-0205) $ 332
(035-060-6754-6550-0151) 17,335
(035-060-6754-6550-0201) 1,326
(035-060-6754-6550-0202) 1,969
(035-060-6754-6550-0204) 2,615
(035-060-6754-6550-0205) 156
(035-060-6987-6665-0138) 12,772
(035-060-6987-6665-0151) 16,710
(035-060-6987-6665-0201) 2,255
(035-060-6987-6665-0202) 3,349
(035-060-6987-6665-0204) 3,661
(035-060-6987-6665-0205) 265
(035-060-6990-6107-0121) 392,508
(035-060-6990-6107-0201) 30,027
(035-060-6990-6107-0202) 44,588
(035-060-6990-6107-0204) 28,765
(035-060-6990-6107-0205) 3,532
(035-060-6990-6107-0551) 450
(035-060-6990-6107-0554) 1,298
(035-060-6990-6107-0583) 2,000
(035-060-6990-6107-0613) 2,000
(035-060-6990-6307-0114) 58,655
(035-060-6990-6307-0151) 21,067
(035-060-6990-6307-0201) 6,099
(035-060-6990-6307-0202) 9,056
(035-060-6990-6307-0204) 4,330
(035-060-6990-6307-0205) 718
(035-060-6990-6307-0321) 4,000
123
124
125
126
127)
128
129
130
131
132)
133)
134)
135)
136)
137)
138)
139)
140)
141)
142)
143)
144)
145)
146)
147)
148)
149)
150)
Service
Contracts
Instructional
Technology
Purchased
Services
Tuition
Local Travel
Conference
Travel
Evaluation
Inservice
Library
Materials
Instructional
Supplies
Equipment
Custodian
Social
Security
City
Retirement
Health
Insurance
Group Life
Insurance
Utilities
Telecom-
munications
Maintenance
Supplies
Debt Service
Federal Grant
Receipts
Federal Grant
Receipts
Federal Grant
Receipts
Federal Grant
Receipts
State Grant
Receipts
State Grant
Receipts
State Grant
Receipts
State Grant
Receipts
(035-060-6990-6307-0332)
(035-060-6990-6307-0351)
(035-060-6990-6307-0381)
(035-060-6990-6307-0382)
(035-060-6990-6307-0551)
(035-060-6990-6307-0554)
(035-060-6990-6307-0584)
(035-060-6990-6307-0129)
(035-060-6990-6307-0613)
(035-060-6990-6307-0614)
(035-060-6990-6307-0802)
(035-060-6990-6681-0192)
(035-060-6990-6681-0201)
(035-060-6990-6681-0203)
(035-060-6990-6681-0204)
(035-060-6990-6681-0205)
(035-060-6990-6681-0511)
(035-060-6990-6681-0523)
(035-060-6990-6681-0608)
(035-060-6990-6998-0901)
(035-060-6135-1102
(035-060-6232-1102
(035-060-6233-1102
(035-060-6432-1102
(035-060-6502-1100
(035-060-6503-1100
(035-060-6504-1100
(035-060-6752-1100
$ 2,800
5,500
7,400
1,200
510
78O
5OO
1,200
250
44,859
4,900
14,295
1,094
1,801
2,615
129
15,200
6,600
6,200
63,140
220,277
136,227
55,099
34,221
51,734
64,720
76,295
45,862
151) State Grant
Receipts
152) Fees
153) Federal Grant
Receipts
154) Local Match
155) Federal Grant
Receipts
156) State Grant
Receipts
157) Local Match
158) Fees
159) Matching
Funds
160) Tuition -
In State
161) Matching
Funds
162) Transfers to
Grant Fund
(035-060-6753-1100)
(035-060-6753-1103)
(035-060-6754-1102)
(035-060-6754-1101)
(035-060-6987-1102)
(035-060-6990-1100)
(035-060-6990-1101)
(035-060-6990-1103)
(001-060-6001-6450-0588)
(001-060-6001-6307-0382)
(001-060-6005-6998-0588)
(001-060-6005-6999-0911)
64,923
103,498
47,623
22,600
39,012
325,000
296,626
168,440
(22,600)
(233,486)
( 63,140)
319,226
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
existing, this
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
July 13, 1992
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
School Board Request for the Appropriation of Grant Funds
I have reviewed the attached request to appropriate funding for the School
Board. This report will appropriate funding for twelve grants in the Grant Fund.
These are funded with federal and state funds and fees. In addition to these funding
sources, the Adult Basic Education grant and the Governor's School grant will receive
local matches. Funding for the local matches are available in the Education portion
of the General Fund budget in the following accounts:
Adult Basic Education
· Matching Funds
(001-060-6001-6450-0588) $ 22,600
(~overnor's School
· Matching Funds
· Tuition-In State
(001-060-6005-6998-0588)
(001-060-6001-6307-0382)
63,140
233,486
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Page 2
July 13, 1992
I recommend that you concur with this request of the School Board.
JMS/kp
Attachments
Marllyn C. Curtis James M. Turner, Jr.
Maltha W; O'Neil Frank P. Tota. Superintendent
Thomas I~ Orr Richard L Kelley, Clerk of the Board
'~l Finn D. Pincus, Chairman
Charles W. Day, Vice Chairman
Sallye T. Coleman .~ ,
Roanoke
City School Board
P.O Box 1310.5, Roanoke, Virginia ~'4031 ·
703-9814)381
June 26, 1992
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Members of Council:
As the result of official School Board action at its June 25, 1992
meeting, the Board respectfully requests City Council to appropriate funds for
the following school grants:
Grant No. 6135 - $200,277.00 for the Chapter I Summer program to
provide reading, language arts and mathematics instruction for students in
targeted schools. The program is one hundred percent reimbursed by federal
funds.
Grant No. 6232 - $136,227.00 for the 1992-93 Chapter II program to
provide funds for the improvement of instructional services in the school
district. The program is one hundred percent reimbursed by federal funds.
Grant No. 6233 $55,099.00 for the 1992-93 Eisenhower
Math/Science Title II program to provide for the development of math and
science curriculum and the operation of a Computer Institute for math and
science. The program is one hundred percent reimbursed by federal funds.
Grant No. 6432 - $34,221.00 for the Summer Youth Employment
program for the summer of 1992 to provide training and hands-on experience
for building trades students. The program is one hundred percent reimbursed
by federal funds.
Grant No. 6502 $51,734.00 for the Child Development Clinic
program to provide funds for the salary and expenses of the educational
coordinator at the clinic. The program is one hundred percent reimbursed by
state funds.
Grant No. 6503 - $64,720.00 for the Child Specialty Services program
to provide funds for the salary and expenses of the educational coordinator.
The program is one hundred percent reimbursed by state funds.
Grant No. 6504 $76,295.00 for the Juvenile Detention Home
program to provide funds for the salary and expenses of the two educational
coordinators at the detention home. The program is one hundred percent
reimbursed by state funds.
Excellence in Education
Members of Council
Page 2
June 26,1992
Grant No. 6752 $45,862.00 for the Specialist for Occupational
Transition program to provide funds for the expenses of the Regional
Specialist. The program is one hundred percent reimbursed by state funds.
Grant No. 6753 $168,421.00 for the 1992-93 Apprenticeship
program to provide on-the-job and classroom vocational instruction for
students in the apprenticeship program. The program will be reimbursed by
state funds and fees paid by participants.
Grant No. 6754 - $70,223.00 for the Adult Basic Education program
for 1992-93 to provide funds for the education of adults who have not
completed high school. The program will be reimbursed by federal funds in
the amount of $47,623 and matching funds of 922,600.
Grant No. 6987 - 939,012.00 for the Grants Management program to
provide for salary and fringe benefits of the grants office secretary and forty
percent of the salary and fringe benefits of the magnet marketing specialist.
The program will be one hundred percent reimbursed by federal funds.
Grant No. 6990 - 9790,066.00 for the 1992-93 Governor's School
program to provide instruction in science and math to high school students.
The program will be supported by state funds and tuition collected from
participating school districts.
Sincerely, . ,,~
Richard L. Kelley
Clerk of the Board and
Executive for Business Affairs
rg
CC:
Mr. Finn D. Pincus
Dr. Frank P. Tota
Mr. William L. Murray, Jr.
Mr. Kenneth F. Mundy
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger (with accounting details)
Roanoke, Virginia
July 13, 1992
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Please reserve space on Council's agenda for a report pertaining to
Ratification of Previous Agreements with the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority
and Acknowledgement of Intent to Sell Solid Waste System Revanue Bond Saries
1992 in an Amount not to Exceed $40,000,000.
Respectfully submitted,
Kit B. Kiser, Council's
Representative, Roanoke Valley
Resource Authority
KBK:afm
CC:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2~1011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #133-236
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31088-071392 authorizing acceptance of Grant
No. 91-A7931 made to the City by the State Department of Criminal Justice Services
for a Victim/Witness/Juror Assistance Program, in the amount $36,706.00, with a
local match, in the amount of $21,419.00, and authorizing execution and filing of the
conditions of the grant and other grant documents. Resolution No. 31088-071392 was
adopted by the Council of the City, of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
pc:
The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Sehlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
Ms. Mary Ann Myers, Victim-Witness Coordinator
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 13th day of 3uly, 1992.
No. 31088-071392.
A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of Grant No. 92-A7931
made to the City of Roanoke by the State Department of Criminal
Justice Services for a Victim/Witness/Juror Assistance Program and
authorizing the execution and filing by the City manager of the
conditions of the grant and other grant documents.
BE
follows:
1.
IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as
The City of Roanoke hereby accepts the offer made by the
State Department of Criminal Justice Services of Grant No. 92-A7931
in the amount of $36,706.00 for Fiscal Year 92-93 for a
Victim/Witness/Juror Assistance Program.
2. The local cash match for Fiscal Year 92-93 shall be in
the amount of $21,419.00.
3. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager is hereby
authorized to accept, execute and file on behalf of the City any
documents setting forth the conditions of Grant No. 92-A7931.
4. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager is further
directed to furnish such additional information as may be required
by the Department of Criminal Justice Services in connection with
the City's acceptance of the foregoing grant or with such project.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #60-133-236
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Sehlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31087-071392 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93 General and Grant Funds Appropriations, providing for
appropriation of $36,706.00 and transfer of $21,419.00, in connection with
acceptance of a grant made to the City by the State Department of Criminal Justice
Services for a Victim/Witness/Juror Assistance Program. Ordinance No. 31087-
071392 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
pc:
The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
Ms. Mary Ann Myers, Victim-Witness Coordinator
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKEv VIRGINIA
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31087-071392.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1992-93 General and Grant 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 1992-93 General and Grant
Funds Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained to read as follows, in part:
General Fund
Appropriations
Nondepartmental
Transfers to Other Funds
Judicial Administration
Commonwealth's Attorney
(1) .....................
(2) ......................
Grant Fu~
Appropriations
Judicial Administration
Victim Witness 92-93 (3-12) ......................
Revenue
Judicial Administration
Victim Witness 92-93 (13-14) .....................
$ 11,574,588
11,079,309
3,514,438
746,504
$ 368,562
58,125
$ 368,562
58,125
1) Transfer to
Grant Funds (001-004-9310-9535) $ 21,419
2) Local Match -
Grant Funds (001-026-2210-3165) (21,419)
3) Regular
Employee
Salaries (035-026-5116-1002) 48,339
4) FICA (035-026-5116-1120) 2,312
5) Hospitalization
Insurance (035-026-5116-1125) 2,419
6) Dental
Insurance (035-026-5116-1126) 134
7) Life Insurance (035-026-5116-1130) 221
8) Training and
Development (035-026-5116-2044) 890
9) Expendable
Equipment-
(<500) 385
10) Administrative
Supplies 1,703
11) Telephone 756
12) Management
Services 966
13) State Grant
Revenue 36,706
14) Local Match 21,419
(035-026-5116-2035)
(035-026-5116-2030)
(035-026-5116-2020)
(035-026-5116-7015)
(035-035-1234-7114)
(035-035-1234-7115}
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clark.
July 13, 1992
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, VA
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Acceptance of Victim/
Witness Assistance
Program Grant
I. Background
Victim/Witness Program is designed to recognize and
address the needs of victims and witnesses in the
Roanoke City Criminal Justice System and to continue
the commitment for citizen support.
Roanoke City Victim/ Witness/Juror Assistance
Committee (RCVWJ) was formed in the fall of 1983, by
Judges and Clerks of Circuit Court, General District
and Juvenile Courts, Commonwealth's Attorney, City
Sheriff, chief Magistrate, Chief of Police, Director
of Administration and Public Safety, and Roanoke Bar
Association.
Victim/Witness Program was developed and utilized
volunteers in the court system to provide services
to support the needs of victims, witnesses.
The RCVWJ committee submitted the program to the
State with a request for full payment funding. A
start-up grant (#85A6252) was issued on
July 1, 1984, in the amount of $16,202 for FY 84-85
subject to proportional annual local funding to be
approved each year.
Ee
City Council accepted the start-up grant in
September, 1984, and hired a full-time program
coordinator in October, 1984. The program has been in
continued operation since then.
Members of Council
Subject: Acceptance of Victim/Witness
Assistance Program Grant
Page 2
II. Current Situation
The Victim/Witness Assistance Proqram has been
awarded a twelve month $36,706 grant (#92-A7931) for
July, 1992 through June 1993, which will be
matched by a local cash match of $21,419 for a total
grant budget of $58,125.
The Victim/Witness Proqram continues to operate with
a full-time coordinator, as well as a full-time
assistant for Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court.
Duties have expanded and increasingly greater
contact has been made with persons in need of
program services. A summary of FY 84-85, 85-86,
86-87, 87-88, 88-89, and 89-90 contacts documents
the services of the program (see Attachment A).
The Victim/Witness Proqram is coordinated by the
Office of the Commonwealth,s Attorney and this
office's FY 92-93 budget as approved by City
Council included a local cash match grant fund of
$21,419 (appropriated as outlined in Attachment B).
III. Issues
A. Services
B. Costs
IV. Alternatives
Accept the Victim/Witness Grant #92-A7931 for
$36,706 with Roanoke city paying $21,419 as a
cash match for a total grant of $58,125.
local
1. Services
Present level of services and contacts would
be maintained for victims and witnesses in
General District Court.
be
Present level of services and contacts would
be maintained for victims and witnesses in
Juvenile & Domestic Relations District
Court.
Members of Council
Subject: Acceptance of Victim/Witness
Assistance Program Grant
Page 3
2. Costs
a. Cost to the City for Grant #92-A7931
would be $21,419 as a local cash match.
B. City Council not accept the Victim/Witness Grant
#92-A7706 in the amount of $36,706.
Services such as those below would be greatly
curtailed or not provided if the grant is not
accepted.
ao
Providing felony victims and witnesses with
a letter and educational brochure
familiarizing them with the court system,
procedures and terminology before their
court appearance.
be
Notifying the victims and witnesses of the
status of pending cases thereby decreasing
the number of unnecessary trips made to
court and helping the victims and witnesses
feel informed and a part of the criminal
justice system.
Ce
Providing police officers with case status
information and organizing their cases so
that they are heard consecutively, thus
eliminating unnecessary and costly overtime
charges.
d. Assisting victims in securing court ordered
restitution payments.
Making victims aware of the Virginia Crime
Compensation Fund and assisting them in
completing the application process.
Provide referrals to other agencies which
can help victims address their non-criminal
justice needs.
Accompany victims and witnesses to court
proceedings to reduce their fears and
anxieties regarding court appearances.
Members of Council
Subject: Acceptance of Victim/witness
Assistance Program Grant
Page 4
Intercede with employers and school
officials when victims and witnesses have
difficulties securing time off.
Assist sexual assault victims in having
forensic medical bills paid by the court
system.
Assist probation and parole officers in the
preparation of Victim Impact Statements
which are presented to the judge at the
defendant's sentencing.
k. Provide "counseling,, and crisis intervention
to crime victims and witnesses.
Arrange for transportation to court for
those victims and witnesses who have special
needs.
Provide public relations information in the
form of courthouse tours, programs and
lectures about the criminal justice system
and victimology.
2. Costs would not be an issue.
V. Recommendations
City Council to concur with Alternative A, which
would allow for the acceptance of, and participation
in the Department of Criminal Justice Services Grant
#92-A7931 for the Victim/Witness/Juror Assistance
Program in the amount of $36,706, with the City
providing a local cash match of $21,419 from the
monies provided in the Commonwealth Attorney's FY 92-
93 budget.
B. Authorize the City Manager to sign and execute all
appropriate documents to obtain Grant #92-A7931.
Members of Council
Subject: Acceptance of Victim/witness
Assistance Program Grant
Page: 5
Appropriate $36,706 in state grant funds and transfer
$21,419 in local matching funds from General Fund
account 001-026-2210-3165 to the Grant Fund and
establish a corresponding revenue estimate into
accounts to be established by the Director of
Finance.
c~aeCt fully submitt ?~
Commonwealth's Attorney
DSC:mam
pc: City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Administration & Public
Victim Witness Coordinator
Safety
Victim Witness Assistance Program
Service Summary
Service FY FY FY
89-90 90-91 91-92
1. Case Disposition & 2,661
Case Status Information
2. Intercession with Schools 25
or Employers
3. Crisis Intervention 42
4. Referral to Crime Victims 223
Compensation Fund
5. Restitution Payment Assistance 625
6. Criminal Justice System 348
Explanation
7. Educational Brochures given 993
8. Total Victims Contacted 149
9. Total Witness Contacted 736
10. Courtroom tours for 48
child witnesses
11. Volunteer/Intern hours 603
utilized
12. Amount of restitution
collected
13. Amount of crime compensation
collected for victims
2,794
24
44
192
665
556
1,589
254
711
70
300
2,693
20
39
206
590
481
1,900
412
511
64
174
$36,063. $38,971. $40,123
$67,212. $77,649. $73,421
1. Services listed on this page reflect the services now
being counted statistically by the Victim Witness Program as
required by the Department of Criminal Justice Services.
2. The totals reflect the number of victims which the
program had extensive contact, beyond giving routine case
status information or pre-printed information.
ATTACHMENT C
FY 84-85
FY 85-86
FY 86-87
FY 87-88
FY 88-89
FY 89-90
FY 90-91
FY 91-92
FY 92-93
LOCAL CASH MATCH GRANT FUND
DCJS
GRANT
$16 202 (100%)
$13 772 71%)
$32 550 84%)
$17 225 64%)
$19 048 57%)
$32 250 62%)
$35 619 64%)
$34 787 64% )
$36,706 63% )
LOCAL
CASH MATCH
$5,538 (29%)
$6,575 (16%)
$9,916 (36%)
$14,514 (43%)
$20,072 (38%)
$20,072 (36%)
$20,011 (36%)
$21,419 (37%)
TOTAL
$16 202
$19 310
$39 125
$27 141
$33 562
$52 322
$55 961
$54 798
$58,125
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2~11
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDR~. H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #133-236
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31090-071392 authorizing execution of a
Statement of Grant Award and Acceptance of Special Conditions in connection with
continuation of the Roanoke City Pre-Trial Services Program, in the amount of
$53,010.00, with a local match of $17,671.00, for a total program of $70,681.00, to
be performed between July 1, 1992 and June 30, 1993. Resolution No. 31090-071392
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, July 13, 1992..
Sincerely, ~t~t~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Eno.
pc:
Mr. Martin B. Malt, Deputy Director, Commonwealth of Virginia Department
of Criminal Justice Services, 805 East Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219
Mr. James T. Phipps, Director, Court-Community Corrections Program, 220
E. Main Street, Suite 201, Salem, Virginia 24153
The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 13th day of July. 1992.
No. 31090-071392.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION authorizing execution of a Statement of Grant
Award and Acceptance of Special Conditions in connection with
continuation of the Roanoke City Pre-Trial Services Program.
BE
follows:
1.
IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as
The Statement of Grant Award and Acceptance of Special
Conditions of the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Criminal
Justice Services whereby the City accepts funding from the
Commonwealth in the amount of $53,010 with a local cash match of
$17,671 for a total program of $70,681 for continuation of the
Roanoke City Pre-trial Services Program to be performed between
July 1, 1992, and June 30, 1993, are hereby approved.
2. The City Manager, or the Assistant City Manager, are
hereby authorized to execute such grant documents as may be
required by the Department of Criminal Justice Services for and on
behalf of the City.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #60=133-236
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31089-071392 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93 General and Grant Funds Appropriations, providing for
appropriation of $53,010.00 and transfer of $17,671.00, in connection with execution
and submittal of the Statement of Grant Award and Acceptance of Special Conditions
to the Department of Criminal Justice Services for continuation of the Roanoke City
Pre-Trial Services Program. Ordinance No. 31089-071392 was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely, ~~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Eric.
pc:
The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKEt VIRGINIA
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31089-071392.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1992-93 General and Grant 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 1992-93 General and Grant
Funds Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained to read as follows, in part:
General Fund
Appropriations
Nondepartmental
Transfers to Other Funds (1) .....................
Judicial Administration
Commonwealth's Attorney (2) .....................
Grant Fund
Appropriations
Judicial Administration
Pre-Trial Diversion FY93
Revenue
Judicial Administration
Pre-Trial Diversion FY93
(3) ....................
(4-5) ..................
$ 11,592,259
11,096,980
3,496,767
728,833
$ 439,243
70,681
$ 439,243
70,681
1) Transfer to
Grant Funds
2) Local Match -
Grant Funds
3) Fees for
Professional
Services
4) State Grant
for Pre-Trial
5) Local Match
(001-004-9310-9535) $ 17,671
(001-026-2210-3165) (17,671)
(035-026-5018-2010)
(035-035-1234-7112)
(035-035-1234-7113)
70,681
53,010
17,671
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing,
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
this
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
July 13, 1992
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject:
Dear Mayor and Members of City Council:
I. Backaround
Roanoke City Commonwealth Attorney's
Pre-Trial Services Program
ao
Bo
The APproPriations Act approved by the Viro~n{~ General Assembly
durina its 1989 regular session authorized the Department of
Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) to expend grant funds for the
establishment of pre-trial diversion of select jailable offenses.
The Commonwealth's Attorney, in cooperation with the Circuit,
General District and Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court~,
established a program in 1990 under the administration of the Court-
Community Corrections Program.
1. Initially, the program was funded in total by DCJS but
required a 25% local cash match effective with the 1992 fiscal
year, pursuant to directive from the General Assembly.
Local cash match will be required again in FY 1993 (July 1, 1992 -
June 30, 1993) in order to ensure continuation of this program.
The program was well received by the Courts and continues to enjoy
extensive support.
The ~oals of the Pre-Trial Service Program are tn:
1. Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the General
District Court through the pre-trial (conditional) diversion
and release of select non-violent offenders as an alternative
to prosecution or conviction.
Reduce the demands placed upon Roanoke City's Courts and Jail
through the release and diversion of select non-violent
offenders, charged with jailable offenses, as an alternative
to prosecution; and
Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Circuit,
General District and Juvenile & Domestic Relations Courts
through the release and diversion and select non-violent,
jailable, offenses as alternatives to conviction.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Subject: Roanoke City Commonwealth Attorney's
Pre-Trial Services Program
July 13, 1992
Page 2
II. Current Situation:
III.
IV.
Ac
The Appropriation Act approved bv the Virainia General Assembly
durinq its 1991 reqular session authorizes DCJS to continue to
provide funding for the "Roanoke City Pre-Trial services" program in
the amount of $70,681; with $53,010 in funding provided by DCJS, and
$17,671 in local match provided by the City of Roanoke.
A Statement of Grant Award/Acceptance form in the amount of $70,681
has been DreDared for submission to DCJS by the Commonwealth's
Attorney, who will administer the program.
City Council's approval is necessary in order to submit the prepared
Statement of Grant Award/Acceptance form to DCJS for their review
and approval.
A. Continuation of the "Roanoke City Pre-Trial Services" program.
B. Fundinq of the program required a 25% local cash match by the City
of Roanoke - $17,671 of the total $70,681 for FY 1993.
Alternatives:
City Council authorize the City Manaqer to execute and submit the
Statement of Grant Award and Acceptance of Special Conditions to the
Department of Criminal Justice Services for their review and
approval of the "Roanoke City Pre-Trial Services" program.
1. Continuation of the "Roanoke City Pre-Trial Services" program
would be provided for, if approved by DCJS.
2. Fundinq of the program required a 25% local cash match from
the City of Roanoke for FY 1993 (as was provided in FY 1992).
DCJS would again provide funding for 75% of the grant award.
This equals $17,671 from the City of Roanoke and $53,010 from
DCJS. Funding for the local match is available in the
Commonwealth Attorney's FY 1992-93 budget.
City Council not authorize the City Manaqer to execute and submit
the Statement of Grant Award and Acceptance of Special Conditions to
the Department of Criminal Justice Services to allow for the
continuation of the "Roanoke City Pre-Trial Services" program.
1. Continuation of the "Roanoke City Pre-Trial Services" program
would not be provided for, resulting in over 1,200 cases not
being diverted in FY 1992.
2. Fundinq from the state in the amount of $53,010 would not be
provided to the City of Roanoke.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Subject: Roanoke City Commonwealth Attorney's
Pre-Trial Services Program
July 13, 1992
Page 3
Vo
JTP:btw
Recommendation:
ao
That city Council concur with Alternative "A", thereby authorizing
the City Manager to execute and submit the Statement of Grant Award
and Acceptance of Special Conditions to the Department of Criminal
Justice Services for the continuation of the "Roanoke City Pre-Trial
Services" program under the aegis of the Roanoke City Commonwealth's
Attorney.
~ $53,010 of state funds to accounts to be established in
the Grant Fund and transfer local funds of $17,671 from General Fund
account number 001-026-2210-3165 to the Grant Fund. Establish a
revenue estimate for the total amount of $70,681.
Donald S. Caldwell
Commonwealth Attorney
cc:
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Administration & Public Safety
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr,
Director
COMMONWEALTH of VIRC-INIA
Department of Cr, mtnal Justice Se~tces --.~ .,~_/
805 East Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23219 ~rimin~~rd~ ~-
(804) 786-4000 Helen ~r
Martin B. Mait
Deputy Director
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
~y 29, 1992
Dear Mr. Herbert:
RE: Program: Pre-Trial Diversion
Grant Number: 93-A7904
This is to advise you that as of May 29, 1992, the above referenced grant
application has been approved in the amount of $53,010.00 General Funds and
$17,671.00 Local Match for a $70,681.00 total program.
Enclosed you will find a Statement of Grant Award/Acceptance and two
copies of Statement of Grant Award Special Conditions. The original of these
forms should be signed and returned to the Department of Criminal Justice
Services (DC~S). These signed forms are our official notice that you accept
the grant award and the conditions pertaining thereto.
i~hen the Department of Criminal Justice Services receives the necessary
doctnnentation to substantiate that these conditions have been met, you will be
eligible to request funds awarded to you under this grant. The It/]Q[~ST FOR
FUNDS forms to be used for this purpose are included with this letter. You
may submit the RB~UEST FOR FUNDS form at the same time you submit the
doc~nentation substantiating that the Special Conditions have been met or
anytime thereafter. However, the REQUEST FOR FUNDS form will not be processed
until all required information is received and approved by the DCJS.
Your cooperation and interest in this matter are greatly appreciated.
lV~lWesw
Ehclosures
Very truly yours,
Martin B. Malt
Deputy Director
cc:
Mr. Donald S. Caldwell, Esquire
~. Joel M. Schlanger
a~. Ronald L. Bell, 13CJS
Mr. Anthony C. Casale, 13CJS
Mr. Daniel Catley, DCJS
Mr. Joseph R. ~rshall, 13CJS
TDD (804)786-8732
STATI~ ~ (~ .~ SPH~IAL (XI~)ITIC[~ ((~ONTI~2ED)
Grant Number: 93-A7904
10. Within 60 days of the starting date of the project the subgrantee
must initiate the program funded. If not started during this period,
the subgranteemust report to the DCJS, by letter, the steps taken to
initiate the project and the reasons for the delay, and the expected
starting date. If the project is not operational within 90 days of
the start date, the subgrantee n~st receive approval in writing from
the ]~CJS for a new implementation date or the DCJS may cancel and
terminate the project and redistribute the funds to another program.
1]. All funds unexpended under grant 92-A7639, as of June 30, 1992, can
be expended into the next fiscal year. Grant 93-A7904, this years
grant, must be reduced by the amount of the carry over. A budget
amendment should be submitted to the UCJS 30 days after June 30,
]992.
Rev. 0191
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES
805 East Broad Street, lOth Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219
Statement of Grant Award/Acceptance
Subgrantee: Roanoke, City
Pre-Trial Diversion
Grant Number: 93-A7904
Date: May 29, 1992
Grant Period: 12 Months
From: 7/1/92 Through:
6/30/93
Payment Procedure: Quarterly
3 payments @ $13,252 each;
I payment @ $13,254
Name:
Tit)e:
Address:
Phone No:
PROJECT DIRECTOR
Donald S. Caldwell, Esq.
Commonwealth Attorney
315 Church Avenue,S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24011
(703) 981-2626
PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24011
(703) 981-2333
FINANCE OFFICER
Joel Schlanger
Director of Finance
ICity of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24011
(703) 981-2421
AWARD BUDGET
BUDGET CATEGORY
A. Personnel
B. Consultants
Travel
Equipment
Renovation
Supplies and
DCJS FUNDS
FEDERAL
GENERAL
$42,285
SUBGRANTEE
MATCH
$14,096
TOTALS
$56,381
C. 750 250 1,000
D.
E.
F.
Other Expenses 9,975 3,325 13,300
TOTALS $53,010 $17,671 $70,681
This grant is subject to all rules, regulations, and criteria included in the grant
application and the special conditions attached hereto.
Martin B. Mait, Deputy Director
The undersigned, having received the Statement of Grant Award/Acceptance and the Conditions
attached thereto, does hereby accept this grant and agree to the Conditions pertaining
thereto, this __ day of , 19
Signature:
Title:
STATI~/~fl~ OF ~ ~ SPI~IAL (XI~ITIC~ ((X)NTINUED)
Grant Number: 93-A7904
10.
ll.
Within 60 days of the starting date of the project the subgrantee
must initiate the progrsrn funded. If not started during this period,
the subgrantee must report to the DCJS, by letter, the steps taken to
initiate the project and the reasons for the delay, and the e×pected
starting date. If the project is not operational within 90 days of
the start date, the subgrantee must receive approval in writing from
the DCJS for a new implementation date or the DCJS n~y cancel and
terminate the project and redistribute the funds to another program.
All funds une×pended under grant 92-A7639, as of June 30, 1992, can
be expended into the next fiscal year. Grant 93-A7904, this years
grant, must be reduced by the amount of the carry over. A budget
~nendnent should be submitted to the 13CJS 30 days after June 30,
1992.
Department of Criminal Justice Services
805 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
SPI~IAL (3~g)ITICl~l~
For Grant Program:
S~: Roanoke, City
PRE-TRIAL DIVERS IC~
~ NLIW~ER: 93-A7904
DATE: May 29, 1992
The following conditions are attached to and made a part of this grant award:
1. The subgrantee will c~nply with the terms of the grant application
and any attachments and/or amendments thereto.
Local units of government may use their own purchasing procedures as
long as they comply with the Virginia Public Procurement Act.
Subgrantees mast comply with all rules and regulations contained in
the Department of Criminal Justice Services' Program Guide and
Application Procedures for the Pre-Trial Diversion Programs.
Subgrantees may follow their own established travel rates if they
have an established travel policy. If a subgrantee does not have an
established policy, then he must adhere to state travel policy. The
state allows reimbursement for actual reasonable expenses. The state
allows $ .24 per mile for mileage. Transportation costs for air and
rail are at coach rates.
The budget line-item in budget suranary indicates funds in the amount
of $56,381 under "Personnel". Budget application reflects the amount
under "Consultants". Please advise which is correct and submit a
corrected budget and budget narrative.
7.
8.
9.
Grand funds for the Pre-Trial program shall not supplant funding
received from the Department of Corrections for the CDI contract.
The subgrantee must restate the project objectives, numbers 1 and 2,
to reflect the number of defendants under supervision.
The subgrantee must submit monthly Pre-Trial Services reports to the
DCJS. The report form AC-PTS, 100191, is attached for your use.
All procurement transactions, whether negotiated or advertised and
without regard to dollar value, shall be conducted in a manner so as
to provide maximum open and free co~petition. An exemption to this
regulation requires the prior approval of the DCJS and is only given
in unusual circumstances. Any request for exemption must be
submitted in writing to the DCJS.
G.rant/Contract Number - Enter the grant/contract number asaigr~d to you by
DCJS ar~ un,er which you are requesting these fur~s.
Date of Request - Enter the date the request is pregared.
Sub]r antee/Cont r act or
- Enter the ~ and mailing address (as of the clare the
request is prel~red) of the local unit of government
(city, county, or town), state agency, or private
agency or business that is the official recipient of
this grant award or contract.
Period Covered By This Request -'
Enter the specific period (tegtnning and
ending month of a quarter, etc.) for which
funds are requested.
Federal Identification Number -
Enter your IRS reporting number for FICA
and federal/state income taxes.
Drawdown ~mount - C~l~lete items (A) through (E) for the type fur~s involved - federal and/or general (state).
Cash on Han~ - Enter the unexpended ~aount r~maining on hand on the date the
request is pre~ared.
,Certifi~tion - ~is must be sig~ed by b~e individual lis*-~ as bhe l~ogrma
Adm/ntst~ator or Finan~ Officer on the Stetem~nt o~ grant
Award or the co~tract. PunSs will ~ot he dislmreed withont
th~ ~op~iate si~at~-el
Department of Criminal Justice Services
Request for Funds -- Grants/Contracts
805 East Broad Stzeet
10th Floor
Richmond, Virginia 23219
S ubgrantee/Con~actor:
Grant/Contract Number:
Date of Request:
93-A7904
Address:
Federal Identification Number:
Drawdown Amount:
(A) Total Awarded Amount
(B) Less: Payments Previously Requested/Received
(C) Available Amount of Award
(D) Less: Amount Now Requested
(E) Remaining Grant Balance
Period Covered by This Request:
Fmm: 7/01/92 To: 9/-30/92
Amounts
Amounts
DC.IS (General Funds)
$53,mo
010
252
Cash on Hand as of
: $
CERTIk'ICATION
(Date)
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the data above am correct and that all expenditures will be made
in accordance with the grant conditions and that payment is due and has not been previously requested.
Signature of Authorized Official
Type or Print Name and Title
(DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE -. FOR DCJS USE ONLY)
Approved for Disbursement: Fl= GF Total
Fiscal Reviewer:
Date: Voucher Number and Date
Department of Criminal Justice Services
805 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
ST~ C~ (lO. Al~ AWAI~
S~'~L:IAL CEI~ITICt~
For Grant Program:
PRE-TRIAL DIVERS ICI',I
SUBGR&NI~EE: Roanoke, City
(~{~NTNI]V~ER: 93-A7904
DATE: l~y 29, 1992
The following conditions are attached to and made a part of this grant award:
1. The subgrantee will canply with the terms of the grant application
and any attachments and/or amendments thereto.
Local units of goverr~nent may use their own purchasing procedures as
long as they comply with the Virginia Public Procur~raent Act.
Subgrantees ,must comply with all rules and regulations contained in
the Department of Criminal Justice Services' Program Guide and
Application Procedures for the Pre-Trial Diversion Programs.
Subgrantees may follow their own established travel rates if they
have an established travel policy. If a subgrantee does not have an
established po]icy, then he must adhere to state travel policy. The
state allows reimbursement for actual reasonable expenses. The state
allows $ .24 per mile for mileage. Transportation costs for air and
rail are at coach rates.
The budget line-item in budget summry indicates funds in the amount
of $56,38] under "Personnel". Budget application reflects the amount
under "Consultants". Please advise which is correct and submit a
corrected budget and budget narrative.
7.
8.
9.
Grand funds for the Pre-Trial program shall not supplant funding
received from the Department of Corrections for the CDI contract.
The subgrantee must restate the project objectives, numbers 1 and 2,
to reflect the number of defendants under supervision.
The subgrantee must submit monthly Pre-Trial Services reports to the
DCJS. The report form AC-PTS, 100191, is attached for your use.
AIl procurement transactions, whether negotiated or advertised and
without regard to dollar value, shall be conducted in a manner so as
to provide maximum open and free competition. An exemption to this
regulation requires the prior approval of the DCJS and is only given
in unusual circumstances. Any request for exemption mast be
submitted in writing to the 13CJS.
CONTRACTUAL
WHEREAS,
referred to
dmlnlstrator
the Roanoke City Commonwealth,s Attorney, hereafter
as the Contractor, has been designated as the
for the Pre-Trial Services grant awarded to the
City of Roanoke by the Department of Criminal Justice
hereafter referred to as the Department; and,
Services,
WHEREAS, the Court-Community Corrections Program, hereafter
referred to as the Vendor, has been designated to continue to
administer the Court's Pre-Trial Services component; and,
WHEREAS, the contractor and the Vendor endeavor to provide
the city with efficient and effective criminal justice
alternatives which so not increase the threat to public safety;
nowt
THEREFORE, this agreement sets forth the services to be
provided to the Contractor by the Vendor as well as the
reimbursement of said services by the Contractor.
The Vendor hereby agrees to:
Continue to administer the Court's Pre-Trial Services
(Alternative to Prosecution; Alternative to Conviction)
in accordance with the policies and procedures approved
by the Department;
Provide the Contractor with
i
nformatlon to accurately and
activities to the Department;
the necessary financial
completely report fiscal
Provide the Contractor with a request for funds each
reporting quarter, thirty (30) days in advance of said
quarter; and, to
Provide the Contractor with such other information as
may reasonably be required.
The Contractor hereby agrees to:
1 - Provide the Vendor with the funds necessary to operate
the Court's Pre-Trial Services Program upon request for
said funds; and,
2 - To forward funds, quarterly, to:
Court-Community Corrections Program - Pre-Trial Services
Salem Bank & Trust, Suite 218
220 East Main Street
Salem, Virginia 24153
This contract is agreed to and entered into as authorized:
Donald S. Caldwell, Esquire
Commonwealth,s Attorney
~_e_~s T_/;' I-~S, Dl~ector
~r-v-~ommunity Corrections Program
Date
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 28011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #1-5-54
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31091-071392 providing for adjustment of fees
charged by the Police Department for public vehicle driver's licenses, concealed
weapons permits, conservator of the peace commissions, verification reports, and
impoundment and boarding of animals, effective July 13, 1992. Resolution No. 31091-
071392 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, July 13, 1992.
~'~'~ ~'~ ~'Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc o
pe:
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, PubLic Safety
Mr. M. David Hooper, Police Chief
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31091-071392.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION providing for adjustment of fees charged by the
Police Department for public vehicle driver's licenses, concealed
weapons permits, conservator of the peace commissions, verification
reports and impoundment and boarding of animals.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The following schedule of fees shall be applicable for
fees charged by the Police Department effective upon the date of
adoption of this Resolution:
Public vehicle driver's license .... $20.00 per year
Concealed weapons permit:
Initial issuance and first two years ...... $250.00
Biennial renewal thereafter ................ $ 25.00
Conservator of the Peace Commission:
Initial issuance and first two years ...... $250.00
Biennial renewal thereafter ............... $ 25.00
Verification reports ................... $10.00 each
Animal Control Fees:
First impoundment of animal ............ $10.00
Second impoundment of animal within twelve
(12) consecutive months ................ $20.00
Third or successive impoundment of animal
within twelve (12) consecutive months..$30.00
Daily boarding fee .................... $ 5.00
2. 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 amended fees
established by this resolution.
3. Fees established by this resolution shall be effective
upon the date of its adoption and
amended by this Council.
shall remain in effect until
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Roanoke, Virginia
July 13, 1992
Dear Members of Council:
SUBJECT: ADJUST~'T TO TH~ FEE COMPENDIUM
I. BACKGROUND:
During the FY92-93 budget development process revenue
enhancement received priority consideration.
The Police Department identified five (5) existing fees
for review.
II. cut~R]~rr SITUATION:
The fee compendium adopted by City Council on
November 11, 1991 authorized a fee schedule based on
costs of providing various services. Due to the
increased administrative costs and expenses and the
reevaluation of the tasks to provide some of these
services. The following services administered by the
Police Department are recommended for fee increase.
1. Public Vehicle Drivers License
2. Concealed Weapons Permit
3. Conservator of the Peace
4. Verification Reports
5. S.P.C.A. Fee (AnJmml Control Service Fee)
FY92-93 General Fund Budget is dependant on $14,340 in
additional revenues from these increased fees.
II. ISSUIgS:
A. Cost Recovery
B. FY92-93 Budget
Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 2
III. ALTERNATIVES:
City Council approve the resolution to amend the fee
compendium of November ll, 1991.
1. Cost Recovery the proposed fees would provide
revenue that more closely reflects the costs of
providing these services.
2. FY92-93 Budget included projected revenue of
$14,340 based on this fee proposal.
Be
City Council not approve the resolution to amend
the fee compendium of November ll, 1992.
Cost Recovery - a portion of the costs of providing
the services outlined in "Attachment A" would
continue to be unrecovered.
F¥92-93 Budget - other means would have to be
identified to try to cover the $14,340 revenue
shortfall in the FY92-93 General Fund Budget.
IV.
I~ECO~NDATION:
The City Council approve
the fee compendium.
the attached resolution to amend
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Attachment "A"
Increased Fee Proposal
Title
Current Last Proposed
Fee Revised Fee
$io ii/9i $2o
annually annually
$i55 ii/si $250
annually annually
Ss $25 -
biennial biennial
$i50 ii/9i $250
annual annual
$9 $25
biennial biennial
$9 11/91 $!0
per report per report
$3 per 3-5 yrs. Within 12
pickup Months:
$10 first
)ick up
$20 second
pick up
~30 third
pick up
$2 daily $5 daily
boarding boarding
Public Vehicle
Drivers License
Concealed Weapons
Permit
Conservator of the
Peace
Verification Reports
S.P.C.A. Fee
(Animal Control Fee)
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #60-/k%-7-~- 305 - 144
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31092-071392 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93 General Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation
of funds in connection with carry-over of certain funds previously appropriated in
fiscal year 1991-92 for Bloodborne Pathogens Standard funding, the Recycling
Program, and the Family-Oriented Group Home Program. Ordinance No. 31092-
071392 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely, ~O~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
She.
pc:
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Development
Ms. Corinne B. Gott, Manager, Social Services
Ms. Andrea Krochalis, Manager, Crisis Intervention Center
Mr. Kenneth S. Cronin, Personnel Manager
Ms. Marquita Brown, Occupational Nurse
Dr. Donald R. Stern, Director, Health Department
Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Mr. James A. McClung, Manager, Fleet & Solid Waste Management
Ms. Laura K. Wasko, Recycling Coordinator
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
1992-93
emergency.
WHEREAS,
Government of the
exist.
THEREFORE,
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31092-071392.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
General Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
city of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
BE IT ORDAINED by
Roanoke that certain sections of the
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby,
to read as follows, in part:
the Council of the city of
1992-93 General Fund
amended and reordained
General Fund
ADDroDriations
General Government
Personnel Management (1) ...............
Public Safety
Crisis Intervention (2) ................
Public Works
Solid Waste Management (3) .............
Recycling (4-10) .......................
$ 8,781,717
627,483
29,703,959
416,389
18,595,387
4,173,339
178,940
1) Medical
2) Purchased
Services
3) Temporary
Employee Wages
4) Overtime Wages
5) City Retirement
6) FICA
7) Hospitalization
Insurance
(001-050-1261-2062)
(001-054-3360-3160)
(001-052-4210-1004)
(001-052-4211-1003)
(001-052-4211-1105)
(001-052-4211-1120)
(001-052-4211-1125)
$ 44,739
18,321
26,893
2,500
3,362
2,249
2,880
8) Dental Insurance (001-052-4211-1126) $ 160
9) Life Insurance (001-052-4211-1130) 196
10) Fees for
Professional
Services (001-052-4211-2010) 16,500
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing,
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
this
city Clerk.
July 13, 1992
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Carry-over of Funds Previously Appropriated in Fiscal Year 1991-92
I. Background:
A. In accordance with Section 36 of the Roanoke City Charter, the
unencumbered balance at fiscal year-end of each appropriation shall
become part of the year-end fund balance.
B. Fundinq for certain programs could not be expended or obligated by June
30, 1992. These programs either received special appropriations or grant
funding during Fiscal Year 1991-92.
II.
Current Situation:
A. On May 4, 1992, City Council appropriated $80,059.36 through Ordinance
number 30977-050492 to implement the O.S.H.A. Bloodborne Pathogens
Standard.
1. Fundinq was placed in the Personnel Management Medical Account #
001-050-1261-2062.
2. This funding provided for implementation of the program during Fiscal
Years 1991-92 and 1992-93.
3. At June 30, 1992, the status of the program funding is as follows:
Budgeted Amount
Obligated Balance
$80,059
35,320
Unobligated Balance $44,739
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
Page 2
4. The remainder of the fundinq, $44,739, is needed during Fiscal Year
1992-93 to fully implement the program.
On June 12, 1992, the City received a Recycling Grant from the Roanoke
Valley Solid Waste Management Board in the amount of $55,538.42.
1. The funds were deposited into revenue account 001-020-1234-0893,
Recycling Grant.
2. This fundinq is to be used by the Recycling department for Phase II of
the Residential Recycling expansion program and for brush collection.
3. At June 301 1992, the status of the program funding is as follows:
Current Budgeted Amount
Obligated Balance
Unobligated Balance
$55,538
798
$54,740
A Family Oriented Group Home Proqram has been administered through
the Crisis Intervention Center since April, 1990. $20,000 was appropriated
for operation of the program in the adopted budget for Fiscal Year 1991-92.
On Februan/181 1992, an additional $12,872 was appropriated by City
Council through Ordinance # 30883-021892 for additional funding
provided by the Department of Youth and Family Services.
2. The Department of Youth and Family Services allows localities to carry
forward unspent balances at fiscal year-end.
3. At 6/30/92, the status of the program funding is as follows:
Current Budgeted Amount
Obligated Balance
$33,063
151355
Unobligated Balance $17,708
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Page 3
III.
IV.
Issues:
A. Funding.
B. Timing.
Alternatives:
A. City Council authorize the appropriation of funding from year-end Fund Balance
for the above mentioned items.
1. Fundinq is available in year end fund balance.
2. Timinq is crucial in that programs are on- going and funding must be
available for program obligations.
B. City Council not authorize the appropriation from year-end Fund Balance for
the above mentioned items.
1. Fundinq will need to be appropriated at a later date for continued
implementation of the Bloodborne Pathogen Standards and operation
of the Recycling program. If not appropriated, the funding for the
Family Oriented Group Home must be returned to the Department of
Youth and Family Services.
2. Timinq will not be an issue.
Recommendation:
Implement Alternative Ak thereby authorizing the Director of Finance to appropriate
funding from Year-End Fund Balance per the attached budget ordinance.
Fundinq will be appropriated as follows:
o Bloodborne Pathoqens Standard fundinq:
001-050-1261-2062 $44,739
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Page 4
o Recyclin¢l Proqram:
001-052-4210-1004
001-052-4211-1003
001-052-4211-1105
001-052-4211-1120
001-052-4211-1125
001-052-4211-1126
001-052-4211-1130
001-052-4211-2010
$26,893
2,500
3,362
2,249
2,880
160
196
16,500
$54,740
o Family Oriented Group Home Proqram:
001-054-3360-3160 $17,708
Respectfully Submi~ed,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:DSA:mds
CC;
Diane S. Akers, Management and Budget
Marquita Brown, Personnel Management
Annie Krochalis, Crisis Intervention Center
Laura Wasko, Recycling
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
21~ Church Avenue. S.W., Room 456
Roanoke. Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
July 17, 1992
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
File #60-246
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlangev:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31093-071392 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93 Consortium Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation
of $5,000.00 in connection with funds received through the Virginia State Water
Control Board for funding the "EPA: Youth and the Environment" Project to be
administered by the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium. Ordinance
No. 31093-071392 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, July 13, 1992.
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Eno.
pc:
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Development
Mr. Howard R. Bnilen, Acting Administrator, Fifth District Employment and
Training Consortium
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
1992-93
emergency.
WHEREAS,
IN THE COI;NCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31093-071392.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
Consortium Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
Government of the
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the city of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1992-93 Consortium Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained
to read as follows, in part:
Consortium Fund
A ro r'ations
Fifth District Employment and Training
Consortium - FY 93 $ 84,793
Youth and Environmental (1-2) ..................... 5,000
Revenue
Fifth District Employment and Training
Consortium - FY 93 $ 84,793
Youth and Environmental (3) ....................... 5,000
1) TAP
2) Funding
Authority
3) EPA/Virginia
State Water
Board
(034-054-9390-8172) $ 4,637
(034-054-9390-9990) 363
(034-034-1234-9390)
5,000
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing,
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
this
City Clerk.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
July 13, 1992
Roanoke, Virginia
Members of Council:
Funding for the Fifth
District Employment and
Training Consorti~n
Fifth District Fm~loymmnt and Trainin~ Consorti~n (FDETC) submitted
and received acceptance of a proposal for ~unding of 'q~PA: Youth
and the Environment" project through the Virginia State Water
Control Board (VSWCB).
City of Roanoke is the grant recipient for Consortiun funding. 0nly
City Council can appropriate the funding for all grants the Consor-
titwn receives.
II. CURRENT SITUATION
Wu'iD end VSWCB have sent the Consorti~n a Notice of Award in the
amount of-~O0.O0 for funding of the "EPA: Youth and the Environ-
ment" project.
III. ISSUES
A. Pro,ram Operations
C. Timins
A. Appropriate the Consortit~n's fundin~ from the VSWCB totallin~
$5,000.00 and increase the revenue estimate by $5,000.00 in accounts
to be established by the Director of Finance.
Progr~nOperation - New programwill be initiated by Consorti-
um's Policy BoardandPrivate Industry Council.
Funding - VSWCB funds of $5,000.00, are available frown the
grantor agency at no addit~-i-~st to the city.
3. Timing - Immediate action will allow progrmm to be ~mplemented
~ompleted in pls~ed tire,frames.
City Council Report
July 13, 1992
Page 2
Do not appropriate the Consorti~n's funding from the VSWCB of
$5,000.0Oand increase the revenue estimate by $5,000.00 in accounts
to be established bZ the Director of Finance.
1. Pro~ram Operation - Planned progr~n to serve participants would
be delayed.
2. Fundir~ - Not a factor.
3. T~- Delay will cause late start-op of program and under-
~ture of available funds.
RECC~MENDATION
Approve Alternative A:
$~p, ropriate the Consortium's net fundin~ from the VSWCB totallin~
000.00 and increase the revenue estimate by $5,000.00 in accounts to
be established bZ the Director of Finance.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
JDR: ir
cc: Director of Finance
City Attorney
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
l~putyCityClerk
July 17, 1992
File #246
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31094-071392 authorizing execution of an
agreement by and between the City, the Governor's Employment and Training
Consortium, and the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium's Private
Industry Council with regard to respective responsibilities and liabilities of the
parties thereto, in connection with implementation of certain programs for program
year July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993, as more particularly set forth in a report
of the City Manager under date of July 13, 1992. Resolution No. 31094-071392 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Eric.
pc:
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Dire.ctor, Human Development .
Mr. Howard R. Bullen, Acting Administrator, Fifth District Employment and
Training Consortium
Mr. Paul J. Woo, Chairperson, Fifth District Employment and Training
Consortium Private Industry Council, P. O. Box 13367, Roanoke, Virginia
24033
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31094-071392.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of an agreement by and
between the City, the Governor's Employment and Training
Department, the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium,
and the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium's Private
Industry Council.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
City Manager is authorized to execute an agreement dated July 1,
1992, by and between the City, the Governor's Employment and
Training Department, the Fifth District Employment and Training
Consortium, and the Fifth District Employment and Training
Consortium's Private Industry Council, which agreement relates to
the respective responsibilities and liabilities of the parties
thereto with regard to the implementation of certain programs, such
agreement to be in substantially such form as set forth in the City
Manager's report of July 13, 1992; such agreement to be approved as
to form by the City Attorney prior to its execution.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
July 13,
Roanoke,
1992
Virginia
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Members of Council:
Subject:
Service Delivery Area Agreement between the Fifth
District Employment and Training Consortium and the
Governor's Employment and Training Department for
Program Year July 1, 1992 and June 30, 1993.
I. BACKGROUND
Cit~ of Roanoke has been designated as the grant
reczpient of funds under the Job Training Partnership
Act.
By agreement of the localities in the Fifth Planning
District, the City of Roanoke acts as fiscal depository
o--~onsortium funds.
Fifth Planning District has been designated as a
service delivery area, by the Governor of Virginia.
II. CURRENT SITUATION
Governor's Employment and Training Department requires
that the attached Agreement be executed by the Policy
Board of the Fifth District Employment and Training
Consortium, the Private Industry Council and the City,
as the depository of the funds.
Bo
Agreement, which has not changed from last year,
primarily clarifies the roles, responsibilities, and
liability of the Policy Board, the Private Industry
Council, and the grant recipient (City of Roanoke).
Authority to execute appropriate documents is needed
from City Council.
III.
ISSUES
A. Legal Requirements
B. Liability
City Council Report
July 13, 1992
Page 2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
City Council authorize the City Manager to sign tho
Agreement.
Legal Requirements - The Agreement meets the
requirements of the Job Training Partnership Act.
Liability.- Any liability rests with the Policy
Board, whzch is made up of representatives from
the Fifth Planning District; however, the City is
liable for the proper deposit of these funds.
City Council not authorize the City Manager
the Agreement.
to sign
Legal R~q~irements - The legal requirements of the
Job Traznzng Partnership Act would not be met.
Liability - Funds will probably not continue to
come to this area, and liability would not be an
issue.
V. RECOMMENDATION
City Council authorize the City Manager to si n th~
Agreement, Alternative A, for Program Year 19~2 - 199B.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/nd
JTPA #93-111-03
THIS AGREEMENT made July 1, 1992, by and between the
Governor's Employment and Training Department, herein
(the GETD), and the Fifth District Employment and
Training Consortium, the Fifth District Employment and
Training Consortium's Private Industry Council, (a
committee), and the City of Roanoke, Virginia, (the
"Second Parties"),
to
participation in
for the purpose
thereof; and,
WHEREAS, the GETD is charged with the responsibility
administer the Commonwealth of Virginia's
the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)
of programs afforded under Title II
WHEREAS, the Fifth District Employment and Training
Consortium's Private Industry Council has been
constituted as the Private Industry Council and Grant
Recipient for Service Delivery Area Number Three, and the
Fifth District
the City of
Administrative
respectively,
Employment and Training Consortium, and
Roanoke have been designated as the
Entity, and the Grant Recipient,
for the said service delivery area; and,
WHEREAS, a Job Training Plan has been prepared for
the said service delivery area for the program year
commencing on July 1, 1992, and ending on June 30, 1993,
and reviewed and approved all in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the JTPA; and,
WHEREAS, it is necessary to make provision for
funding the said Job Training Plan;
NOW THEREFORE, that for and in consideration of the
mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the GETD and the
Second Parties agree as follows:
1. From funds made available to the Governor of
Virginia by the U.S. Department of Labor pursuant to
Sections 201 and 251 of the JTPA, funds shall be allotted
to the said service delivery area in accordance with the
provisions of Section 202 of the JTPA and delivered to
the Grant Recipient by the GETD periodically and by such
mode as is determined and selected by the GETD.
2. Funds allocated to the said service delivery
area and delivered to the Grant Recipient shall be
expended by the Second Parties to implement and carry out
the said Job Training Plan in accordance with the terms
thereof as now approved or as the same may hereafter be
modified and approved in accordance with the terms of the
JTPA for the program year commencing on July 1, 1992, and
ending on June 20, 1993.
2
3. THIS AGREEMENT IS MADE SUBJECT TO THE
AVAILABILITY OF THE SAID FUNDS AND THE ALLOCATION THEREOF
TO THIS AGREEMENT BY THE GETD. The GETD shall exert its
best efforts to provide the Second Parties with timely
advice of changes in funding levels produced at the
federal level or required by circumstances affecting
within State allocations pursuant to Section 202 of the
JTPA.
4.
service
The Second Parties agree, respectively, in the
capacities specified above to receive,
administer, disburse and account for the said funds and
such property as may be acquired therewith or otherwise
be placed under their control pursuant to the terms of
the JTPA or direction of the U.S. Department of Labor,
and to implement and carry out the said approved Job
Training Plan and perform the related duties imposed upon
them by the JTPA, in accordance therewith and the
regulations of the U.S. Department of Labor and the GETD,
as the same may presently exist or hereafter be amended
or enlarged during the period of this Agreement.
5. In pursuance of an agreement between the U.S.
Secretary of Labor and the Governor of Virginia, the GETD
reserves the right to interpret the requirements of the
JTPA and all implementing regulations, consistent with
the terms thereof, which by this Agreement are applicable
to the Contractor. Such interpretations shall be
3
specifically identified as "JTPA Interpretations or
policies" and shall be issued in accordance with the
internal policy of the GETD. The Second Parties shall
apply and abide by interpretations heretofore issued as
well as all such interpretations issued during the term
of this Agreement. The GETD shall review these or any
subsequent JTPA Interpretation upon its own motion or the
request of the Second Parties and the Second Parties
shall have such further recourse if they be aggrieved
thereby to review under the grievance procedure mandated
by the JTPA.
6. The GETD recognizes the right of the Second
Parties to this Agreement to make provision among or
between themselves for division of duties and tasks
requisite for the proper performance and administration
of this Agreement subject to the provisions of the JTPA
and implementing regulations and the terms of that
agreement specified in Section 103(b) (1) of the JTPA.
The Second Parties agree that they shall not, by act of
commission or omission, do or fail to do any act in
relation to each other which would hinder, frustrate or
delay the performance of this Agreement or any act or
duty required hereby.
Section 103(b) (1)
agreement made among
Should the agreement required by
of the JTPA, or any subsidiary
or between the Second Parties be
terminated, or there be a claim made of default thereon
4
by any Second Party, then the Private Industry Council
or Chief Elected Official shall give written notice of
the particulars thereof to the Executive Director of the
GETD. In such event, the GETD shall have the right to
withhold further funding under this Agreement or
terminate this Agreement as to any Second Party upon such
notice as may be reasonable under the circumstances, not
in lieu of but in addition to any other remedy available
under law if such action be deemed reasonably necessary
by the GETD to carry out its duty under the JTPA and the
laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
7. The performance of the Second Parties hereunder
shall, for the purpose of Section 106 of the JTPA, be
gauged by those performance standards established by the
Secretary of Labor pursuant to Section 106 of the JTPA
as the same may be varied by the Governor, for the period
of this Agreement.
8. This Agreement shall not be assignable, in
whole or part, by any Second Party without the written
consent of the GETD; provided, however, that contractors
may be engaged by the Second Parties to provide services
or programs to eligible JTPA participants for which
provision is made in the said Job Training Plan. In the
exercise of the discretion afforded by this provision,
the Second Parties shall adhere to the standards set
forth in Section 164(e) (2) of the JTPA, and shall assure
5
that all procurements comply with sound practices and
elements of contracting. Whenever the word "contractor"
appears in the succeeding provisions of this Agreement,
the same shall mean such contractors as are permitted
bythe terms of this Paragraph 8. Any such contract shall
be conditioned to secure the benefits of the succeeding
provisions to the Second Parties and the GETD.
Subcontracts must be subject to review and approval in
writing by the Second Parties and shall be allowed in
performance contracts for specialized client service, in
a fee payment or cost-reimbursement basis.
9. The Second Parties shall give the GETD timely
notification of the possibility of disallowed costs
incurred in their administration of this Agreement or by
their contractors and use prompt and efficient debt
collection procedures to obtain cash repayment of
disallowed costs. The Second Parties shall not forego
debt collection procedures without the express written
approval of the GETD. In appropriate cases, the GETD
shall petition the Secretary of Labor to:
First: Forgive those costs, if possible; if not to:
second: Accept repayment of those costs in other than
cash reimbursement. Nothing in this provision, however,
shall be construed to limit or preclude the pursuit of
remedies, either legal or administrative, by the GETD or
the Second Parties.
6
10. Neither the Governor nor the Commonwealth of
Virginia assume liability by virtue of this Agreement for
any costs incurred above the amounts provided pursuant
to this Agreement or for costs incurred by second parties
or their contractors which are determined to be
unallowable. Any such costs shall be at the sole risk
of the Second Parties or their contractors. The
foregoing provisions of this Paragraph are not intended
to preclude, and shall not be deemed to preclude the
Second Parties or their contractors form asserting any
defense which may be asserted by them hereafter.
11. The Second Parties agree to give the GETD
prompt notice in writing of any action or suit filed or
any claim otherwise made against the Second Parties or
their contractors of which they have been notified.
12. The GETD, the Secretary of Labor, the
Comptroller General of the United States, or any of its
or their representatives shall have access to work and
training sites and to any books, documents, papers, and
records of the Second Parties and their contractors
provided or made in the performance of this Agreement,
for the purpose of monitoring, making surveys, audits,
examinations, excerpts and transcriptions.
13. No waiver or modification of the terms of this
Agreement, including, without limitation, this provision,
shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by
theparty to be bound thereby.
7
14. In addition to termination in accordance with
the provisions of Paragraph 6, as well as in addition to
termination resulting from the non-availability of
fundsas contemplated by Paragraph 3 hereof, the right to
terminate this Agreement in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the Job Training Partnership Act
is reserved. The GETD reserves the right to apply any
lesser sanction not proscribed by law or seek any lawful
remedy available to it as it may deem requisite to obtain
proper performance under this Agreement, to carry out the
requirements of the Act and federal and State regulations
made pursuant thereto, and to maintain the integrity of
programs funded through this Agreement. Unless an
emergency exists, the GETD shall not act to impose a
sanction except upon reasonable notice and after the
Second Parties have opportunity for review in accordance
with procedures mandated by the JTPA. A sanction imposed
in an emergency shall be subject to subsequent review.
15. This Agreement shall terminate at the close of
business on June 30, 1993, provided, however, that the
same shall remain in effect thereafter until the close
of business on September 30, 1993, for the purpose of
the conduct of "Summer Youth" programs pursuant to Title
II-B of the JTPA for which provision is made in the above
Job Training Plan, or for which provision is hereafter
made in the next succeeding approved Job Training Plan,
as the case may be.
8
In witness whereof, the parties have caused this
Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized
representatives:
GOVERNOR'S EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING bEPARTMENT
BY: DATE:
Executive Director
9
SIGNATURE PAGE
FIFTH DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM
BY: DATE:
TITLE: Po]icy Board Chairman
FIFTH DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM
PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL
BY: DATE:
TITLE:
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
BY:
TITLE:
DATE:
10
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
8ANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #236-305
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31096-071392 authorizing execution of a Grant
Agreement with the State Department of Education on behalf of the City to accept a
Demonstration Grant Award from the State Council on Community Services for Youth
and Families and to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant and applicable
laws, regulations, and requirements pertaining thereto, as more particularly set
forth in a report of the City Manager under date of July 13, 1992. Resolution No.
31096-071392 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting
held on Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc o
pc:
Ms. Jeanette DuVal, Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the Governor,
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dr. Fred P. Roessel, Jr., Executive Director, Mental Health Services,
301 Elm Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Development
Ms. Corinne B. Gott, Manager, Social Services
Mr. William A. Kelly, Director, Court Services
Dr. Frank P. Tota, Superintendent of Schools
Dr. Donald R. Stern, Director, Health Department
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31096-071392.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION authorizing execution of a Grant Agreement with
the State Department of Education on behalf of the City to accept
a Demonstration Grant Award from the State Council on Community
Services for Youth and Families and to comply with the terms and
conditions of the grant and applicable laws, regulations, and
requirements pertaining thereto.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
City Manager or the Assistant City Manager are hereby authorized,
for and on behalf of the City, to execute the required Grant
Agreement, and any other forms'required by the State Department of
Education, in order for the City to accept a Demonstration Grant
Award from the State Council on Community Services for Youth and
Families, upon all of the terms, conditions and requirements
pertaining to the grant, as set forth in the City Manager's report
dated July 13, 1992.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAK1N
l~puty City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #60-236-305
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31095-071392 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93 General and Grant Funds Appropriations, providing for
appropriation of $353,238.00 and transfer of $22,566.00, in connection with award
of a Demonstration Grant from the State Council on Community Services for Youth
and Families, upon certain terms and conditions, as more particularly set forth in a
report of the City Manager under date of July 13, 1992. Ordinance No. 31095-071392
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, July 13, 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 Development
Ms. Corinne B. Gott, Manager, Social Services
Mr. William A. Kelly, Director, Court Services
Dr. Frank P. Tota, Superintendent of Schools
Dr. Donald R. Stern, Director, Health Department
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROi~NOKE, V~RGINIA
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31095-071392.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1992-93 General and Grant 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 1992-93 General and Grant
Funds Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained to read as follows, in part:
A ro riat'ons
Nondepartmental
Transfers to Other Funds (1) .....................
Health and Welfare
Social Services - Services (2) ...................
Grant Fund
ro r'ations
Health and Welfare
Community Services for Youth - FY93
Revenue
Health and Welfare
Community Services for Youth - FY93
(3-15) .......
(16-17) ......
$ 11,624,825
11,131,346
14,420,364
7,524,938
$ 1,324,453
353,238
$ 1,324,453
353,238
1) Transfer to
Grant Funds
2) Local Match -
Grant Funds
3) Regular
Employee
Salaries
4) ICMA
Retirement
5) FICA
(001-004-9310-9535) $ 22,566
(001-054-5314-3165) ( 22,566)
(035-054-5152-1002)
(035-054-5152-1115)
(035-054-5152-1120)
Hospitalization
Insurance
7) Dental
Insurance
8) Life Insurance
9) Local Mileage
10) Maintenance
Contracts
11) Telephone
12) Administrative
Supplies
13) Fees for
Professional
Services
14) Training and
Development
15) Contingency
16) State Grant
Revenue
17) Local Match
(035-054-5152-1125)
(035-054-5152-1126)
(035-054-5152-1130)
(035-054-5152-2046)
(035-054-5152-2005)
(035-054-5152-2020)
(035-054-5152-2030)
202,111
23,254
15,461
10,320
2,310
1,958
22,388
300
12,360
1,200
(035-054-5152-2010) 50,816
(035-054-5152-2044) 4,000
(035-054-5152-2199) 6,760
(035-035-1234-7118) 330,672
(035-035-1234-7119) 22,566
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
July 13, 1992
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of City Council:
Subject: Demonstration Grant Award from State Council on Community
Services for Youth and F"milies
I. Background
me
Two Hundred Twenty-Two (222) Roanoke City youth were placed
in residential care facilities in 1988'.
1. State treatment facilities (hospitals)
2. Residential schools for handicapped
3. Correctional facilities
* (most recent year for data)
Monthly cost per child in residential care ranges from $550
to $14,000.
Ce
Inappropriate referral to residential care facilities
sometime occurs because of:
Insufficient resources locally to address the child's
needs;
Insufficient coordination among local servies
agencies to provide "holistic" approach; and
Inability of family to handle problem.
Treatment of dysfunctional family or younser siblings is
not addressed by Just removing troubled child from family.
II. Current Situation:
Ae
City applied for demonstration grant to State Council on
Community Services for Youth and Families on September 27,
1990 on behalf of multi-agency task force comprised of
Roanoke Social Services, Court Service Unit, Community
Services Board (Mental Health Services), Roanoke City
Health Department, and Roanoke City Schools.
Be
Demonstration program in 1991-92 provided comprehensive
and intensive services to 38 of Roanoke City's highest-risk
youth, to 77 siblings of the youth, and to 53 adults living
with the youth. In 1992-93 FOCUS will continue to provide
1. Better coordination of service agencies to provide
better screening and referral of cases;
III.
IV.
-2-
2. Increased local alternatives for child placement and
treatment;
3. Lon~-term home-based services;
4. Intensive interagency case management; and
5. Therapeutic foster homes.
Program goal is to reduce the number of Roanoke children
referred to residential treatment each year, and to
increase the number of youth returned to the community from
residential care.
Roanoke City received a demonstration grant award totalling
$732,313 over three fiscal years; $67,202 was awarded for
FY 91, and $334,439 for FY 92, and ~,672 for FY 93.
Roanoke City is one of six (6) localities in Virginia to
receive such a grant.
E
City Council authorization is needed for City Manager to
execute grant agreeement with State Department of
Education, which is serving as fiscal agent for the grant
program.
A. Cost to City
B. Services to Roanoke children in need
C. Long-term savings to City
Altezmatives:
A®
Authorize City Manager to execute an agreement approved as
to form by the City Attorney with State Department of
Education and appropriate $330,672 in state grant funds
with Roanoke City paying $22,566 as a local cash match for a
total grant of $353,238.
1. Cost to City would be $117,446 in local in-kind
services and a local cash match of $22,566 for FY93.
City's in-kind services consist solely of
staff time of current staff and office space
donated by the Roanoke City School Board,
Department of Social Services, Mental Health
Services, and Sanctuary (DYFS).
The local match is available in the "Local Cash
Match" line-item and is in the Social Services
Budget.
-3-
V®
®
Services to Roanoke children in need would be
improved through better coordination and referral,
more local services, and family-oriented approach to
treatment.
Long-term savings to City would be realized if
project is successful through fewer children being
referred to residential treatment, and shorter stays
for those who are referred.
Be
Do not authorize City Manager to execute attached ~rant
a~reament with State Department of Education and do not
appropriate $330,672 to grant fund. Continue providing
services to children in need as has been done for past
several years.
Cost to City would be nothing except lost opportunity
cost,
2. Services to Roanoke children in need would be
provided, but improvements to system would be delayed
at best.
3. Lon~-term savings to city would not be realized.
R.eco~,endations:
Recommend that City Council concur in Alternative A thereby
authorizin~ City Manager to execute an agreement approved as to
form by the City Attorney with State Department of Education and
appropriatin~ $353~238 to accounts to be established by the
Director of Finance in the grant fund with a corresponding revenue
estimate. Transfer $22,566 in local matching funds from the
General Fund Account 001-054-5314-3165 to the Grant Fund revenue
aCCOUnt.
Respectfully Submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
CC:
Wilburn C. Dibling, City Attorney
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Development
Corinne B. Gott, Superintendent of Social Services
William A. Kelly, Director of Court Services
Dr. Fred Roessel, Director of Mental Health Services
Frank B. Tota, Superintendent, Roanoke City Schools
Dr. Donald R. Stern, Director, Roanoke City Health Department
Marie Pontfas, Grants Monitoring Administrator
COMMO WE^L, v,m zm^
O$ce o£ OoYernor
Richmond 23219
(804) 78~7765
TOO (8041 78~?765
May 4, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT=
Ron Branscome
Fran Dickerson
Lynn Moore
Beth Rafferty
Paula Ryan
Jean~tte DuVal>(
Funding of CounCil on Community Services for Youth
and Families Local Demonstration Projects
The 1992 Virginia Acts of Assembly, Chapter 893, item 592,
appropriates funds for the continuation of the .Council's Local
Demonstration Projects through June 30, '1994. A total of
$2,410,170 in State and Local dollars is budgeted to support the
projects. ' ~ ~
As stated in the Appropriations Act, these funds are to be
"used to continue grant projects in selected localities to provide
appropriate and cost-effective community services, contingent on
evaluation results. These projects serve youth who have severe
emotional and/or behavior problems and who are in, or at imminent
risk of, placements outside the home or community,,.
Local Demonstration
May 4, 1992
Page 2
Projects
For each fiscal year, 1992-1993 and 1993-1994,
Demonstration Projects will be funded aS follows:
TOTAL STATE Ss
the Local
LOCAL Ss
RADCO
Lynchburg/Bedford
Norfolk City
Richmond City
Roanoke City
$510,574 $453,982 $56,592
$494,892 $438,301 $56,591
$682,935 $615,813 $67,122
$368,531 $320,970 $47,561
$353,238 $330,672 $22,566
Totals: $2,410,170
$2,159,738
$250,432
The budget of each of the Local Demonstration Projects has
been reduced by approximately 1.06%.
Please work with your interagency Community Policy and
Management Teams to develop and approve line item budgets for next
fiscal year. Please provide these budget proposals to me, with
written descriptions of any proposed program or service changes.
I will make your budgets my top priority and communicate with you
immediately regarding any questions in order to expedite approval
by the Council on Community Services for Youth and Families.
Please contact me immediately if you have any questions or
concerns. Thank you!
COUNCIL ON COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES
DEMONSTRATION GRANT REVISED BUDGET
Locality: Roanoke
Period: July 1, 1992 - June 30, 1993
1 . PERSONNEL/EMPLOYEES
TOTAL
IN-KIND
a. Employee
Position
(1)Coordinator
(1)CAT Coordinator
.30% Time
(2)Case Managers
(1)Case Manager
(1)Case Manager/
Interventionist
Annual Monthly/Percent
Salary Salary/of Time
530,319 $2,526/mo x 12 mos
5 6,000 5 500/mo x 12 mos
524,205 52,017/mo x 12 moa
523,500 51,958/mo x 12 mos
317,622 $1,958/mo x 9 mos
30,319
6,000
48,410
23,500
17,622
(2)Child Aides
Each .5 time
(4)Parent Aides
(1)Secretary .6
$ 7/hr x 20 hr/wk
x 2 aides
$14,420 51,202/mo
IN-KIND Case Managers
1 Social Service
1 Mental Health
.5 Schools
FICA
Retirement
OTHER
Life Insurance
8,500 5 708/mo
522,663
518,415
$27,000
x 36 wks 5 10,080
x 12 mos 5'57,680
x 12 mos 5 8,500
Fringe Benefits
7.65% x 5202,111
12.11% x 5192,031
1.02% x 5192,031
22,663
18,415
13,905
Medical
Dental
TOTAL
51032 yr per employee x 10
5231 yr x 10 employees
TOTAL
TOTAL PERSONNEL
5202,111
15,461
23,254
1,958
10,320
2,310
53,303
$255,414
55,600
5,525 = MHS
Total Fringe
6,555 - DSS
Total Fringe
4,186 ' Schools
Total Fringe
$ 16,266
$ 71,866
51,888/mo x 12 mos
$1,534/mo x 12 mos
51,350/mo x 10 mos
5 Case Managers
4 Parent Aides
Therapeutic Foster
Staff
TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE
a. Local Mileage: 24~/mile
Coordinator 150/miles/mo x 12 mos
600/miles/mo x 12 mos
600/miles/mo x 12 mos
1500/miles/mo x 12 mos
b. Non-local Mileage:
Coordinator
Richmond
Richmond + Networking
400 miles x 10
Network: Charlottesville 260 miles x 11
Subsistence:
432
8,640
6,912
4,320
960
686
438
TOTAL $22,388 $ 0
3. EQUIPMENT
Type
Quantit~ unit Price/Case
Maintenance Equip. 12 mos
Cellular Phones, Computers
$ lO0/mo
$ 252
$ 6 x 12 mos
$ 200
$ 50
$ lOO
$ 20
$ 75
$ 500
$2,500
300
IN-KIND
File Cabinet 1
Xerox Paper 4
Desks (Used) 9
Desk Chairs (Used) 9
Work Tables 2
Conference Chairs 12
Copier:Canon NP1020 1
Bookcase 4
Typewriter 1
Computer 1
$ 252
$ 288
$1,800
$ 450
$ 200
$ 2~0
$1,495
$ 300
$ 500
$2,500
TOTAL $ 300 $8,025
4. ADI~N~ STRAT~VE SUPPLIES ~ OVF.~HEAD
Administrative Supplies
(Staff of 11.5)
Cellular Phone Monthly
Charges
Beeper Monthly Charges
Quantity
5100 mo x 12 mos
7 phones x 12 mos
3 beepers x 510/mo x 12 mos
5 1,200
512,000
5 360
IN-KIND: 4 Supervisin~ Agencies
Facility Cost (Utility, Office Space, Phone, etc.)
Supplies
Miscellaneous
Answering Service Coord. 52.50/hr x 40 hr/wk x 50 wk
Phone Lines (school) 540/mo x 2 lines x 12 mo
L.D. Phone Calls Coord. 520/mo x 12 mo
521,503
5 1,736
5 2,116
5 5,000
5 960
24O
Stipends: Treatment Parents
2 Families x 550/day x 7/days x 36 wks
Child Care for TFC Training Sessions
2 Workers x 10 sessions x 510/wk per session
Liability Insurance: Therapeutic Foster Care Program
Ther. Fstr. Care: Finders Fees, Space Rentals
(recruitment of T.F. families), Printing
Individualized Counseling Services for Special Needs
Youth and Family Members 85 office visits @ 590
DePaul Family Service: 1 Therapeutic Home Placement
51,384 per month x 6 mos.
Respite: 254 days @ 511.77/day
TOTAL 350,816 5 0
525,200
5 400
$ 2,773
5 3,500
5 7,650
$ 8,304
$ 2,989
TOTAL $13,560 531,555
5.CLIENT CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6. TRAINING COSTS
Staff Conference Training
Therapeutic Foster Care Staff and Parent Training
TOTAL
OTHEI~
Professional Liability 9 staff x 5500/yr
Insurance
Contingency Fund: Examples:
Long Term In-home Consumables
Emergency Medieals/Psychologicals
Respite
Security Deposits: Utilities, Housing
Radar Transportation
Recreational/Socialization Skills
Foster F-mily-Based Treat. Assoc. Dues (5250)
T.F.C. Mtg: Foods, Supplies ($500)
2,000
2,000
4,000
5 6,760
5 1,500
1,500
4,500
TOTAL $ 6,760 $ 4,500
GRAND T~TAL $353,238 5117,446
Grant Award: 5330,672
Local Match: $ 22,566
TOTAL ~
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Vir/inia 2~011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #22-236
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31097-071392 authorizing Amendment No. 1 to
the agreement between the City and Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley
under date of July 19, 1991, to provide that the term of said agreement shall extend
through June 30, 1993. Resolution No. 31097-071392 was adopted by the Council of
the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
pc:
Dr. Fred P. Roessel, Jr., Executive Director, Mental Health Services,
301 Elm Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Development
Ms. Donna S. Norvelle, Human Resources Coordinator
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, G~ants Monitoring Administrator
IN THE COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31097-071392.
A RESOLUTION authorizing an amendment to the agreement between
the City and Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley to
provide for an extension of the term of the agreement.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized to
execute and attest, respectively, Amendment No. 1 to the agreement
between the City and Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley
dated July 19, 1991 to provide that the term of the agreement shall
extend through June 30, 1993.
2. The form of the amendment shall be approved by the City
Attorney.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
July 13, 1992
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Amendment No. 1 to the Contract for Services with
Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley (MHSrv)
I. Background:
ae
City Council authorized $30,225 in funding for the
Adolescent Detoxification program as part of the 1991-92
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application;
approved by Council on May 13, 1991 by Resolution No. 30508-
51391.
Be
Council authorized ~ grant agreement, by Resolution No.
30579-62491 adopted on June 24, 1991, between the City and
Mental Health Services for adolescent detoxification and
residential treatment services.
C. The Adolescent Detoxification program, is designed to
provide medical detoxification and residential treatment for
thirteen low to moderate income adolescents, ages 12 to 17,
who are experiencing problems with alcohol and other drugs.
This activity is aimed at reducing the incidence of youthful
substance abuse and addresses recommendations contained in
Roanoke At Risk, the report prepared by the City Manager's
Drug Strategy Task Force.
II. Current Situation:
CDBG funds, in the amount of $30,225 will be used to
contract with private medical facilities for the provision
of adolescent detoxification and residential treatment
services.
Be
Development of the Admission, Discharge and Treatment
procedures took longer than was originally anticipated by
Mental Health Services.
Additional time needed in formulating program procedures
resulted in a delay in finalizing contracts for services
with private medical facilities.
Therefore, Mental Health Services has requested a twelve-
month extension of the Agreement for the Adolescent
Detoxification Program. No change in funding is requested.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Benefit to the City
Funding
Timing
Compliance with Federal regulations
Legal
IV.
Alternatives:
A.
Authorize the City Manager to execute the attached
amendment Agreement with MHSrv for the adolescent
detoxification program.
Benefit to the City will be provision of medical
detoxification and residential treatment services
and underserved segment of the City's population,
to moderate income youth.
for
low
Funding in the original amount of $30,225 is available
in CDBG Account No. 035-091-9138-5213. No additional
funding will be provided.
Timing is important to ensure initiation of the
adolescent detoxification program.
e
Compliance with Federal regulations would be achieved
as long as the Adolescent Detoxification program goes
forward, thus, providing a public service which
benefits low to moderate income youth.
Legal issues will be addressed through review of the
amendment to the Agreement by the City Attorney.
Do not authorize the City Manager to execute the attached
amendment to the Agreement with MHSrv for the activity
outlined above.
Benefit to the City would be nothing; and efforts to
reduce the incidence of youthful substance abuse will
be delayed.
2. Funding would not be an issue.
3. Timing would not be an issue.
4. Compliance with Federal requlations would not be an
issue.
5. Legal issues would not be a concern.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council concur in Alternative A and
authorize the City Manager to execute the attached amendment to
the Agreement with MHSrv for the Adolescent Detoxification
program.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
attachments
WRH:VLP
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Human Development
Grants Monitoring Administrator
Human Resources Coordinator
Executive Director, Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley
VC: MHSRV
Amendment No. 1
to
AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into this day of
, 1992, by and between the following parties:
The Grantee -
and the Subgrantee
City of Roanoke, Virginia
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Mental Health Services of the Roanoke
Valley (MHSrv)
301 Elm Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
WI TNES SETH:
WHEREAS, the Grantee and Subgrantee have, by Agreement under the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, dated July 19, 1991,
contracted for the provision of $30,225 in grant funds for the
Adolescent Detoxification program; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. , adopted July 13, 1992,
Roanoke City Council authorized the execution of this amendment to the
Agreement, dated July 19, 1991, such amendment to provide for a twelve-
month extension of the term of the contract between the Grantee and
Subgrantee.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantee and Subgrantee do mutually agree to
amend:
PART 2.
TIME OF PERFORMANCE, to read as follows:
This Agreement shall be for the period of July 1, 1992
through June 30, 1993, as amended July 13, 1992. Agreement
may be extended with the written agreement of both parties.
The Agreement shall remain unchanged in all other terms and
provisions.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
amendment to the Agreement as the day and year hereinabove written:
ATTEST:
CITY OF ROANOKE
By By
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
SUBGRANTEE
By
Witness
By
Fred P. Roessel, Jr.
Executive Director
Mental Health Services of the
Roanoke Valley
VC: MHSRV
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Vir~nia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #233-236
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31098-071392 authorizing execution of a written
agreement with the Southwest Virginia Community Development Fund for
implementation and administration of the Western Virginia Revolving Loan Fund
Program, in order to provide low interest loans to small businesses in the greater
northwest Roanoke and industrial areas of the City for creation of jobs; and to
provide for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, in the amount of
$50,000.00, for the period beginning July 1, 1992, and ending June 30, 1993, as
more particularly set forth in a report of the City Manager under date of July 13,
1992. Resolution No. 31098-071392 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
pc.'
Mr. Stanley R. Hale, President, Southwest Virginia Community Development
Fund, 401 First Street, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Mr. John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning
Mr. Brian J. Wishneff, Chief, Economic Development
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Development
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31098-071392.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of a written agreement
with the Southwest Virginia Community Development Fund for the
implementation and administration of the Western Virginia Revolving
Loan Fund Program, and providing for certain Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the purpose, for the period beginning
July 1, 1992, and ending June 30, 1993.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City. Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the
City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute, and to seal and
attest, respectively, for and on behalf of the City, a written
agreement to provide for the implementation and administration of
the Western Virginia Revolving Loan Fund Program, which wil provide
low interest loans to small businesses in greater Northwest Roanoke
and industrial areas of the City for the creation of Jobs; provide
for CDBG funds in the amount of $50,000; for the period beginning
July 1, 1992, and ending June 30, 1993, as more particularly
described in the report of the City Manager dated June 13, 1992;
such contract to be approved as to form by the City Attorney.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
July 13, 1992
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Contract for Services with Southwest Virginia
Community Development Fund (SVCDF)
I. Background:
City Council authorized the fourth year of funding for
the Western Virginia Revolving Loan Fund as part of the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application;
approved by Council on May 11, 1992 by Resolution No.
30508-051192.
City Council appropriated CDBG funds on June 22, 1992,
by Ordinance No. 31067-062292, including $50,000 in
funding for the Western Virginia Revolving Loan Fund.
II. Current Situation:
Western Virginia Revolving Loan Fund is a project
operated by Southwest Virginia Community Development
Fund (SVCDF) to provide iow interest loans to small
businesses in greater northwest Roanoke and industrial
areas of the city for the creation of jobs. (See
Attachment A for more details).
Local matching funds necessary for this program are
provided by $50,000 in FY 1992-1993 CDBG funds. This
will leverage a minimum of $550,000 in additional funds
from various sources for businesses in Roanoke.
A__qn administrative agreement between the City and SVCDF
is necessary for the funds to be disbursed for business
loans.
III. Issues:
A. Cost to the City
B. Funding
C. Administrative capacity
D. Timing
E. Compliance with applicable regulations
F. Legal
IV. Alternatives:
Authorize the City Manager to execute the attached
Agreement with the SVCDF for the administration and
implementation of the Western Virginia Revolving Loan
Fund.
Cost to the City will be $50,000 in FY 1992-1993
CDBG funds.
Funding is available in CDBG account no.035-092-
9230-5174.
Administrative capacity of SVCDF has been shown by
the many successful loan programs they have
administered in the past 20 years, and in the
federal Economic Development Administration's (EDA)
confidence in granting SVCDF $500,000 to establish
this loan fund.
Timing is important since SVCDF has received
several inquiries about the loan program, and would
like to loan these funds to businesses to create
jobs.
Compliance with applicable regulations is assured
through contract review and project monitoring by
the City's Office of Grants Compliance.
Legal issues will be addressed through contract
review by the City Attorney.
Do not authorize the City Manager to execute the
attached Agreement with the SVCDF for the administration
and implementation of the Western Virginia Revolving
Loan Fund.
Cost to the City would be nothing, except in lost
job opportunities.
2. Funding would not be an issue.
3. Administrative capacity would not be an issue.
4. Timing would not be an issue.
Compliance with applicable regulations would not be
an issue·
6. Legal concerns would not be an issue.
2
V. Reccamaendation:
It is recommended that City Council concur in Alternative A
and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached
Agreement with the SVCDF for the administration and
implementation of the Western Virginia Revolving Loan Fund.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
attachments
WRH:VLP
cc.
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Human Resources
Chief of Economic Development
Chief of Community Planning
Grants Monitoring Administrator
President, Southwest Virginia Community Development Fund
3
VC: SVCDF.RPT
This Agreement is made and entered into this day of
, 1992, by and between the following parties:
The Grantee -
and the Subgrantee -
City of Roanoke, Virginia
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Southwest Virginia Community
Development Fund
401 First Street, N.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
The Grantee has been authorized by its City Council pursuant to
Resolution No. 31067-062292, adopted June 22, 1992, to provide $50,000
in matching funds toward the Western Virginia Revolving Loan Fund as
part of its Community Development Block Grant program.
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
e
SCOPE OF SERVICES:
SVCDF will operate a revolving loan fund for eligible small
businesses within a targeted area of the City of Roanoke.
Services will include management and technical assistance to
borrowers. Program description is detailed further in Attachment
A.
TINE OF PERFORI4ANCE:
This Agreement shall be for the period of July 1, 1992
through June 30, 1993. Agreement may be extended with the written
agreement of both parties.
The total budget for the portion of this project within the
City of Roanoke will be $50,000 for the local match of the
revolving loan fund. These funds will be matched with the
following amounts as a minimum:
Economic Development Administration grant
Local Banks and lending institutions
City of Roanoke CDBG funds
$150,000
$400,000
$ 50,000
TOTAL with CDBG funds $600,000
Agreement
Page 2
e
PROPOSED PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND PROCEDURES:
Ail loan applications shall be approved and certified for
payment by a review committee established by the City. Requests
for payment will be submitted to the City's Office of Grants
Compliance, accompanied by an approved loan application from the
small business applicant. Payment will be made to the Subgrantee,
based on the individual loan agreement, within ten (10) days from
date of receipt.
INDemNIFICATION:
The Subgrantee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims,
legal actions and judgments advanced against the City and for
expenses the City may incur in this regard, arising out of the
Subgrantee's intentional acts and negligent acts or omissions with
respect to the rights and privileges granted by the City to the
Subgrantee in this Agreement.
COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS:
The Subgrantee agrees to abide by the HUD conditions for CDBG
programs as set forth in Attachment B and all other applicable
federal regulations relating to specific programs performed
hereunder. Further, the Subgrantee agrees to require compliance
with applicable federal regulations of the loan recipient by
agreement.
UNIFOI~ ADMINISTRATIVE RF~UIREMENTS:
The Subgrantee shall comply with the requirements and
standards of OMB Circular No. A-122, "Cost Principles for Non
Profit Organizations" and with the following Attachments to OMB
Circular No. A-110, if applicable: Attachment A, "Cash
Depositories"; Attachment B, "Bonding and Insurance"; Attachment
C, "Retention and Custodial Requirements for Records"; Attachment
F, "Standards for Financial Management Systems"; Attachment H,
"Monitoring and Reporting Program Performance," paragraph 2;
Attachment N, "Property Management Standards"; and Attachment O,
"Procurement".
PROGRAM INCOME:
"Program income" means gross income received by the Grantee
or Subgrantee directly generated from the use of CDBG funds. The
Subgrantee may retain program income, generated by this agreement,
to be revolved in subsequent loans having the same guidelines and
restrictions as those covered by this agreement. All program
income and expenses shall be reported to the Grantee on a
quarterly basis.
Agreement
Page 3
9. RECORDS AI~DREPORTS:
The Subgrantee shall maintain full and accurate records with
respect to all matters covered under this Agreement. All records
pertaining to this Agreement and the services performed pursuant
to it, shall be retained for a period of three (3) years after the
expiration date of this Agreement or its amendments. Appropriate
City and/or HUD personnel shall have free access to those records
during the Agreement duration and the following three-year time
period.
The Subgrantee shall submit quarterly financial reports to
the Grantee's Office of Grants Compliance. Such reports shall
consist of a cumulative listing of loans made, the payment status
of each loan, the amount available for loans, program income and
expenses. Reports of jobs created or retained shall also be
submitted for each loan including the number of such jobs for
which low and moderate income persons have been employed.
10. C(~FhICT OF IBT~REST:
No employee, agent, consultant, officer or appointed official
of the Subgrantee, who is in a position to participate in a
decision-making process or gain inside information with regard to
any CDBG activity, may obtain a personal or financial interest in
any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or in
the proceeds thereunder, either for themselves, their family or
business associates, during their tenure or for one (1) year
thereafter.
11. SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION
Suspension or termination may occur if the Subgrantee
materially fails to comply with any term of this award, and the
award may be terminated for convenience by the Grantee or
Subgrantee upon written notification to the awarding agency (HUD),
setting forth the reasons for such termination, the effective
date, and in the case of partial termination, the portion to be
terminated.
12. REVERSION OF ASSETS:
Upon expiration of this agreement, or amendments thereto,
the Subgrantee shall transfer to the City any CDBG funds or
program income on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts
receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds.
13. ANNUAL AUDIT AND MONITORING:
The Subgrantee shall provide for an annual independent audit
of all CDBG expenditures covered by the Agreement. Copies of said
audit report shall be furnished to the Grantee's City Manager and
Director of Finance within thirty (30) days of completion of the
audit.
Agreement
Page 4
14. THIP/)-PAI~TY C~CTS:
The Grantee shall not be obligated or liable hereunder to any
party other than the Subgrantee.
15. AMEND~4ENTS.
The Grantee, from time to time, may require changes in the
obligations of the Subgrantee hereunder, or its City Council may
appropriate further funds for the implementation of the Western
Virginia Revolving Loan Fund project. In such event or events,
such changes which are mutually agreed upon by and between the
Subgrantee and Grantee shall be incorporated in written amendment
to this Agreement.
16. GOVERNING LAW:
This Agreement shall be governed by laws of the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement as of the day and year hereinabove written:
ATTEST:
CITY OF ROANOKE
By By
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
SUBGRANTEE
By By
Witness
Stanley R. Hale, President
Southwest Virginia
Community Development Fund
VC: SVCDF.CON
ATTACHMENT A
WVRLF
'Western Vh-ginin Revolving Loan Fund
40~ ~st Street N.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
ATTACHMENT B
U, S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
GRANT AGREEMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR SUBGRANTEES
(CONTRACTS OVER $10,000)
"Section 3" Compliance in the Provision of rraininEm~ent and Business
The work to be performed under this contract is on a project assisted
under a program providing direct Federal financial assistance from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and is subject to the
requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 170 lu. Section 3 requires that to the
greatest extent feasible opportunities for training and employment be
given lower income residents of the project area and contracts for work
in connection with the project be awarded to business concerns which are
located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the area
of the project.
The parties to this contract will comply with the provisions of said
Section 3 and the regulations issued pursuant thereto by the Secretary
of Housing and urban Development set forth in 24 CFR 135, and all appli-
cable rules and orders of the Department issued thereunder prior to the
execution of this contract. The parties to this contract certify and
agree that they are under no contractual or other disability which would
prevent them from complying with these requirements.
The contractor will send to each labor organization or representative of
workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other
contract or understanding, if any, a notice advising the said labor
organization or workers' representative of his commitments under this
Section 3 clause and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous pla-
ces available to employees and applicants for employment or training.
The contractor will include this Section 3 clause in every subcontract
for work in connection with tme project and will, at the direction of
the applicant for or recipient of Federal financial assistance, take
appropriate action pursuant to tme suDcontract upon a finding that the
subcontractor is in violation :f 'egulations issued by the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development 24 ifa aart 135. The contractor will not
subcontract with any subcontractor ,here it has notice or knowledge that
· the latter has been found Tn ,'c')t,on of regulations under 24 CFR Part
135 and will not let any suDcontract unless the subcontractor has first
provided it with a preliminary statement of ability to comply with the
requirements of these regulations.
Compliance with the provisions ~f Section 3, the regulations set forth
in 24 CFR Part 135, and all applicable rules and orders of the
Department issued hereunder prior to the execution of the contract,
shall be a condition of the federal financial assistance provided to the
project, binding upon the applicant or recipient for such assistance,
its successors and assigns. Failure to fulfill these requirements shall
subject the applicant or recipient, its contractors and subcontractors,
it successors and assigns to those sanctions specified by the grant or
loan agreement or contract through which Federal assistance is provided,
and to such sanctions as are specified by 24 CFR Part 135.
[gual Employment Ooportunit~:
as amended: ~uch contra~ts
Opportunity regulations at 24
construction contracts.
Contracts subject to Executive Order 11246)
shall be" subject to HUD Equal Employment
CFR Part 130 applicable to HUD-assisted
The Subgrantee shall cause or require to be inserted in full in any non-
exempt contract and subcontract for construction work, or modification
thereof as defined in said regulations, which is paid for in whole or in
part with assistance provided under this Agreement, the following equal
opportunity clause: "During the performance of this contract, the contrac-
tor agrees as follows:
A. The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant
for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants
are employed and that employees are treated during employment without
regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such
action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment,
upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising;
layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and
section for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor a re
to post in conspicuous places available to em-~ ....... g es
,,v~:e~ ano appmicants for
employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting
forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
8. The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for
employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all
qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without
regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
C. The contractor will send to each labor union or representative of
workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other
contract or understanding, a notice to be provided by the Contract
Compliance Officer advising the said labor union or workers' repre-
sentatives of the contractor's commitment under this section and shall
post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees
and applicants for employment.
The contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246
of September 24, 1965, and of the rules, regulations and relevant orders
of the Secretary of Labor.
The contractor will furnish all information and reports required by
.Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by the rules, regula-
tions and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant the-et,l,
will permit access to his books, records and accounts by the D)pa-tment
and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ]sc~rta~n
compliance with such rules, regulations and orders.
In the. event of the contractor's noncompliance with the non-
discrimination clauses of this contract or with any of such rules, regu-
lations or orders, this contract may be canceled, terminated or
suspended in whole or in part, and the contractor may be declared ineli-
gible for further Government contracts or Federally-assisted construc-
tion contract
procedures authorized in Executive Order 11246 of
September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulation or order of the Secretary of
Labor, or as otherwise provided by law.
The contractor will include the portion of the sentence immediately pre-
ceding paragraph (Al and the provisions of paragraphs (Al through (Gl in
every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules, regula-
tions or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204
of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that such provisions
will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The contractor will
take such action with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as
the Department may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions,
including sanctions for noncompliance; provided, however, that in the
event a contractor becomes involved in or is threatened with litigation
with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the
· DepJrtment, the contractor may request the United States to enter into
such litigation to protect the interest of the United States.,,
The Subgrantee further agrees that it will be bound by the above equal
opportunity clause with respect to its own employment practices when it
participates in Federally-assisted construction work; provided, that if
the Subgrantee so participating is a State or local government, the
above equal opportunity clause is not applicable to any agency, instru-
mentality or subdivision of such government which does not participate
in work on or under the contract. The Subgrantee agrees that it will
assist and cooperate actively with the Department and th
Labor in obtaining the compliance of _. e Secretary of
contractors and subcontractors with
the equal opportunity clause and the rules, regulations and relevant
orders of the Secretary of Labor; that it will furnish the Department
and the Secretary of Labor such compliance; and that it will otherwise
assist the Department in the discharge of its primary responsibility for
securing qompliance.
The Subgrantee further agrees that it will refrain from entering into
any contract or contract modification subject to Executive Order 11246
of September 24, lg65, with a contractor debarred from, or who has not
demonstrated eligibility for, Government contracts and Federally-
assisted construction contracts pursuant to the Executive Order and will
.carry out such sanctions and penalties for violation of the equal oppor-
tunity clause as may be imposed upon contractors and subcontractors by
the Department or the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Part II, Subpart D,
of the Executive Order. In addition, the Subgrantee agrees that if it
fails or refuses to comply with these undertakings, the Department may
take any or all of the following actions: cancel, terminate or suspend
in whole or in part the grant or loan guarantee; refrain from extending
any further assistance to the Subgrantee under the Program with respect
to which the failure or refusal occurred until satisfactory assurance of
future compliance has been received from such Subgrantee; and refer the
cause to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal proceedings.
3. Federal Labor Standards Provisions: Except with respect to the rehabilita.
~ion of residenti'al property designed for residential use for fewer than
light families, the Sub'grantee and all contractors engaged under contracts
in excess of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for the construction, prosecu-
tion, completion or repair of any building or work financed in whole or in
part with assistance provided under this Agreement shall comply with HUD
requirements pertaining to such contracts and the applicable requirements of
the regulations of the Department of Labor under 29 CFR Parts 3 and 5,
governing the payment of wages and the ratio of apprentices and trainees to
Journeymen; provided that if w~ge rates higher than those required under
such regulations are imposed by State or local law, nothing hereunder is
intended to relieve the Subgrantee of its obligation, if any, to require
payment of the higher rates. The Subgrantee shall cause or require to be
inserted in full in any such contracts subject to such regulations, provi-
sions meeting the requirements of 2g CFR 5.5.
No award of the contracts covered under this section of the Agreement shall
be made to any contractor who is at the time ineligible under the provisions
of any applicable regulations of the Department of Labor to receive an award
of such contract.
4. ~.~itle VI of the Civil ~ghts Act
Ri hts Act of ig64: This
of 1964 (P.L. 88-3S2) and HUD regulations with respect thereto, including
the regulations under 24 CFR.Part i. In the sale, Tease or other transfer
of land acquired, cleared or improved with assistance provided under this
Agreement, the Subgrantee shall cause or require a covenant running with the
land to be inserted in the deed or lease for such transfer, prohibiting
discrimination upon the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national ori-
gin, in the sale, lease or rental, or in the use of occupancy of such land
or any improvements erected or to be erected thereon, and providing that the
Subgrantee and the United States are beneficiaries
5. Obli ations of Sub rantee with Res ect to Certain Third- art Relationshi s
Agreement,
notwithstanding its designation of any third party or parties for
the undertaking of all or any part of the program with respect to which
assistance is being provided under this Agreement to the Subgrantee. Any
Subgrantee which is not the Applicant shall comply with all lawful require-
ments of the Applicant necessary to insure that the program, with respect to
which assistance is being provided under this Agreement to the Subgrantee,
is carried out in accordance with the Applicant's Assurances and certifica-
tions, including those with respect to the assumption of environnental
responsibilities of the Applicant under Section 104(h) of the Housinl and
Community Development Act of 1974.
6. Interest of Certain Federal Officials: No member of or delegate to the
Congress of the United States, and no Resident Con~issioner, shall be
admitted to any share or part of this Agreement or to any benefit to arise
from the same.
-4-
~tee Members of Local
oyee
the governing
body of the locality in which the program is situated, and no other public
official of such locality or localities who exercises any functions or
[~ponsibilities with respect to the program during his tenure, or for one
year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any
contract or subcontract, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed
in connection with the program assisted under the Agreement. The Subgrantee
shall incorporate, or cause to be incorporated, in all such contracts or
subcontracts a provision prohibiting such interest pursuant to the purposes
of this section.
Prohibition Against PaJ~ents of Bonus or Commissio,,: The assistance pro-
vided under this Agreement shall not be used in the payment of any bonus or
commission for the purpose of obtaining HUD approval of the application for
such assistance, or HUD approval or applications for additional assistance,
or any other approval or concurrence of HUD required under this Agreement,
Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, or HUD regu-
lations with respect thereto; provided, however, that reasonable fees or
bona fide technical, consultant, managerial or other such services, other
than actual solicitation, are not hereby prohibited if otherwise eligible
as program costs.
ge
"Section log': This Agreement is subject to the requirements of Section
log of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C.
3535(d). No person in the United States shall on the ground of race,
color, religion, sex or national origin be excluded from participation in,
be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds available under
this title.
10. Access to Records and Site ~f. Emploj~eent: This Agreement is subject to the
requirements of Executive uroer 11246, Executive Order 1375, Civil Rights
Act of lg64, as amended. Access shall be permitted during normal business
hours to the premises for the purpose of conducting on-site compliance
reviews and inspecting and copying such books, records, accounts, and other
material as may be relevant to the matter under investigation and pertinent
to compliance with the Order, and the rules and regulations promulgated pur-
suant thereto by the Subgrantee. Information obtained in this manner shall
be used only in connection with the administration of the Order, the admi-
nistration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) and in furtherance
of the purpose of the Order and that Act.
MARY F. PARKER
City Cl~rk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 951
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July l7, 1992
File #236-296
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31099-071392 authorizing you to execute a
grant agreement with the West End Center, Inc., to provide for use of Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, in the amount of $55,000.00, to be used in
connection with acquisition of a building located at 1226 Patterson Avenue, S. W.,
as more particulariy set forth in a report of the City Manager under date of July 13,
1992. Resolution No. 31099-071392 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Eno.
pc:
Ms. Sallie B. Garst, President, West End Center, Inc., Board of Directors,
P. O. Box 4562, Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Development
Ms. Donna S. Norvelle, Human Resources Coordinator
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
lhe 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31099-071392.
A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to execute a grant
agreement with West End Center, Inc., to provide funding for the
acquisition of a building located at 1226 Patterson Avenue, S.W.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as
follows:
1. That the City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and
the City Clerk are hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the
City, to execute and attest, respectively, a grant agreement with
West End Center, Inc., which agreement shall provide for the use of
CDBG funds in the amount of $55,000.00 to be used in the
acquisition of a building located at 1226 Patterson Avenue, S.W.,
in accordance with the recommendations contained in the City
Manager's report to this Council dated July 13, 1992.
2. The form of the grant agreement shall be approved by the
City Attorney.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
July 13, 1992
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Grant Agreement with the West End Center
I__~. Background:
City Council authorized funding for the West End Center as
part of the 1992-93 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
application; approved by Council on May 11, 1992 by
Resolution No. 30508-051192.
City Council aDDroDriated Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds on June 22, 1992 by Ordinance No. 31067-062292,
including $55,000 in grant funds for the West End Center.
The West End Center project involves the acquisition and
renovation of a larger building so that this organization
can expand its services to the youth of the Hurt Park and
Mountain View neighborhoods.
This activity is designed to address social, recreational
and educational needs of approximately 150 low to moderate
income youth.
CDBG funds, in the amount of $55,000 will be used in the
acquisition of the new facility. These funds will be
provided in the form of a grant.
II. Current Situation:
West End Center must raise approximately $60,000 in funds to
cover the cost of renovating the building and for the
balance of acquisition costs.
B. Board of Directors has secured a commitment from a local
financial institution for the $60,000 balance needed to
complete the project. (See Attachment II)
West End Center
page 2
III.
A. Benefit
B. Fundin~
C. Timin~
D.
to the City
Compliance with Federal regulations
IV. Alternatives:
ae
Authorize the City Manager to execute the attached
A~reement with the West End Center, providing a $55,000
grant of CDBG funds for acquisition of a new facility.
Benefit to the City will be provision of expanded
social, educational and recreational activities and
programs for low to moderate income youth in the Hurt
Park and Mountain View neighborhoods.
Fundin~ in the amount of $55,000 in grant funds is
available in CDBG Account Nos. 035-090-9037-5160 and
035-092-9237-5160.
e
Timin~ is important to ensure timely acquisition and
completion of the renovation of the new facility.
Compliance with Federal regulations would be achieved
as long as the West End Center continues its mission,
thus providing a public service which benefits low to
moderate income youth.
Do not authorize the City Manager to execute the attached
A~reement with the West End Center for the activity
outlined above.
Benefit to the City would be nothing; and efforts to
address the needs of low to moderate income youth will
be impeded.
2. Fundin~ would not be an issue.
3. Timin~ would not be an issue.
4. Compliance with Federal regulations would not be an
issue.
West End Center
page 3
Recum~endation:
It is recommended that City Council concur in Alternative A and
authorize the City Manager to execute the attached Agreement
with the West End Center, providing a $55~000 grant of CDBG
funds for acquisition of a new facility.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
attachments
WRH:VLP/MTP
co:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Human Development
Grants Monitoring Administrator
Human Resources Coordinator
Executive Director, West End Center
VC: WESTEND.CTR
ATTACHMENT I
AG~NT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of
· 1992, by and between the following parties:
The Grantee -
and the Subgrantee -
City of Roanoke, Virginia
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
West End Center, Inc.
P.O. Box 4562
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
WI TNES SETH:
WHEREAS, the West End Center, Inc. located at 613 Twelfth
Street S.W. provides needed services to low and moderate income
youth in the Hurt Park and Mountain View neighborhood of the City
of Roanoke;
WHEREAS, the West End Center, Inc. has outgrown its present
facilities and desires to relocate to a larger building in the
same neighborhood;
WHEREAS, the Roanoke City Council has authorized as a part of
the City's Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") program the
grant of funds to the West End Center, Inc. toward purchase of a
building at 1226 Patterson Avenue, SW, and Council has, by
Ordinance No. , adopted July 13, 1992, authorized the
execution of this grant agreement; and
WHEREAS, the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development ("HUD") has declared the use of CDBG funds for this
purpose to be an eligible activity if carried out in accordance
with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantee and Subgrantee do mutually agree
to:
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES:
The Grantee shall provide to the Subgrantee a grant in
the amount of $55,000 in Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds for the purpose of purchasing the property
located at 1226 Patterson Avenue, SW. This property is to be
renovated with funds raised by the Subgrantee, and used to
provide activities for the youth of the Hurt Park and
ATTACHMENT I
West End Agreement
page 2
e
Mountain View neighborhoods.
TIME OF PERFORMANCE:
Drawdown of funds under this Agreement may be made
during the period of July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993.
Obligation of the Subgrantee to use the property at 1226
Patterson Avenue SW to benefit low and moderate income
persons shall continue until June 30, 1998.
The total budget for this project will be $100,000.
Funding sources for this project are as follows:
City of Roanoke FY 1992-93 CDBG Grant
West End Center match
$ 55,000
$ 45,000
$100,000
PROPOSED PAYMENT Sc-K,~ULE AND PROCEDURES:
Request for payment will be submitted to the assigned City
Project Manager, accompanied by an attorney's settlement
statement indicating acquisition price for the building at
1226 Patterson Avenue S.W. Payment will be made to the
Subgrantee, based on the settlement statement within five
(5) working days from date of receipt, if all compliance
issues are met.
INDEmnIFICATION:
The Subgrantee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its officers, agents and employees, from any and all
claims, legal actions and judgments advanced against the City
and for expenses the City may incur in this regard, arising
out of the Subgrantee's intentional acts and negligent acts
or omissions with respect to the rights and privileges
granted by the City to the Subgrantee in this Agreement.
COMPLIANCE WITH ~u~.L REGULATIONS:
The Subgrantee agrees to abide by the HUD conditions for
CDBG programs as set forth in Attachment A and all other
applicable federal regulations relating to specific programs
performed hereunder.
UNIFOP~ ADMINISTRATIVE REQUI~-TS:
The Subgrantee shall comply with the requirements and
standards of OMB Circular No. A-122, "Cost Principles for Non
Profit Organizations" and with the following Attachments to
OMB Circular No. A-il0, if applicable: Attachment A, "Cash
Depositories"; Attachment B, "Bonding and Insurance";
ATTACHMENT I
West End Agreement
page 3
Attachment C, "Retention and Custodial Requirements for
Records"; Attachment F, "Standards for Financial Management
Systems"; Attachment H, "Monitoring and Reporting Program
Performance," paragraph 2; Attachment N, "Property Management
Standards"; and Attachment O, "Procurement".
PROGRAM INC(]~E :
"Program income" means gross income received by the
Grantee or Subgrantee directly generated from the use of CDBG
funds. Program income, if any, from sale of this property or
other sources, shall be submitted to the City within five (5)
days of its receipt by the Subgrantee. Program income does
not include proceeds from fundraising activities carried out
by the subgrantee.
RECORDS AND REPORTS:
The Subgrantee shall maintain full and accurate records
with respect to all matters covered under this Agreement.
All records pertaining to this Agreement and the services
performed pursuant to it, shall be retained for a period of
three (3) years after the expiration date of this Agreement
or its amendments. Appropriate City and/or HUD personnel
shall have free access to those records during the Agreement
duration and the following three-year time period.
The Subgrantee shall submit quarterly reports to the
Grantee's Office of Grants Compliance. Such reports shall
consist of a narrative of accomplishments to date and a
direct beneficiary report.
10. CONFLICT OF INT~.KEST:
No employee, agent, consultant, officer or appointed
official of the Subgrantee, who is in a position to
participate in a decision-making process or gain inside
information with regard to any CDBG activity, may obtain a
personal or financial interest in any contract, subcontract
or agreement with respect thereto, or in the proceeds
thereunder, either for themselves, their family or business
associates, during their tenure or for one (1) year
thereafter.
11. SUSPENSION AND '£F_a~4INATION:
Suspension or termination may occur if the Subgrantee
materially fails to comply with any term of this award, and
the award may be terminated for convenience by the Grantee or
Subgrantee upon written notification to the awarding agency
(HUD), setting forth the reasons for such termination, the
effective date, and in the case of partial termination, the
portion to be terminated.
ATTACHMENT I
West End Agreement
page 4
12. P~E~a~SION OF ASSETS:
Upon expiration of this agreement, or amendments
thereto, the Subgrantee shall transfer to the city any CDBG
funds or program income on hand at the time of expiration and
any accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG
funds.
A condition of this Agreement, and an obligation of the
Subgrantee, shall be to ensure that the subject property
referenced in paragraph No. 1 shall be used to benefit iow to
moderate income persons as defined by HUD income schedule
dated April 16, 1992 for a period of five (5) years after
completion of this contract as referenced in paragraph No. 2.
or June 30, 1998 whichever is longer. If the property
changes ownership during that time, the benefit to iow and
moderate income persons must be required and specified by
deed restrictions. If the property is sold prior to June 30,
1998, and is not used to benefit iow and moderate income
persons, a pro rata share of the current fair market value of
the property must be returned to the Grantee as prescribed in
24 CFR 570.503(b)(8)(ii).
13. ANNUAL AUDIT AND MONITORING:
The Subgrantee shall provide for an independent audit,
in compliance with OMB Circular A-128, which will include all
CDBG expenditures covered by the Agreement. One copy of said
audit report shall be furnished to the Grantee's Grants
Monitoring Administrator within thirty (30) days of
completion of the audit.
14. THIRD-PARTY COR'£~ACTS:
The Grantee shall not be obligated or liable hereunder
to any party other than the Subgrantee.
15. AMENDMENTS:
The Grantee, from time to time, may require changes in
the obligations of the Subgrantee hereunder, or its City
Council may appropriate further funds for the West End Center
project. In such event or events, such changes which are
mutually agreed upon by and between the Subgrantee and
grantee shall be incorporated in written amendment to this
Agreement.
16. GOVERNING LAW:
This Agreement shall be governed by laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
ATTACHMENT I
West End Agreement
page 5
Agreement as of the day and year hereinabove written:
ATTEST:
CITY OF ROANOKE
By By
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
W. Robert Herbert,
City Manager
SUBGRANTEE
By
Witness
By
Sallie B. Garst, President
Board of Directors
West End Center, Inc
VC:WESTEND.AGR
ATTACHMENT A
page 1
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
"Section 3" Compliance in the Provision of Training~ Employment and Business
Opportunities:
The work to be performed under this contract is on a project assisted
under a program providing direct Federal financial assistance from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development and is subject to the
requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 170. Section 3 requires that to the
greatest extent feasible opportunities for training and employment be
given lower income residents of the project area and contracts for work
in connection with the project be awarded to business concerns which
are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the
area of the project.
The parties to this contract will comply with the provisions of said
Section 3 and the regulations issued pursuant thereto by the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development set forth in 24 CFR 135, and all
applicable rules and orders of the Department issued thereunder prior
to the execution of this contract. The parties to this contract
certify and agree that they are under no contractual or other
disability which would prevent them from complying with these
requirements.
The contractor will send to each labor organization or representative
of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other
contract or understanding, if any, a notice advising the said labor
organization or workers' representative of his commitments under this
Section 3 clause and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous
places available to employees and applicants for employment or
training.
The contractor will include this Section 3 clause in every subcontract
for work in connection with the project and will, at the direction of
the applicant for or recipient of Federal financial assistance, take
appropriate action pursuant to the subcontract upon a finding that the
subcontractor is in violation of regulations issued by the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development 24 CFR Part 135. The contractor will not
subcontract with any subcontractor where it has notice or knowledge
that the latter has been found in violation of regulations under 24 CFR
part 135 and will not let any subcontract unless the subcontractor has
first provided it with a preliminary statement of ability to comply
with the requirements of these regulations.
Compliance with the provisions of Section 3, the regulations set forth
in 24 CFR Part 135, and all applicable rules and orders of the
Department issued hereunder prior to the execution of the contract,
shall be a condition of the federal financial assistance provided to
the project, binding upon the applicant or recipient for such
ATTACHMENT A
page 2
assistance, its successor and assigns. Failure to fulfill these
requirements shall subject the applicant or recipient, its contractors
and subcontractors, its successors and assigns to those sanctions
specified by the grant or loan agreement or contract through which
Federal assistance is provided, and to such sanctions as are specified
by 24 CFR Part 135.
Equal Employment Opportunity: Contracts subject to Executive Order 11246, as
amended: Such contracts shall be subject to HUD Equal Employment
Opportunity regulations at 24 CFR Part 130 applicable to HUD-assisted
construction contracts.
The Contractor shall cause or require to be inserted in full in any non-
exempt contract and subcontract for construction work, or modification
thereof as defined in said regulations, which is paid for in whole or in
part with assistance provided under this Agreement, the following equal
opportunity clause: "During the performance of this contract, the
contractor agrees as follows:
The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant
for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national
origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that
applicants are employed and that employees are treated during
employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or
national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the
following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or
recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other
forms of compensation; and selection for training, including
apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places
available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be
provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of
this nondiscrimination clause.
Bo
The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for
employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all
qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without
regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
The contractor will send to each labor union or representative of
workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other
contract or understanding, a notice to be provided by the Contract
Compliance Officer advising the said labor union or workers'
representatives of the contractor's commitment under this section and
shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to
employees and applicants for employment.
Do
The contractor wilt comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246
of September 24, 1965, and of the rules, regulations and relevant
orders of the Secretary of Labor.
The contractor will furnish all information and reports required by
Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and by the rules,
regulations and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto,
and will permit access to his books, records and accounts by the
ATTACHMENT A
page 3
Department and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to
ascertain compliance with such rules, regulations and orders.
In the event of the contractor's noncompliance with the
nondiscrimination clauses of this contract or with any of such rules,
regulations or orders, this contract may be canceled, terminated or
suspended in whole or in part, and the contractor may be declared
ineligible for further Government contracts or Federally-assisted
construction contract procedures authorized in Executive Order 11246 of
September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulation or order of the Secretary of
Labor, or as otherwise provided by law.
The contractor will include the portion of the sentence immediately
preceding paragraph {A) and the provisions of paragraphs {A} through
(G) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by rules,
regulations or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to
Section 204 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, so that
such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The
contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or
purchase order as the Department may direct as a means of enforcing
such provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance; provided,
however, that in the event a contractor becomes involved in or is
threatened with litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result
of such direction by the Department, the contractor may request the
United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interest of
the United States."
The Contractor further agrees that it will be bound by the above equal
opportunity clause with respect to its own employment practices when it
participates in Federally-assisted construction work; provided, that if the
Contractor so participating is a State or local government, the above equal
opportunity clause is not applicable to any agency, instrumentality or
subdivision of such government which does not participate in work on or
under the contract. The Contractor agrees that it will assist and cooperate
actively with the Department and the Secretary of Labor in obtaining the
compliance of contractors and subcontractors with the equal opportunity
clause and the rules, regulations and relevant orders of the Secretary of
Labor; that it will furnish the Department and the Secretary of Labor such
compliance; and that it will otherwise assist the Department in the
discharge of its primary responsibility for securing compliance.
The Contractor further agrees that it will refrain from entering into any
contract or contract modification subject to Executive Order 11246 of
September 24, 1965, with a contractor debarred from, or who has not
demonstrated eligibility for Government contracts and Federally-assisted
construction contracts pursuant to the Executive Order and will carry out
such sanctions and penalties for violation of the equal opportunity clause
as may be imposed upon contractors and subcontractors by the Department or
the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Part II, Subpart D, of the Executive
Order. In addition, the Contractor agrees that if it fails or refuses to
comply with these undertakings, the Department may take any or all of the
following actions: cancel, terminate or suspend in whole or in part the
grant or loan guarantee; refrain from extending any further assistance to
the Contractor under the Program with respect to which the failure or
ATTACHMENT A
page 4
refusal occurred until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been
received from such Contractor; and refer the cause to the Department of
Justice for appropriate legal proceedings.
Nondiscrimination Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This
Agreement is subject to the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of t964 {P.L. 88-352) and HUD regulations with respect thereto, including
the regulations under 24 CFR Part 1. In the sale, lease or other transfer
of land acquired, cleared or improved with assistance provided under this
Agreement, the Contractor shall cause or require a covenant running with the
land to be inserted in the deed or lease for such transfer, prohibiting
discrimination upon the basis or race, color, religion, sex or national
origin, in the sale, lease or rental, or in the use of occupancy of such
land or any improvements erected or to be erected thereon, and providing
that the Contractor and the United States are beneficiaries of and entitled
to enforce such covenant. The Contractor, in undertaking its obligation in
carrying out the program assisted hereunder, agrees to take such measures as
are necessary to enforce such covenant and will not itself so discriminate.
Obligations of Contractor with Respect to Certain Third-party Relationships:
The Contractor shall remain fully obligated under the provisions of the
Agreement, notwithstanding its designation of any third party or parties for
the undertaking of all or any part of the program with respect to which
assistance is being provided under this Agreement to the Contractor. Any
Contractor which is not the Applicant shall comply with all lawful
requirements of the Applicant necessary to insure that the program, with
respect to which assistance is being provided under this Agreement to the
Contractor is carried out in accordance with the Applicant's Assurances and
certifications, including those with respect to the assumption of
environmental responsibilities of the Applicant under Section 104(h) of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Interest of Certain Federal Officials: No member of or delegate to the
Congress of the United States, and no Resident Commissioner, shall be
admitted to any share or part of this Agreement or to any benefit to arise
from the same.
Interest of l~ers. Officers or Employees of Contractor. Members of Local
Government Body. or Other Public Officials: No member, officer or employee
of the Contractor, or its designees or agents, no member of the governing
body of the locality in which the program is situated, and no other public
official of such locality or localities who exercises any functions or
responsibilities with respect to the program during his tenure, or for one
{1) year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any
contract or subcontract, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed
in connection with the program assisted under the Agreement. The Contractor
shall incorporate, or cause to be incorporated, in all such contracts or
subcontracts a provision prohibiting such interest pursuant to the purposes
of this section.
Prohibition Against Payments of Bonus or Coam. ission: The assistance provided
under this Agreement shall not be used in the payment of any bonus or
commission for the purpose of obtaining HUD approval of the application for
such assistance, or HUD approval or applications for additional assistance,
ATTACHMENT A
page §
10.
11.
or any other approval or concurrence of HUD required under this Agreement,
Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, or HUD
regulations with respect thereto; provided, however, that reasonable fees or
bona fide technical, consultant, managerial or other such services, other
than actual solicitation, are not hereby prohibited if otherwise eligible as
program costs.
"Section 109": This Agreement is subject to the requirements of Section 109
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 3535{d). No
person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color, religion,
sex or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity
funded in whole or in part with funds available under this title.
Access to Records and Site of ~plo~ment: This Agreement is subject to the
requirements of Executive Order 11246, Executive Order 1375, Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended. Access shall be permitted during normal business
hours to the premises for the purpose of conducting on-site compliance
reviews and inspecting and copying such books, records, accounts, and other
material as may be relevant to the matter under investigation and pertinent
to compliance with the Order, and the rules and regulations promulgated
pursuant thereto by the Contractor. Information obtained in this manner
shall be used only in connection with the administration of the Order, the
administration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) and in
furtherance of the purpose of the Order and that Act.
Records: All records pertaining to this Agreement and the services
performed pursuant to it, shall be retained for a period of three {3) years
after the expiration date of the Agreement. Appropriate City and/or HUD
personnel shall have free access to those records during the Agreement
duration and the following three-year time period.
Termination for Convenience or for Cause: This Agreement may be terminated
by either the City or the Contractor in the event of a substantial failure
to perform by either party. In the event of such termination, the
Contractor shall be entitled to collect all sums for services performed as
of the date of termination. This Agreement may be terminated for
convenience in whole or in part by the City with the consent of the
Contractor, in which case the two parties shall agree upon the termination
conditions, including the effective date and in the case of partial
termination, the portion to be terminated.
12.
Legal Re~ies for Contract Violation: If the Contractor materially fails
to comply with any term of this Agreement, whether stated in a Federal
statute or regulation, an assurance, in a State plan or application, a
notice of award, or elsewhere, the City may take one or more of the
following action, as appropriate in the circumstances:
1} Temporarily withhold cash payments pending correction of the deficiency
by the Contractor,
2} Disallow all or part of the cost of the activity or action not in
compliance,
3) Wholly or partly suspend or terminate the current Agreement, or
4) Take other remedies that may be legally available.
E:ATTACHMT.PRO 10/1/91
JUL-O~-'9~ TWU 1~:~ ID:GARST ASSOCIATES
FRX N0:703-~42-4456
ATTACHMENT I I
~1~4 P~2
DOMI ON
June 29, 1992
Mrs. Sallie Garst, President
West End Center, Inc.
1401 Second Street
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dear Mrs. Garst:
Dominion Bank, National Association ("Bank") is pleased to confirm that
it will make funds available to the West End Center, Inc. ("Borrower")
substantially in accordance wt'~h the terms and conditions stated below:
Amount: $60,000.00
Oaaraagor..
Ms. Lillian S. Brown
Purchase and renovations of the facility located
at 1226 Patterson Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia.
Rote:
Terms**
7.50% fixed.
Interest only, payable on a monthly basis; entire
principal due on .luly 1, 1993. There is no
prepayment penalty.
Security:
First lien deed of trust on real property and
improvements located at 1226 Patterson Avenue,
Roanoke, Virginia.
Title
hmurance:
A standard ALTA mortgagee policy on the property
located at 1226 Patterson Avenues Roanoke,
Virginia, satisfactory to the Banks shall be obtained
by the Borrower and submitted to the Bank five
days prior to closing of this loan.
JUL-02-'92 THU 12:~4 ID:GARST ASSOCIATES FAX N0:70~-~4~-4456 ~1~4 PO~
Mrs. Sallie Garst, President
West End Center, Inc.
June 29, 1992
Page 2.
Hazard
The Bank will need evidence of fire and other
hazard insurance, including comprehensive
coverage. Coverage contained within the policy
will be subject to the Bank's review and approval.
The original policy, with a mortgagee clause
in favor of the Bank, with a provision for thirty
(30) days written notice prior to expiration or
cancellation, shall be forwarded to the Bank,
prior to the closing of the loan. The amount
of insurance shall be no less than the face amount
of the loan.
Information:
The Bank will need financial information
periodically in support of any outstanding loan
balance. This would include complete copies
of annual financial reports on West End Center,
Inc., and personal financial statements on the
guarantor, as may be required from time to time
by the Bank.
O~her:
The terms and conditions of this commitment
shall survive closing of the loan, which is to
occur no later than August 15, 1992. All co, ts
associated with the closing of this loan will be
the responsibility of the Borrower.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to present this loan proposal
and hope that the terms and conditions meet with your approval. If this
commitment is acceptable, please indicate your acceptance by signing
and returning this original letter, in the postage-paid envelope provided,
no later than Wedneaday, July 15, 1992.
Sincerely,
Business Banking Officer
SBD/Iw
ACKNOWLBDGBMBNT & ACCBPTANCB:
Wes~ Bnd ~.nCer, Inc.
By: , President
Sallie B. Garst Date
West End Center Inc.
Insurance Proposal
for
Patterson Ave. & 13th Street
Roanoke, VA
1. Property Section
A. Building:
B. Contents of Building:
C. Deductible:
$100,000 Limit
$10,000 Limit
$500 Building
$250 Contents
Coverage is automatically included for:
Attached signs, awnings and canopies (included under
building definition);
Business Income C6verage, $10,000 limit;
Extra Expenses resulting from a covered loss,
limit.
11. General Liability Section
A. Each Occurrence limit:
B. Personal & Advertising Injury:
C. General Aggregate limit:
D. Products & Completed Operations Aggregate:
$10,000
$500,000
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Total Annual Premium:
$601
HAYNIE AND A$$OGIATE$ INSUP. ANCE INC.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
July 17, 1992
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
File #236-304
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31101-071392 authorizing acceptance of
Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act Grant No. 92-I-21 made to the
City of Roanoke by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Youth and Family
Services; and authorizing acceptance, execution and filing of the "Special Conditions
for Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act Grant Awards" with the
Department of Youth and Family Services for said grant. Resolution No. 31101-
071392 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Eno.
pc:
Mr. Charles J. Kehoe, Director, Commonwealth of Virginia Department of
Youth and Family Services, P. O. Box 3-AG, Richmond, Virginia 23208-1108
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Development
Ms. Marion V. Crenshaw, Youth Planner
Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Mr. John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31101-071392.
A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a Delinquency Prevention
and Youth Development Act Grant made to the City of Roanoke by the
Co~u~onwealth of Virginia Department of Youth and Family Services, and
authorizing the acceptance, execution and filing of the "Special
Conditions for Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act Grant
Awards" with the Department of Youth and Family Services for this grant.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City of Roanoke hereby accepts the offer made by the
Virginia Department of Youth and Family Services of a Youth Development
Act Grant (Grant No. 92-I-21) for the purpose of continuing coordinated
planning and youth services program implementation by the City's Office
on Youth until June 30, 1993, in an amount and subject to such terms as
are described in the report to Council from the City Manager dated July
13, 1992.
2. The City Manager, W. Robert Herbert, or the Assistant City
Manager, is hereby authorized to accept, execute and file on behalf of
the City of Roanoke the "Special Conditions for Delinquency Prevention
and Youth Development Act Grant Awards" with the Department of Youth and
Family Services, and to furnish such additional information as may be
required by the Department
aforementioned grant.
of Youth and Family Services, for the
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Vir ~inia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #60-236-304
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31100-071392 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93 General and Grant Funds Appropriations, providing for
appropriation of $48,473.00 and transfer of $11,800.00, in connection with execution
of appropriate documents accepting a State grant award from the Department of
Youth and Family Services to provide for continuation of coordinated planning and
program implementation of the Office .on Youth. Ordinance No. 31100-071392 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
pc:
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Development
Ms. Marion V. Crenshaw, Youth Planner
Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Mr. John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31100-071392.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1992-93 General and Grant 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 1992-93 General and Grant
Funds Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained to read as follows, in part:
General Fund
Annronriations
Nondepartmental
Contingency - General Fund (1) ...................
Transfers to Other Funds (2) .....................
Community Development
Community Planning (3) ...........................
Grant Fund
ADnronriations
Health and Welfare
Youth Services Grant - FY93
Revenue
Health and Welfare
Youth Services Grant - FY93
(4-15) ...............
(16-17) ..............
$ 11,602,259
540,979
11,108,780
830,567
377,035
$ 971,215
48,473
$ 971,215
48,473
1} Contingency
2) Transfer to
Grant Fund
3) Transfer to
Grant Fund
4) Regular
Employee
Salaries
5) Salary
Supplement
6) ICMA
?)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13}
14)
15)
16)
17)
(001-002-9410-2199}
(001-004-9310-9535)
(001-052-8110-9536}
(035-052-8830-1002)
(035-052-8830-1050)
Retirement (035-052-8830-1115)
FICA (035-052-8830-1120)
Hospitalization
(035-052-8830-1125)
(035-052-8830-1126)
(035-052-8830-1130)
(035-052-8830-2044)
{035-052-8830-2020)
(035-052-8830-2030)
Insurance
Dental
Insurance
Life Insurance
Training and
Development
Telephone
Administrative
Supplies
Special
Projects-
Youth
Services
Management
Services
State Grant
Revenue
Local Match
$( 1,800)
11,800
( 10,000)
34,494
9OO
3,160
2,444
1,728
96
258
776
1,500
750
(035-052-8830-2034) 1,310
(035-052-8830-7015) 1,057
(035-035-1234-7116) 36,673
(035-035-1234-7117) 11,800
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing,
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
this
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
' .-- Ju'lY 13, 1992
The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Continuation of Office on Youth Grant
I. Backqround:
Grant first officially awarded to City under Virginia
Delinquency Prevention and Youth Act on June 17, 1980.
FY 92-93 youth grant application was submitted to the
Department of Youth and Family Services on May 15, 1992.
Grant will provide for continuation of coordinated
planning and program implementation of the Office on
Youth.
D. FY 92-93 grant budget is as follows:
Budget
Category
Personnel
Training and
Development
Supplies/
Oper. Exp.
TOTAL
State Local Cash
Funds Match In-Kind Total
34,589.68 7,589.85 -0- 42,179.53
1,175.82 500.00 -0- 1,675.82
907.41 3~710.00 3,750.00 8~367.41
36,672.91 11,799.85 3,750.00 52,222.76
Local cash match was included in the FY 92-93 Community
Planning budget ($10,000) with any additional funding
necessary to be identified at the time of Council
approval of the grant. $1,800.00 in additional local
match is needed.
In-kind match of $3~750 is available through the use of
office space rental in the Community Planning office.
Local match, cash/in-kind must equal a minimum of 25% of
the total budget request.
Members of Council
Page 2
July 14, 1992
II. Current Situation:
Council acceptance of the state grant award and appropriation
of the local cash match are required before the appropriate
City officials can execute the required documents to receive
the state funds.
III. Issues:
A. Cost.
B. Continuity.
C. Staff.
IV. Alternatives:
Authorize the City Manaqer or his designee to execute the
appropriate document to accept the state grant.
Cost (local) of Office on Youth in FY 92-93 is
$15~549.85 of which $10,000 has been appropriated
in the FY 92-93 budget. Additional cash match of
$1,800 is available in the Contingency Reserve
Account. In-kind match of $3,750 is through the
use of office space in the Office of Community
Planning.
2. Continuity of program would be maintained.
Staff, consisting of Youth Services Planner, will
continue under the direction of the Director of
Human Development.
B. Do not authorize the City Manager to accept the state
grant.
1. Cost would not be an issue at this time.
2. Continuity would be questionable.
Staff consists of Youth Services Planner and
services would be contingent upon the availability
of another funding source.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council adopt Alternative A which
will authorize the following:
Members of Council
Page 3
July 14, 1992
Acceptance of the Department of Youth Services Grant
through the execution of the proper form by the City
Manager or his designee.
Appropriate $48~473 to accounts to be established in the
Grant Fund by the Director of Finance for the program
($36,673 will be funded by the Department of Youth and
Family Services). In-kind match does not require an
appropriation.
Transfer of $11,800 from account no. 001 052 8110 9536 in
the Community Planning budget ($10,000) and Contingency
Reserve Account ($1,800) to the Grant Fund as part of the
City's cash match to operate the program for FY 92-93 to
the grant fund.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:mpf
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Human Development
Chief of Community Planning
Youth Planner
Charles I. Kehoe
DIRECTOR
June 10, 1992
COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA
z~o Centre, 4th Floor
7th and Franklin Streets
Department of Youth & Family Services e. o. gox 3 ^o
Richmond, Virginia 232~I~110~
(8O4) 37~-0700
ice/TDD (804) 3714)772
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke City
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, VA 24011
JUN 1992
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE ON YOUTH
RE: The Virginia Delinquency Prevention and Youth
Development Act Grant Number: 92-I-21
Dear Mr. Herbert:
The above-named Virginia Delinquency Prevention and Youth
Development Act grant application has been approved in the amount
of $ 36,672.91 Act funds, $ 15,549.85 local match, $ 52,222.76
total program.
Attached you will find a Statement of Grant Award and a copy of a
form entitled SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT ACT GRANT AWARDS. The original of this form
should be signed and returned to Mr. John E. Moore, Deputy
Director for Programs, Department of Youth and Family Services.
This signed form is our official notice that you accept the award
and the conditions of award.
Before any funds are disbursed to the grantee under this award,
the grantee must agree to comply with all conditions attached to
this award as found in the SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR DELINQUENCY
PREVENTION AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT ACT GRANT AWARDS.
Thank you for your cooperation and interest in this matter.
Sincerely
Director
Attachment
CC:
John E. Moore
Glenn D. Radcliffe
Marion V. Crenshaw
Charlotte R. Sheppard
William Leaman
Reduce Juvenile Delinquency and Protect the People of the Commonwealth'
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES
P. O. BOX 3-AG, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23208-1108
S T~ T E M E N T OF GRANT AWARD
VIRGINIA DELINQUENCY PREVENTION
AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT ACT
PURSUANT' TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION GRANT NUMBER;
AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT ACT, SECTIONS 66-26 THROUGH 66-35 92-I-21
OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES HAS APPROVED THE GRANT AS INDICATED: DATE APPROVED;
June 10, 1992
TITLE OF PROJECT: Roanoke Youth Services Citizen Board/Office on Youth
GRANTEE: City of Roanoke, VA
OFFICE ON YOUTH DIRECTOR:
GP~%NT PERIOD:
TOTAL LENGTH: 12 Months
FROM: July 1, 1992
THROUGH: June 30, 1993
PAYMENT PROCEDURE:
Quarterly $9,168.91
next 3, $9,168 each
BUDGET
CATEGORY
PERSONNEL
CONSULTANT
TRAVEL
EQUIPMENT
OTHER EXPENS~
Mrs. Marion Crenshaw, Youth Planner
Roanoke Youth Services
Citizens Board
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Room 355, Municipal Building
Roanoke, VA 24011
(703) 981-2349
DETAIL
-DY&FS-
STATE FUNDS
FINANCE OFFICER:
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24011
(703) 981-2821
BUDGET AWARD
-GP~a_NTEE-
LOCAL MATCH
CASH IN-KIND
-TOTAL-
TOTAL AWD/MAT(~ $36,672.91 $ 11,799.85 $ 3,750.00 $52.222.76
THIS GRANT IS SUBJECT TO THE MINIMUM STANDARDS AMD THE RULES AND REGU-
LATIONS FOR THE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT ACT.
THIS GRANT IS SUBJECT TO AND CONDITIONED UPON ACCEPTANCE OF SPECIAL
CONDITIONS ATTACHED HERETO.
DATE: June 10, 1992
Charles I. Rehoe
DIRECTOR
COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA
Department of Youth & Family Services
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
FOR
700 Centre, 4th Floor
7th and Franklin Streets
P. O. Box 3 AG
Richmond, VirBinia 23208-1108
(804) 371-0700
Fax (804) 371-0773
Voice/TDD (804) 371-0772
DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT ACT
GRANT AWAP/)S
SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR GRANT AWARD $ 92-I-21
THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES, THROUGH THE
DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE
DEPARTMENT, DOES HEREBY AWARD TO CITY OF ROANOKE, VA. HEREINAFTER
REFERRED TO AS THE GRANTEE, FROM THE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND YOUTH
DEVELOPMENT ACT APPROPRIATION AN AMOUNT OF $ 36,672.91.
THE GRANTEE HEREBY AGREES TO PROVIDE AN AMOUNT OF $ 15,549.85 AS THE
MATCHING SHARE REQUIRED BY THE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND YOUTH
DEVELOPMENT ACT, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT.
THE TOTAL PROGRAM AWARD THEREBY BEING THE SUM OF $ 52,222.76.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE ATTACHED TO AND MADE A PART OF THIS GRANT
AWARD:
The Grantee will comply with the terms of the Grantee's
application, its attachments and amendments thereto, and will not
deviate therefrom without the prior approval of the Department.
The Act funds awarded are subject to adjustment prior to the
disbursement of funds by the Department; in no event shall the
amount disbursed exceed the Act funds awarded.
The Grantee will comply with the provisions of the Act and the
rules and regulations prescribed by the Commonwealth of Virginia,
under the Act.
The Grantee shall establish and maintain fiscal controls and
accounting procedure which shall assure that the total program
funds (Act and matching share) are.
a. properly expended
b. adequately controlled
c. adequately accounted for
d. separately identified
The Grantee shall establish and maintain accounting procedures
which provide for an accurate and timely recording:
a. total of grant funds (Act and matching share)
'To Reduce Juvenile Delinquency and Protect the People of the Commonwealth'
Se
The
a.
b.
Page 2 of 4
of expenditures from such funds
of unexpended balances
Grantee shall establish controls which ensure:
that expenditures charged to grant activities are for
allowable purposes.
that documentation is readily available to verify that
such charges are accurate.
c. that time and attendance records of personnel engaged in
this program are maintained.
d. that equipment purchased with grant funds shall be registered
on inventory cards and properly labeled in a manner which will
identify such equipment as being purchased with funds from this
grant.
Where the allowability of an expenditure cannot be determined
because records or documentation are inadequate, the questionable
cost will be disallowed. The Grantee shall reimburse the State for
the amount of any disallowed items.
The Grantee shall make all records and accounts documenting the
disbursement, utilization, administration and management of total
program (Act and matching share) funds approved in this grant
accessible to all authorized State personnel and such persons as
may be designated by the Department.
The Grantee shall submit to the Department, on forms prescribed,
accurate, timely and complete financial and narrative reports; the
Grantee shall submit such other reports as may be reasonably
required by the Department. The responsibility for complying with
reporting requirements shall not be transferred by the Grantee to
any other party.
No Act funds shall be expended for:
a. any expenses other than those necessarily incurred in the
performance of this grant program;
b. the purchase of real property;
c. new construction;
d. costs incurred before the effective date of the grant, unless
inctt~X~with the prior authorization of the Department;
e. the ~nt of any salary or compensation to a federal
employee;
f. payment of any consultant fee, or honorarium, to any officer of
employee of the Department or of any State, municipality or
local agency for services normally paid for by such employee's
regular salary, wage and overtime compensation. This does not
preclude payment of overtime compensation to such officers and
employees consistent with the established personnel policies of
the employing agency; and
g. the payment of portions of any salaries in excess of the
proportion of actual time spent in carrying out the grant
program.
10.
Page 3 of 4
Any news releases, statement or publicity concerning this grant in which
there is & reference to the source of the funds shall indicate that the
grant was made to the Grantee by the Virginia Department of Youth and
Family Service~ from Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act
Funds.
11. No material produced in whole or in part under this grant shall be the
subject of an application for copyright in the United States or in any
country. The Department shall retain a royalty-free non-exclusive and
irrevocable license to publish and use the materials and to authorize
others to do so.
12. The Grantee shall commence performance of the program provided for in
the grant on the ls~ day of ~, and shall complete performance
no later than the 30th day of ~.
13. The Grantee will indemnify, reimburse, hold and save the Commonwealth of
Virginia and the Department harmless from all charges, damages, costs,
or other liability that the Department may be required to pay or
otherwise incur by reason of any agreement between the Department and
the Grantee, or by reason of any person, firm, or corporation being
injured or damaged in any way in person or property, or in the event of
a final judgment or decree being obtained against the Department, either
independently or jointly with the Grantee then in that event the Grantee
will pay such judgment or comply with decree with all costs and hold the
Commonwealth of Virginia and the Department harmless therefrom.
This provision shall apply only in those instances where the
Grantee would not be entitled to the defense of sovereign immunity
were the charges, damages, costs or other liability sought directly
from the Grantee, or in instances where the debt limitations
imposed by Article VII, Section 10 of the Virginia Constitution
would not be violated. Any applicable statutory procedures for the
prsentation of claims to the governing body of the Grantee and any
other applicable legal provisions shall continue to apply.
14. Ail purchases of equipment or contractual services made with funds
from this grant award shall be in compliance with local rules and
regulations governing such purchases, which are based on
competitive principles.
15. There sh&11 be submitted to the Department a signed statement
certifyi~.~hat all applicable Act regulations, State laws, and
local p~sing regulations have been complied with.
16. Grantee agrees to provide documentation for a statewide evaluation,
the criteria of which shall be jointly developed by Grantees and
the Department of Youth and Family Services.
Page 4 of 4
17.
ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Grantee agrees to submit to the Department of Youth & Family
Services' Regional office by August 15, 1992 a revised budget
in the amount of the award.
The Grantee is hereby informed that failure to comply with any of
the above conditions, any of the provisions of the Act or any of
the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall constitute
grounds upon which the Department may terminate this grant,
discontinue fund payments, and require reimbursement of fund
payments after thirty days notice to each participating county and
city and after a hearing has been conducted on the matter by the
Director of the Department of Youth and Family Services or his
designee.
The undersigned, having received the Notice of Grant Award and the
conditions attached thereto, does hereby accept this grant and
agree to the conditions pertaining thereto, this
day of
19
signature
Title
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Cl~rk
July 17, 1992
File #178-236
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31102-071392 authorizing execution of an Urban
Preservation and Infill Program Targeted Areas Allocation Agreement with the
Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) under date of June 2, 1992,
providing for allocation by VHDA of a total of $5,000,000.00 in mortgage financing
at the current rate of seven and seven-eighths per cent interest for purchase of
properties located within those areas of the City as set out in said Agreement, and
as more partieulariy set forth in a report of the City Manager under date of July 13,
1992. Resolution No. 31102-071392 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
pc'
Mr. H. Wesley White, Acting Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority, 2624 Salem Turnpike, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
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, G~ants Monitoring Administrator
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31102-071392.
A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of an agreement with
the Virginia Housing Development Authority providing for an
allocation of a total of $5,000,000.00 in mortgage financing for
certain areas of the City, and authorizing certain other actions
relating thereto.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. This Council hereby authorizes the execution by the City
Manager, for and on behalf of the City, of an Urban Preservation
and Infill Program Targeted Areas Allocation Agreement with the
Virginia Department of Housing Development Authority ("VHDA"),
dated June 2, 1992, providing for the allocation by VHDA of a total
of $5,000,000.00 in mortgage financing at the current rate of seven
and seven-eighths percent (7 7/8%) interest for the purchase of
properties located within those areas of the City set out in such
Agreement, such Agreement to be in form approved by the City
Attorney, and as more particularly set forth in the report of the
City Manager to this Council dated July 13, 1992.
2. The City Manager is empowered and directed to seek
approval from the VHDA to allow approved financial institutions to
work with the program to originate loans in the City as a part of
the program described above, and to take such other actions as may
be deemed necessary to implement such program, as more particularly
set forth in the report of the City Manager to this Council dated
July 13, 1992.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
3uly 13, 1992
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Offer of Home Purchase Loan Funds to the City from
the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA)
I. Background:
VHDA makes loans at below-market interest rates for home purchase,
construction or purchase and repair, to families with income generally
in the $15,000 ~ $40,000 range.
B. Urban Preservation and Infill Program, specifically designed for older
neighborhoods, was begun by VHDA in the spring of 1981.
C. VHDA periodically has made allocations of these loan funds for older
areas of Roanoke since 1981, but not in the last few years.
D. No funds come directly to the City from this Program, which is admin-
istered by local commercial lenders.
II. Current Situation:
A. Homeownership~ rehabilitation and new construction in Roanoke's older
neighborhoods have been enhanced through past VHDA allocations.
VHDA has offered the City an additional allocation of $5 million
(Attachment A) at its current interest rate (currently 7 7/8%) to be
loaned in IRS-designated "Targeted Areas" (Attachment B). This
interest rate may be adjusted periodically to reflect changes in VHDA's
prevailing lending rates. The allocation is effective through May 27,
1993.
Loan applications are received and processed by private VHDA-approved
financial agents, willing to work with the program. The City may
choose the lenders to serve as the agents.
III. Issues:
A. Consistency with the City's established plans and policies.
B. Cost and obligations to the City.
C. Access and ease of administration of program.
Page 2 Roanoke, Virginia
3uly 13, 1992
IV. Alternatives:
Authorize the City Manager to execute the Allocation Agreement with
VHDA in the amount of $5~000~000 (Attachment A); and to ask VHDA to
allow all approved local lenders willing to work with the program to
originate loans from the allocation.
Consistency with the City's established plans and policies would be
positive~ in that loans made from the program allocation will
encourage new construction and rehabilitation of existing single-
family houses, and will make it more feasible for low-moderate
income families to become homeowners. The program allocation may
be used in conjunction with some other program offerings of the
City~ e.g. Down Payment Assistance~ Vacant Lot Homesteading reim-
bursement for new construction.
Cost and obligations to the City will be negligible. The
Allocation Agreement obligates the City to publicize the availabi-
lity of the funds (Section g of Agreement, Attachment A), but the
City already publicizes VHDA financing as an alternative means to
finance home purchase. No other financial or legal liability is
incurred by the City~ and no loan funds come directly to the City
government.
Access and ease of administration of program would not be a major
concern. All loan applications and processing will be the respon-
sibility of the private lending agents. Allowing all qualified
agents equal access to the program allocation will maximize use of
the funds.
B. Do not authorize the City Manager to execute the Allocation Agreement
with VHDA in the amount of $5~000~000 (Attachment A).
Consistency with the City's established plans and policies would
not be achieved, as the rejection of the allocation would be a loss
of a potential resource for the pursuit of the objectives of new
homeownership and neighborhood improvement.
o
Cost and obligations to the City would be nothing~ except in terms
of lost opportunity to increase homeownership and improve neigh-
borhoods.
Access and ease of administration of program would not be an issue.
Page 3 Roanoke, Virginia
July 13, 1992
V. Recommendation:
Concur in Alternative A~ thereby authorizing the City Manager to execute
the Allocation Agreement with VHDA in the amount of $5,000,000 (Attachment
A); and to ask VHDA to allow all approved local lenders willing to work
with the program to originate loans from the allocation.
Respectfully Submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:HDP:rms
(CR.67.1,2,3)
CC:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Building Commissioner
Housing Development Coordinator
RGINIA
HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
ATTACHMENT A
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Target Area Program Coordinators
Valerie Rhodes
New Allocation of Target Area Funds
After a long "dry spell" we have finally received funds for the Target ~ program. I
recently received a notice indicating that $71,000,000 is being set-aside for this program; your
locality will receive an allocation of $5,000,000. The enclosed Agreement should be signed by the
appropriate officer of your organization and returned it to me no later than ~une 30, 1992. If you
cannot return the Agreement by the due date please let me know. In an effort to better utili:,~ these
funds I am requesting that you choose lenders in your locality that will serge as
Originating/Servicing agents. Please complete the attached memo and return it to me along with the
signed Agreement.
The target area funds will be available for one year beginning May 27, 1992 and can only
be used in IRS approved Target Areas. The interest rate on these loans will fluctuate with the First
Come-First Served Single Family Mortgage loan rate which is 8.125%. You can get thc current
rate by calling the VI-IDA rate line at 1-800-637-7738.
Also enclosed is a list of the slreets in your target areas. Please review this list, and if you
have any changes let me know as soon as possible. I will mzlce this list available to the Target
Area lendet~, therefore I would like it to be as accurate as possible. Also enclosed is VI-IDA's
Home Mortgage Loan Program information and a list of qualified lenders in your area. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
VIRGINIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
URBAN PRESERVATION AND INFILL PROGRAM
TARGETED AREAS ALLOCATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the 2nd day of June, 1992, by
and between the VIRGINIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a
political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia
(hereinafter referred to as the "Authority") and the City of
Roanoke (hereinafter referred to as the "Locality");
W I TNE S SE TH:
WHEREAS, the Locality has applied to the Authority for
mortgage financing for purchasers of single-family dwelling
units which are eligible under the Urban Preservation and Infill
Program (hereinafter the "UP & I Program") in Richmond,
Virginia;
WHEREAS, the Authority expects to make available a portion
of the proceeds of its Commonwealth Mortgage Bonds, 1992 Series
B-AMT and 1992 Series C, (the "92 BC Bonds"), which are expected
to finance mortgage loans in "Targeted Areas" (as hereinafter
defined).
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises aforesaid,
the commitments herein contained and other good and valuable
consideration, the parties agree as follows:
Reservation of Funds. Subject to the terms and conditions
herein, the Authority hereby agrees to make an allocation
(the "Allocation") for the Locality in the amount of
$5,000,000 (the "Allocated Funds") to be used to provide
mortgage loan financing under the Authority's single-family
mortgage loan program (the "Program") for persons and
families of low and moderate-income who purchase single-
family dwelling units which are located within Targeted
Areas (as defined in paragraph 2 below). The Locality
hereby accepts such Allocation. Mortgage loans to be
financed with the Allocated Funds shall be originated,
processed and disbursed by the Authority's
Originating/Servicing Agents ("Originating/Servicing
Agents") in accordance with this Agreement, the Rules and
Regulations of the Authority, the Originating/Servicing
Agreements between the Authority and the
Originating/Servicing Agents, the Authority's Procedures,
Instructions and Guidelines for the Program.
i5~_Q~_F_~. Ail mortgage loans made pursuant to this
Agreement must be for the purchase of properties which are
located within qualified census tracts and/or approved
areas of chronic economic distress, ("Targeted Areas") as
defined in Section 143 of the Internal Revenue Code, as
amended, and the regulations issued thereunder (herein
"Section 143"). If no such areas are approved within 90
days of the date of this Agreement, the Authority may
recapture these funds and reallocate such funds to other
approved areas.
Allocation Period~. Subject to the provisions hereof, the
Allocated Funds will be allocated for the Locality until
the latter of May 27, 1993, or one year from the date the
Authority determines that "funds are first made available
with respect to Targeted Area residences" for purposes of
Section 143. To the extent that such funds are not
committed, settled and disbursed by said date, such funds
shall (at the option of and to the extent deemed
appropriate by the Authority) no longer be deemed Allocated
Funds for the Locality and may be used by the Authority for
any lawful purpose.
(a)
Initial Interest Rate. Mortgage loans made pursuant
to this Agreement ("Targeted Mortgage Loans"), the
applications for which were received by the applicable
Originating/Servicing Agent before the effective date
of the first notification, if any, sent pursuant to
subsection b of this section shall bear interest at a
rate of 8.125%.
(b)
Changes in Interest Rate. The Authority may from time
to time adjust the interest rate to be charged on
Targeted Mortgage Loans, the applications for which
are received by the applicable Originating/Servicing
Agent on or before the effective date of such
notification. Such new rate shall be specified in the
notification and shall have been determined in
accordance with the resolutions authorizing the
issuance and sale of the 92 BC Bonds.
Loans to One-Person Househol~n. The Authority shall not
impose any limit on the number of mortgage loans made to
one-person households pursuant to this Agreement.
Reduction of Amount of Allocated Fu~g. The Authority may,
at any time and from time to time, reduce the amount of the
Allocated Funds for the Locality if:
- 2 -
(a)
The Authority has determined that it is unlikely that
mortgage loans will be committed, settled and
disbursed within the time period set forth in
paragraph 3 hereof in the amount of the Allocated
Funds, in which case the Authority may reduce the
amount of Allocated Funds to such amount as the
Authority determines will be fully committed, settled
and disbursed within such period; or
(b)
The Authority is unable to make available a sufficient
aggregate principal amount of the 92 BC Bonds to
enable it to provide the total amount of Allocated
Funds set aside for all localities for Targeted Areas
under the UP & I Program.
The Locality understands and agrees that the Authority has made
the determination that the Allocated Funds must be committed,
settled and disbursed within the time periods set forth in
paragraph 3 hereof in order to assure the success of the
Authority's UP & I Program and therefore agrees that any
determination made by the Authority pursuant to this paragraph 6
above shall be final and binding on the Locality.
Termination of Allocation of Funds. The Authority may, at
any time, terminate the allocation of Allocated Funds for
the Locality upon 30 days written notice to the Locality
that the Authority has determined (a) that the Locality is
not complying with the program or other agreements between
the Locality and the Authority, or (b) that termination is
necessary to comply with the 92 BC Bonds or (c) that
termination is necessary to comply with Section 143.
o
ObliGation of the Locality to Advertiso. The Locality
shall assist the Authority and the Originating/Servicing
Agent in using reasonable diligence to place the Allocated
Funds in qualified mortgages within the meaning of Section
143. As part of said duty to assist the Authority and the
Originating/Servicing Agents, the Locality shall be
required to make these funds available in the manner
prescribed by the Authority, and shall provide evidence to
the Authority of its compliance with this requirement.
Conditions Precedent. Ail rights, covenants and duties of
the parties hereto are contingent upon the Authority's
making available proceeds of the 92 BC Bonds within 90 days
of this Agreement at such interest rates and upon such
other terms and conditions as are acceptable to the
Authority. In the event that the Authority fails or is
unable to make available such funds, this Agreement shall
be null and void as of the date hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement by their duly authorized representatives, as of the
day and year first above written./
/
VIRGINI~ HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
B / Donald L. ~f~enour, Director
Single Family Development
LOCALITY
By:
Its:
DATE:
VR:pho
- 4 -
Roanoke Target Areas 8/12/9! 9:26 AM
24013
4TH STREET SE
5TH STREET SE
6TH STREET SE
7TH STREET SE
8TH STREET SE
8 1/2 STREET SE
9TH STREET SE
10TH STREET SE
10 1/2 STREET SE
llTH STREET SE
12TH STREET SE
14TH STREET SE
15TH STREET SE
16TH STREET SE
17TH STREET SE
18TH STREET SE
19TH STREET SE
21ST STREET SE
ALBEM-~RLE AVENUE SE
BULLITT AVENUE SE
CAMPBELL AVENUE SE
CEDAR STREET SE
CHURCH AVENUE SE
DALE AVENUE'SE
EDGE HILL AVENUE
ELM AVENUE SE
HIGHLAND AVENUE SE
JAMISON AVENUE SE
JENNINGS AVENUE SE
KIRK AVENUE SE
MARION STREET SE
MONTROSE AVENUE SE
MOUNTAIN AVENUE SE
MURRAY AVENUE SE
NORFOLK AVENUE SE
STEWART AVENUE SE
TAZEWELL AVENUE SE
WHITE AVENUE SE
WISE AVENUE SE
24016
1ST STREET NW
2ND STREET NW
3RD STREET NW
4 1/2 STREET SW
4TH STREET
5TH STREET
6TH STREET NW
7TH STREET NW
8TH STREET NW
9TH STREET NW
10TH STREET NW
llTH STREET SE
12 1/2 STREET SW
12TH STREET SE
13TH STREET SW
14TH STREET SW
15TH STREET SW
16TH STREET SW
Checked against Atlas/ZIP
18TH STREET SW
19TH STREET SW
20TH STREET SW
21ST STREET SW
ALBEMARLE AVENUE SW
ALLISON AVENUE SW
BLUFF AVENUE $W
BOULEVARD STREET SW
CAMPBELL AVENUE SW
CHAPMAN AVENUE SW
CLARKE AVENUE SW
CLEVELAND AVENUE SW
DAY AVENUE SW
ELM AVENUE SW
FERDINAND AVENUE SW
HIGHLAND AVENUE SW
JACKSON AVENUE SW
JANETTE AVENUE SW
JEFFERSON STREET N
KING GEORGE AVENUE SW
MAPLE AVENUE SW
MARSHALL AVENUE SW
MIDVALE AVENUE SW
MOUNTAIN AVENUE SW
NORFOLK AVENUE SW
PATTERSON AVENUE SW
RESERVE AVENUE SW
RIVERSIDE BOULEVARD SW
RORER AVENUE SW
SALEM AVENUE SW
SPOTTSWOOD AVENUE SW
WALNUT AVENUE SW
WASHINGTON AVENUE SW
WESTPORT AVENUE SW
WESTVIEW STREET SW
WHITMORE AVENUE SW
WOODS AVENUE SW
(VHDA does not fix a minimum mount on either house price or income.)
*Contact VHDA for FmHA Maximum Allowable Sales Prices and Gm Income Guidelines in Your Are~.
1. Washington, D.C.-
Maryland-Virginia MSA
Virginix Potion:
Inner Atus:
Alexandria City
Arlington Co~
Fairfax City
Fairfax County
Falls Church City
houdoun Comt~
Mmassu Ci~
Manusas Ps~ Cit~
Prince William C. mmty
Stafford County
2. Norfont-vlrlinh Beach-
Newport News MSA
Olouca~' County
E.aj,l,m Ci~
Newlx~ N~v~ City
Norfolk Cit~
Poquosm ¢it~
Pommomh City
Suffolk City
virsh3h Bea~
~inimm,bu~ Ci~
'Yo~ Coumy
Dinwiddie ~
HenrS~ Coun~
~Ci~
New Kern r',--~
l~chnmd Ciq,
4. ~u~om~lle MSA
Ab,-4e Comt~
The interest rate b determined at time of reservation (application).
For current rate informatiou, contact a lending agent in your area or cml VHDA's "RATIO" mt (800) 637.7738.
¥irgt~da llo~laz De~lopm~nt Aft~Ao:~y do~ ~ot ~
on ~ ~ o! rac~, color, mli~ea, s~z, e~e, mufo~! ori~ ~r ~.
Below you will find some general information regarding VI-IDA's Home Mortgage Loan Program. Use the chart on the back of this shes~ to see
what the income and sales price limits are for the area where you live. A list of VI-IDA lending agents in your area who handle our loans is also
enclosed. Once you have found the house you are interested in mu~hasina_ contact a len,t~
you have any questions, call VHDA at (804) 782-1966 or (800) 227oVHDA.
General Loan Information
· All loans are assumable (Some qualification may be required).
· Mortgage loan commitments are issued for 120 days for new construction and 90 days for existing properties. Extensions may be available.
· Points: 1% Origination and 1% Discount (Seller[si must pay).
· The applicant(s) must be a U.S. citizen or possess an Alien Registration Receipt Card (Green Card).
· Joint applicants must be related by blood, m~rla~e or adoption end live together in the property. Co-signers are not permitted.
· The applicant(s) cannot have had an ownership interest in his or her Primary residence within the past three yoars This does not apply whe~
buying in 'Targeted Areas." ·
· The applicant's (s') net worth cannot exceed $20,000. Some assets such as clothing, jewelry and furniture are not counted against the applicaot(s).
· The applicant(s) cannot use the property in a trade or business, as investment property or as a recreational or second home.
· The applicant(s) must provide copies of federal income tax returns for the past three years.
· Personal property such as refrigerators, washers, dryers and slide-in ranges cannot be financed.
Vi,'~inia Housing offers mortgage insurance through four soorces: the Vetmans Administration (for eligible veterans); the Federal Housing
Administration; Farmers Home Administration, end conventional mortgage insurers. As a result, home buyers benefit from lower down paymenta
(0% for eligible veterans and Farmers Home loans), the financing of closing costs (FHA) and long term commitments.
· Maximum mortgage is 95% of sales price or appraised value, whichever is less.
· Private Mortgage Insurance is required when loan amount exceeds 80% of sales price. Contact lender for cuz'~nt foe for standard 25% coverage
and underwriting criteria.
· The applicant(s) must be employed with present employer for at least six months.
· The applicant(s) must have an acceptable credit history.
· Qualifying ratios are total shelter cost (P & 1 plus monthly taxes end insurance) cannot exceed 32% of applicant's total gross monthlyincome, and
total monthly debt payments plus total shelter cost cannot exceed 40% of applicant's total gross monthly income.
· Maximum mortgage is based upon standard FHA calculation.
· The FHA MIP Fee can be included in loan amount provided the final loan amount does not exceed the VI-IDA maximum allowable sales price.
· FHA guidelines are used regardinK qualifying ratios, income residual, financing closing costs, mortgage insurance premium (IvIIP), credit and
property guidelines.
· Applicant(s) must have VA eligibility.
· Maximum mortgage is based upon VA eligibility. The VA Funding Fee can be included in loan amount provided the final loan amount does
not exceed the VHDA maximum allowable sales price. No down payment in most cases.
· VA guidelines are used regarding debt ratio, income residual, credit, property guidelines and VA Funding Fee (waived if on disability).
VHDA/FmHA (l~uaran _ly Promml
· Maximum mortgage is 100% of sales price or appraisal value, whichever is less.
· A 1% FmHA Guaranty Fee which can be financed in the loan. As well as closing costs, however, under no circumstances may the final loan
amount exceed the maximum allowable sales price.
· Maximum mortgage amount is based on the lesser of VI-iDA or FmHA published sales price and mortgage limits.
Maxunum Income limits are based on the lesser of the VI-IDA or FmHA published limits.
· FmHA guidelines are used yarding Monthly Obligation To Income (MO'fl) ratio of 41% and Principal Interest Taxes, Insurance (PITI) to
income of 29%, credit analysis and property guidelines.
Federal Reca?ure TaX
Federal law may require that the borrower pay an additional tax to the IRS if he or she rasells or otherwise transfers his or her home within the
first nine years afte~ receiving a VHDA loan. The maximum amount of the recapture tax will be the lesaer of 6~.5% of the loan amount (or, in
the case of assumptions, the amount assumed) or 50% of the gain realized on the resale or transfer. Because this tax law may change, the
recluirements affecting a VHDA loan at closing may be different from what is described here.
Virginia Housing Davslop_mant Authority
~Of $outh Baivi~re Sirdar, ~'chmoncl VA 23~0
(80~) 78~.108~
(V/rDD 804.783.870~)
~;RGINIA
HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Vale~ie Rhodes
New Allocation of Target Area Funds
The (Locality) has selected the following lenders for the
VHDA Target Area program. Please send the appropriate information regarding the Target Area
allocation to:
VHDA
ROANOKE AREA
Bedford Federal Savings and Loan Association
125 Weat Main Street
Bedford, Virginia 24523
703-586-2590
Bedford Federal Savings and Loan Association
Route 221
Post Office Box 151
Forest, Virginia 24551
804-525-2000
Cre~ar Mortgage Corporation
5115 Bemard Drive, S.W.
Roanoke, Vil~uia 24O18
703-989-9875
Crestar Mortgage Corporation
3727 Old Forest Road
Lynchburg, Virginia 24501
804-847-2113
Dominion Bankshares Mortgage Corporation
101 North Bridge Street
Bedford, Virginia 24523
703-586-8292
DomlMon Bankshm~a Mm'~e Cul~mraflon
3959 l~clric Road, S. W.
Prat Office Box 20467
Roanok~ V'n~iuia 241~
703-989-6415
First Federal Savings Bank of Lynchburg
925 Mains Sueet
Lynchburg, Virginia 24505
804-845-2371
Virginia Housing Develogment Authority
6Of South Belvid~re Street Richmond VA 23220
(804) 7a2.19a6
(V/TOD 804-7~670~
lqrst Mort~e Cor~es'aflon
2847 Penn Fmm l~uievard, SW
Bu~ling D, Suite 101
~ v'~iuia 24o18
703-772-8150
First National Bank of Chriafiansburg
Box 178
Biack~burg, Virginia 24060
804-951-0180
First ~ ~ Roanoke-West
Post ~ ~ox 7585
703-561-8510
703-774-4g'/0
Mortgage Company of Virginia
Post Office Box 309
Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151
703-483-0201
Mortgage Company of Vir~inln
Route 3, Box 380
Ba.~e~ V'u~a~a 24O55
703-629-3331
70~985-3266
Cami~J A~esess st ~tssnl. ~ West
703-343-0135
Roanoi~ Vh~ah
703-9gS-.41~'/ -
Sovran Mortgage Corporaton
Post Office Box 401
Danvitle, V'trglnia 24543-0401
804-791-6103
Sovran Mortgage Corporation
2200 Langhorne Road
Post Office Box 2395
Lynchburg, Virginia 24501
Sovran Mortgage Corporation
Comer of Church & Lester Streets
Post Office Box 5228
MartinsviHe, Virginia 24112
703-638-3981
Sovran Mortsqe Corpor~on
3956 Electric Road, S. W.
PO~t ~ Box 21434
Roanoke, Virgi_'ni~ 24018
703=774-0091
sovran Mo~pSe Corporam~
P~t Offico Box 14111
Ronnc~, V'n~nia 24022-4111
~-3181
United First Mortgage, Incorporated
8682 Timberlnk~ Road
Post Office Box 4395
Lynchburg, Virginia 24502
804-237-5505
5115 Bernard Drive, South We~t
71~.3r/-1059
Virginia First Mortgage
Heritage Busine~ Center
7731 Timberl*~,. Road, Suite 306
Lynchburg, Virginia 24502
804-237-7961
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 4~6
Roanoke, Vir~nia 2AOI 1
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #178-236
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31103-071392 authorizing certain real estate
options to be entered into in connection with the Home Purchase Assistance Program
for real estate located at 1326 Campbell Avenue, S. W., which is currently owned by
Richard S. Winstead, and 3031 Melrose Avenue, N. W., which is currently owned by
Chester J. and Virginia Dillon Tomasheski, as more particularly set forth in an
attachment to a report from the City Manager under date of July 13, 1992.
Ordinance No. 31103-071392 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting held on Monday, July 17, 1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
pc:
Mr. Richard S. Winstead, 1322 Watauga Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24015
Mr. and Mrs. Chester J. Tomasheski, 2590 Coral Way, Palm Bay, Florida
32905
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, VIRGINIA,
The 13th day of 3u1¥, 1992.
No. 31103-071392.
AN ORDINANCE authorizing certain real
entered into in connection with the Home
Program; and providing for an emergency.
estate options to be
Purchase Assistance
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City Manager be, and he is hereby authorized, for and
on behalf of the City, to execute a Real Estate Option on real
estate located at 1326 Campbell Avenue, S.W., currently owned by
Richard S. Winstead, as more particularly set out in an attachment
to the City Manager's report to Council dated July 13, 1992, a copy
of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, upon approval
of the form of the Option by the City Attorney, and upon such other
terms and conditions as are provided therein.
2. The City Manager be, and he is hereby authorized, for and
on behalf of the City, to execute a Real Estate Option on real
estate located at 3031 Melrose Avenue, N.W., currently owned by
Chester J. and Virginia Dillon Tomasheski, as more particularly set
out in an attachment to the City Manager's report to Council dated
July 13, 1992, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City
Clerk, upon approval of the form of the Option by the City
Attorney, and upon such other terms and conditions as are provided
therein.
municipal
ordinance
In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this
shall be in full force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
'~2 ~.~--~ '-":]~July 13, 1992
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:.
Subject:
I. Back~round:
Execution of Real Estate Options
at 1326 Campbell Avenue S;~ and
3031 Melrose Avenue NW under the
Home Purchase Assistance Program
A. ~ from the Vir inia Department of Housin ·
ment's q;~ ~.~;,_ n_~ ...... ' .... -- ~ous__~and Commumtv Dev~l^n-
..... ~mil Rehabilitation and En~.~v
a ~ ~~°~nr. L o,a..n_ ~P_ r .o_. ram
~D. BG funds
............. u,caa~e ~ssissance ?ro rg.~_ by City Council
June 26, 1989, allowing the City to provide loans to low-moderate income
households agreeing to buy and repair approximately 18-20 certain ident-
ified substandard houses. The Program is administered iointly by the City
and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA), as outlined
in the City's current contract for services with RRHA.
B. Real Estate Options were selected as the best wa[ to allow the City to
:implement the Home Purchase Assistance Program. These Options define
the property owner's and the City's responsibilities under the Program,
establish a purchase price for the property, allow the City to access
the property, and market the property for sale to qualifying low and
moderate income purchasers in the Program through assignment of the
Real Estate Option. This provides for a direct sale of the property
from the current owner to the purchaser selected through the Program.
The City will not exercise any Option and will not actually purchase
any property in the Program. Should the City be unable to find a buyer
lot the property, the Real Estate Option would be allowed to expire.
C. ~ authorized the Ci~ to execute
individual~-~ Several properties to be included in the
Home Purchase Assistance Program.
II. Current Situation:
A. Real Estate ~ ~.~ **e~x~e~c_uted_ b. the_owners of v~
~, as outlined in Attachments A & B. Housing-Development
staff has determined that the offered price is reasonable to allow
homes to be included in the Program.
B. ~t Cit Mana er to execute Real Est
(~e. Re.al Estate Otions
~1 me owners oI the proDerties is necessar to
allow these properties to be marketed through the Program.
Page 2
3uly 13, 1992
III.
Issues:
A. Cost to the City
13. Effect on Housing Conditions
C. Timing
IV. Alternatives:
A. Authorize the City Manager to execute Real Estate Options as outlined
in Attachments A & By to be approved as to form by the City Attorney,
with the owners of these properties selected for the Home Purchase
Assistance Program.
Cost to the City would be $1.00 per Option. Under separate sub-
sequent action, Council will be asked to approve assignment of
the Options to qualifying purchasers under the Program and
authorize loaning CDBG funds allowing the purchase and rehabilitation
of the properties to occur.
Effect on housing conditions will be positive as two additional
home-ownership opportunities will be provided to low-moderate
income households. Owner occupancy and rehabilitation of two
additional vacant substandard houses will provide significant
contribution toward stabilization and rejuvenation within each
neighborhood.
3. Timing is such that prompt execution of these Options will allow
immediate marketing of the houses.
1~. Do not authorize the City Manager to execute Real Estate Options as
outlined in Attachments A & 13, to be approved as to form by the City
Attorney with the owners of these properties selected for the Home
Purchase Assistance Program.
1. Cost of the City can be recognized as lost opportunity cost.
2. Effect on housing conditions will be negativo, as home ownership
opportunities will not be provided to low-moderate income house-
holds in the Southwest and Northwest quadrants of the City.
3. Timing would not be an issue.
Page 3 3uly 13, 1992
V. Recommendation:
Adopt Alternative A, thereby authorizing the City Manager to execute
Real Estate Options as outlined in Attachments A & B, to be approved
as to form by the City Attorney, with the owners of these properties
selected for the Home Purchase Assistance Program.
Respectfully Submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:BC
(CR.66.1,2,3)
CC:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Building Commissioner
Housing Development Coordinator
Grants Monitoring Administrator
ATTACHMENT A
1326 Campbell Avenue SW *
Official Tax Map #1220413
OPTION PRICE
CITY ASSESSMENT House & Lot
$49,900.00
~2,800.00
~*House recently has been completely remodeled and is ready
for immediate occupancy.
REAL ESTATE OPTION
THIS REAL ESTATE OPTION (hereinafter referred to as
"Option"), made this 15th day of :lune , 1992, by and
between Richard S. Winstead (hereinafter referred
to as "Grantor"), and the CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA (hereinafter
referred as "Grantee").
W IT N E S SE TH:
I. GRANT OF OPTION. For and in consideration of One
Dollars.?$ 1.00 ), and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor gives
and grants to Grantee, its successors and assigns, the exclusive,
assignable and irrevocable right and option to purchase the property,
more particularly described in Section No. 2 of this Option, together
with ail easements, rights and appurtenances attached thereto, and ali
improvements thereon (hereinafter referred to as "Real Estate"). By
giving and granting this Option to Grantee, Grantor certifies that
Grantor, and only Grantor, owns the Real Estate in fee simple.
follows:
DESCRIPTION OF REAL ESTATP. The Real Estate is described as
1326 Campbell Avenue SW
A parcel in the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
City of Roanoke Official Tax No. 1220413,
consisting of approximately 0. 149 acres,
more particularly described on the map
attached hereto, labeled Exhibit A, and
incorporated by reference herein, together
with all easements, rights of way, water
rights, appurtenances and improvements
thereto belonging, the legal description
for which is W. Pt. Lot 2 Block 21 West End Land.
3. TERM OF OPTION.
the time of execution of this Option by Grantor and Grantee.
Option shall expire at 11:59 p.m., on September 30, 1992,
earlier exercised or terminated by Grantee.
This Option shall commence on the date and at
This
unless
4. EXERCISE OF OPTION. This Option sh&ll be deemed validly
and effectively exercised il notice ol the exercise hereof is either
sent by certified mail to Grantor at Richard S. Winstead
1322 Watau~a Street SW Roanoke~ VA 2#015) or delivered in person to
grantor, on or belore the expiration date and time of this Option.
Notice '~f such exercise which is given by certified mail shah be deemed
eIIective when deposited in the mai] as aforesaid. For the period that
this Option is eIIective, neither Grantor nor Grantor's employees,
agents) tenants or representatives shall use or alter the Real Estate in
a manner which would adversely affect its use by Grantee, and Grantor
shall not sell, encumber) or otherwise transler or dispose of the Real
Estate to any other party. The exercise of this Option shall result in
Grantor selling and conveying the Real Estate to Grantee, and Grantee
purchasing and accepting the Real Estate Irom Grantor, Ior the amount of
the Purchase Price, subject to the terms and conditions contained in
this Option. Grantee reserves Ior it and its successors and assigns
the right to terminate this Option at any time Ior cause or no cause
at all, either before or after the assignment of this Option.
5. FAILURE TO EXERCISE OPTION. If Grantee does not exercise
this Option, Grantor shall have no rights or claims against Grantee.
6. INSURANCE. Upon execution of this Option, Grantor shall
maintain general liability insurance on the real estate during the
-2-
term of this Option, or any extension of said term, in an amount of
S~O0~O00 , and shall supply Grantee with a Certificate of
Insurance, demonstratJn§ that Grantee is a named insured on the policy
of general liability insurance.
7. RIGHT OF ENTRY AND MARKETING OF. REAL ESTATF. After the
execution of thi.s Option by Grantor and Grantee, and either before or
after the exercise of this Option by Grantee, Grantee, or its agents
or employees, may enter upon the Real Estate and perform all sur-
veying, engineering, soil borings, appraisals, estimates of repairs
and oth'~r tests and a,cts deemed necessary by Grantee to satisfy
Grantee that the Real Estate is suitable for the uses and purposes
intended by Grantee and is suitable for the Home Purchase Assistance
Program (hereinafter referred to as the "Program"). All such tests
and acts shall be performed at reasonable hours and at Grantee's cost
and expense. In addition, Grantee shall be entitled to publicize
the Real Estate for sale, endeavor to identify a purchaser for the
Real Estate, place a "For Sale" sign on the Real Estate, show the
property to prospective purchasers, and take other reasonable and
appropriate action deemed necessary by the Grantee to sell the Real
Estate. Under no circumstances shall this section create any rights
in the Grantor or impose any obligations upon the Grantee.
g. REAL ESTATE MAINTENANCE. Grantor shall maintain the Real
Estate and adjoining sidewalks and walkways in a safe and attractive
manner during the term of this Option, and in the event of the exer-
cise of this Option, until the date of closing.
9. RISK OF LOSS. Grantor shall bear any risk of loss of the
Real Estate during the term of this Option, or, in the event of the
exercise of this Option, until the date of dosing.
10. ASSIGNMENT. Grantee may assign this Option by written noti-
fication to Grantor. Grantor shaJl not assign this. Option, unless
approved in writing by Grantee, and Grantee's approval of such an
assignment may be withheld for any reason or no reason at all. If
the Grantor assigns this Option, all references in this Option to
the Grantor shall apply to the assignee. If the Grantee assigns this
Option/all references, in this Option to the Grantee shall apply to
the assignee. In the event of an assignment by either the Grantor or
the Grantee, no claim may be asserted against the assignor based upon~
arising out of, or related to this Option.
11. PURCHASE PRICE. The purchase price for the Real Estate shall
be Fourt¥-Nine Thousand and Nine-Hundred and NO/100 DOLLARS (S~9~900.00).
12. PAYMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE. The purchase price for the Real
Estate shall be payable at closing.
13. CLOSING. If this Option is exercised, dosing of the sale
of the Real Estate shall be held within sixty (60) days of the date
on which Grantor receives notice of Grantee's exercise of this Option~
or as soon thereafter as may be practically possible. Closing shall
be held in Room 170~ Municipal Buiiding~ 215 Church Avenue, Roanoke,
Virginia~ or at some other location selected by the City and mutually
satisfactory to the parties. At closing, Grantor shall execute,
acknowledge, and deliver to Grantee, a general warranty deed,
with modern English covenants of title, in form satisfactory and
acceptable to the Grantee, conveying the Real Estate to Grantee,
free and clear of all liens, tenancies, encumbrances, material
defects, and exceptions, other than current taxes, and any other
matters that may have been approved by Grantee in writing after
examination of title. Said deed shall be prepared at Grantor's
expense. Grantor shall pay grantor's tax~ and all documentary,
transfer, and excise taxes imposed upon that conveyance. Grantor
shall execute and deliver a non-foreign affidavit to Grantee at
closing in the form required by Section lqq5 of the Internal Revenue
Code; otherwise, Grantee will withhold a portion of the Purchase Price
and remit the same to the Internal Revenue Services for the account of
Grantor as required by law. Grantor also shall execute, acknowledge,
and deliver any of the instruments, documents, and assurances required
or requested by Grantee or a title insurance company in order to con-
summate this transaction and effect the conveyance of the Real Estate
to Grantee as herein provided, including, without limitation, a ven-
dor's affidavit in form satisfactory and acceptable to Grantee's coun-
sel. Possession of the Real Estate shall be delivered to Grantee at
the closing, in the same condition as it now is, ordinary wear and
tear only excepted~ free and clear of the rights or claims of any
other party. All warranties and representations of Grantor, and any
covenants and obligations of Grantor hereunder which remain unper-
formed upon closlng~ shall survive the closing.
14. GRANTEE-UNABLE TO CLOSE SALF. The terms of this Option
notveithstanding~ should Grantee be unable or unwilling for any reason
to close on the sale of the Real Estate, including being determined
ineligible for the Home Purchase Assistance Program by the Virginia
Housing Development Authority, after the exercise of this Option,
this Option shall terminate without any liability incurred by Grantee,
Grantee's assignS, successors, administrators, executors, officers,
agents, employees, or any and all of Grantee's predecessors in inte-
rest of this Option, if any.
1~..~' GRANTOR UNABLE TO CLOSE SALF. If Grantor fails to close
on the sale of the Real Estate for any reason, Grantor shall pay
Grantee and its assigns, and all of Grantee,s predecessors in inte-
rest of this Option, if any, all costs incurred, including costs
incurred in the arrangement of the rehabilitation and financing for
the sale of the Real Estate.
16. INDEMNITY. Grantor shall indemnify and hold Grantee,
its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns, executors
and administrators, and any and all of Grantee,s predecessors in
interest of this Options i~ any, harmless from any and all claims,
damages~ losses, expenses~ costs and attorney fees, as a result
o~ arising out of, or relating to the performance by Grantee under
this Option.
17. TAXES. At closing, Grantor shall be responsible for and
pay all real estate taxes upon the subject Real Estate to be pro-
rated as of the Date of Closing.
-6 -
18. SUCCESSO-RS. The parties agree and fully understand
that this Option shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs,
successors, assigns) executors and administrators.
19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Option contains and constitutes
the entire agreement of the parties regarding the .subject matter
hereof~ and there are no other agreements~ written or oral, between
the parties affecting the subject matter hereof. No amendment of
this Option shall be effective unless the same is made in writing and
signed by the parties hereto.
20. THIRD PARTY. This Option creates no rights in any party,
except Grantor and Grantee.
21. DETERMINATIONSt FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. All determina-
tions, findings and conclusions made by Grantee under this Option
shall be made in the sole and absolute discretion of Grantees and
Grantor shall have no rights, claims or causes of action against
Grantee, its officers, agents~ employees, successors~ assigns, exe-
cutors and administrators~ and any and all of Grantee's predecessors
in interest of this Option~ if any~ for Grantee's determinations,
findings and conclusions.
22. NOTICES. Notice of exercise of this Option shall be given
in the form attached as Exhibit B and in the manner set forth in this
Option. All other notices~ requests or other correspondence relating
to this Option shall be sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, by
each party to the other party hereto at the addresses specified below
or at such other address as a party may by written notice give as the
- 7-
address to which such future notices, requests and correspondence
shaJl be sent hereunder:
GRANTOR:
Richard S. Winstead
1322 Watauga Street SW
Roanoke, VA 20013
GRANTEE:
w/copy to:
W. Robert Herbert~ City Manager
City of Roanoke
360 Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia 20011
Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner/
Zoning Administrator, City of Roanoke
Room 170, Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia 20011
23. d' CONSTRUCTION. The interpretation, construction, and
performance of this Option shall be governed by the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia. All headings of sections of this Option
are inserted for convenience only, and do not form part of this Option
or limit, expand, or otherwise alter the meaning of any provisions
hereof. This Option shall be executed in duplicate, each of which
shall be deemed to be an original. This Option shall be construed
without regard to any presumption or rule requiring construction
against the party causing the Option to be drafted.
20. RECORDING. This Option shall be recorded in the land
records of the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the
City of Roanoke.
EXECUTED and DELIVERED by Grantor and accepted by Grantee as
of this 15th day of June , 1992 .
(SEAL)
-g-
ATTEST:
GRANTEE:
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
By
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
4~ON WEP~LTH OF VIRGINIA .
I hbreby certify that the foregoing Real Estate Option Agreement
was acknowledged before me by Richard S. Winstead
My Commission expires: [~
Notary Public
COMMON~I/EALTH OF VIRGINIA
)
CITY OF ROANOKE )
To-wit:
I hereby certify that the foregoing Real Estate Option Agreement
was acknowledged before me by W. ROBERT HERBERT and MARY F. PARKER,
City Manager and City Clerk~ respectively, of the CITY OF ROANOKE,
VIRGINIA~ on behalf of that municipal corporation, this day of
, 1992.
My Commission expires:
Notary Public
-9-
-, 17,,.
EXERCISE OF OPTION
I or we the undersigned do hereby exercise the Option dated
~ 1991~ assigned to me or us by the City of Roanoke.
This Exercise of Option is done pursuant to the Agreement of Assign-
ment dated 19
(SEAL)
(SEAL)
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) To-wit:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
I hereby certify that
appeared before me and acknowledged the foregoing Exercise of Option
on this__ day of , 19 .
My Commission expires:
Notary Public
I of I EXHIBIT B
303i Melrose Avenue
Official Tax Map #2~07i6
OPTION PRICE
CITY ASSESSMENT House & Lot
ATTACHMENT B
$25,~00.00
25,500.00
REAL ESTATE OPTION
THIS REAL ESTATE OPTION (hereinafter referred to as
"Option"), made this loth day of ]une , _1992, by and
between Chester 3. & ¥irginia Dillon Tomasheski (hereinafter referred
to as "Grantor"), and the CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA (hereinafter
referred as "Grantee").
~/ I T N E S S E T H:
1. GRANT OF OPTION. For and in consideration of One
Dollars ($ 1.00 .), and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor gives
and grants to Grantee, its successors and assigns, the exclusive,
assignable and irrevocable right and option to purchase the property,
more particularly described in Section No. 2 of this Option, together
with all easements, rights and appurtenances attached thereto, and all
improvements thereon (hereinafter referred to as "Real Estate"). By
giving and granting this Option to Grantee, Grantor certifies that
Grantor, and only Grantor, owns the Real Estate in fee simple.
follows:
DESCRIPTION OF REAL ESTATE. The Real Estate is described as
3031 Melrose Avenue NW.
A parcel in the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
City of Roanoke Official Tax No. 25~0716,
consisting of approximately 0.1~ acres,
more particularly described on the map
attached hereto, labeled Exhibit A, and
incorporated by reference herein, together
with ail easements, rights of way, water
rights, appurtenances and improvements
thereto belonging, the legal description
for which is Lots 40 & 41 Block 2 Grove Park.
3. TERM OF OPTION.
the time o! execution of this Option by Grantor and Grantee.
Option shall expire at 11:59 p.m., on September 30, .1992,
earlier exercised or terminated by Grantee.
This Option shall commence on the date and at
This
unless
#. EXERCISE OF OPTION. This Option shall be deemed validly
and effectively exercised if notice of the exercise hereof is either
sent by certified mail to Grantor at Chester 3. & Virginia Dillon
Tomasheski 2590 Coral ~/a),~ Palm Bay FL 32905, or delivered in person to
grantor, on or before the expiration date and time of this Option.
Notice of such exercise which is given by certified mail shall be deemed
effective when deposited in the mail as aforesaid. For the period that
this Option is effective, neither Grantor nor Grantor's employees,
agents, tenants or representatives shall use or alter the Real Estate in
a manner which would adversely affect its use by Grantee~ and Grantor
shall not sell~ encumber, or otherwise transfer or dispose of the Real
Estate to any other party. The exercise of this Option shall result in
Grantor selling and conveying the Real Estate to Grantees and Grantee
purchasing and accepting the Real Estate from Grantor, for the amount of
the Purchase Price~ subject to the terms and conditions contained in
this Option. Grantee reserves for it and its successors and assigns
the right to terminate this Option at any time for cause or no cause
at all~ either before or after the assignment of this Option.
5. FAILURE TO EXERCISE OPTION. If Grantee does not exercise
this Option~ Grantor shall have no rights or claims against Grantee.
6. INSURANCE. Upon execution of this Optio% Grantor shall
maintain general liability insurance on the real estate during the
-2-
term t)~ this Option, or any extension of said term, in an amount of
$_300~000 , and shall supply Grantee with a Certificate of
[nsurance~ demonstrating that Grantee is a named insured on the policy
of general liability insurance.
7. RIGHT OF ENTRY AND MARKETING OF REAL ESTATF. After the
execution of this Option by Grantor and Grantee~ and either before or
after the exercise of this Option by Grantee~ Grantee, or its agents
or employees, may enter upon the Real Estate and perform ali sur-
veying, engineering, soil borings, appraisals, estimates of repairs
and other tests and acts deemed necessary by Grantee to satisfy
Grantee that the Real Estate is suitable for the uses and purposes
intended by Grantee and is suitable for the Home Purchase Assistance
Program (hereinafter referred to as the "Program"). All such tests
and acts shall be performed at reasonable hours and at Grantee's cost
and expense. In additlon~ Grantee shall be entitled to publicize
the Real Estate for sale~ endeavor to identify a purchaser for the
Real Estate~ place a "For Sale" sign on the Real Estate~ show the
property to prospective purchasers, and take other reasonable and
appropriate action deemed necessary by the Grantee to sell the Real
Estate. Under no circumstances shall this section create any rights
in the Grantor or impose any obligations upon the Grantee.
8. REAL ESTATE MAINTENANCE. Grantor shall maintain the Real
Estate and adjoining sidewalks and walkways in a safe and attractive
manner during the term of this Optio% and in the event of the exer-
cise of this Option, until the date of closing.
- 3-
9. RISK OF LOSS. Grantor shall bear any risk of loss of the
Real Estate during the term of this Option, or, in the event o! the
exercise of this Option, until the date of closing.
10. ASSIGNMENT. Grantee may assign this Option by written noti-
fication to Grantor. Grantor shall not assign this Option, unless
approved in writing by Grantee, and Grantee's approval of such an
assignment may be withheld for any reason or no reason at all. If
the Grantor assigns this Option~ all references in this Option to
the Grantor shall apply to the assignee. If the Grantee assigns this
Option, all references in this Option to the Grantee shall apply to
the assignee, in the event of an assignment by either the Grantor or
the Grantee, no claim may be asserted against the assignor based upon,
arising out of~ or related to this Option.
lt. PURCHASE PRICE. The purchase price for the Real Estate shall
be Twenty-Five Thousand Five Hundred and NO/100 DOLLARS ($25~300.00).
12. PAYMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE. The purchase price for the Real
Estate shall be payable at closing.
13. CLOSING. If this Option is exercised, closing of the sale
of the Real Estate shall be held within sixty (60) days of the date
on which Grantor receives notice of Grantee's exercise of this Option,
or as soon thereafter as may be practically possible. Closing shall
be held in Room 170, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, Roanoke,
Virginia, or at some other location selected by the City and mutually
satisfactory to the parties. At closing, Grantor shall execute,
acknowledge, and deliver to Grantee, a general warranty deed,
with modern English covenants of title, in form satisfactory and
acceptable to the Grantee, conveying the Real Estate to Grantee,
free and clear of a11 liens, tenancies, encumbrances, material
defects, and exceptions, other than current taxes, and any other
matters that may have been approved by Grantee in writing after
examination of title. Said deed shaU be prepared at Grantor's
expense. Grantor shall pay grantor's tax, and a11 documentary,
transfer, and excise taxes imposed upon that conveyance. Grantor
shaU execute and deliver a non-foreign affidavit to Grantee at
closing in the form required by Section lq~) of the Internal Revenue
Code; otherwise, Grantee will withhold a portion of the Purchase Price
and remit the same to the Internal Revenue Services for the account of
Grantor as required by law. Grantor also shall execute, acknowledge,
and deliver any of the instruments, documents, and assurances required
or requested by Grantee or a title insurance company in order to con-
summate this transaction and effect the conveyance of the Real Estate
to Grantee as herein provided, including, without 11mitation~ a ven-
dor's affidavit in form satisfactory and acceptable to Grantee's coun-
sel. Possession of the Real Estate shall be delivered to Grantee at
the closing, in the same condition as it now is, ordinary wear and
tear only excepted, free and clear of the rights or claims of any
other party. All warranties and representations of Grantor, and any
covenants and obligations of Grantor hereunder which remain unper-
formed upon closing, shall survive the closing.
14. GRANTEE UNABLE TO CLOSE SALE. The terms oE this Option
notwithstanding, should Grantee be unable or unwilling ~or any reason
to close on the sale o~ the Real Estate~ including being determined
ineligible for the Home Purchase Assistance Program by the Virginia
Housing Development Authority, aEter the exercise oE this Option,
this Option shall terminate without any liability incurred by Grantee,
Grantee's assigns, successors~ administrators, executors, oEEicers~
agents, employees, or any and all o~ Granteets predecessors in inte-
rest o~ this Option~ if any.
15. GRANTOR UNABLE TO CLOSE SALE. I~ Grantor ~ails to close
on the sale of the Real Estate ~or any reason, Grantor shall pay
Grantee and its assigns, and all o! Granteets predecessors in inte-
rest of this Option, if any, all costs incurred, including costs
incurred in the arrangement o~ the rehabilitation and financing for
the sale of the Real Estate.
16. INDEMNITY. Grantor shall indemnify and hold Grantee,
its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns, executors
and administrators, and any and all o~ Grantee's predecessors in
interest of this Option, if any~ harmless from any and all claims,
damages, losses, expenses, costs and attorney fees, as a result
of~ arising out of, or relating to the performance by Grantee under
this Option,
17. TAXES. At closing, Grantor shall be responsible for and
pay all real estate taxes upon the subject Real Estate to be pro-
rated as of the Date of Closing.
-6-
18. SUCCESSORS. The parties agree and fully understand
that this Option shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs,
successors~ assigns~ executors and administrators.
19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Option contains and constitutes
the entire agreement of the parties regarding the subject matter
hereof, and there are no other agreements, written or oral, between
the parties affecting the subject matter hereof. No amendment of
this Option shall be effective unless the same is made in writing and
signed by the parties hereto.
20. THIRD PARTY. This Option creates no rights in any party,
except Grantor and Grantee.
21. DETERMINATIONS~ FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. All determina-
tions~ findings and conclusions made by Grantee under this Option
shall be made in the sole and absolute discretion of Grantee, and
Grantor shall have no rights, claims or causes of action against
Grantee, its officers, agents, employees, successors, assigns, exe-
cutors and administrators, and any and all of Grantee's predecessors
in interest of this Option, ii any, for Grantee's determinations,
findings and conclusions.
22. NOTICES. Notice of exercise of this Option shall be given
in the form attached as Exhibit B and in the manner set forth in this
Option. All other notices, requests or other correspondence relating
to this Option shall be sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, by
each party to the other party hereto at the addresses specified below
or at such other address as a party may by written notice give as the
- 7-
address to which such future notices~ requests and correspondence
shall be sent hereunder:
GRANTOR:
Chester J. & Virginia Dillon Tomasheski
2590 Coral Way
Palm Bay, Florida 32905
GRANTEE:
w/copy to:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
City of Roanoke
36# Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia 2¢011
Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner/
Zoning Administrator~ City of Roanoke
Room 170, Municipal guilding
Roanoke, Virginia 2t~011
23. CONSTRUCTION. lhe interpretation, construction, and
performance of this Option shall be governed by the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia. All headings of sections of this Option
are inserted for convenience only~ and do not form part of this Option
or limit, expand, or otherwise alter the meaning of any provisions
hereof. This Option shall be executed in duplicate, each of which
shall be deemed to be an original. This Option shall be construed
without regard to any presumption or rule requiring construction
against the party causing the Option to be drafted.
2~. RECORDING. This Option shall be recorded in the land
records of the Office ol the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the
City of Roanoke.
EXECUTED and DELIVERED by Grantor and accepted by Grantee as
of this 10th day of June , 1992 .
GR .ANTOR: . F', '
- 3 -
ATTEST:
Mary P. Parker, City Clerk
GRANTEE:
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
By
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
STATE OF FLORIDA )
) To-wit:
)
I hereby certify that the fore~.oing.Re, al Eszt~ate Option Agreemenk
was acknowledged .before me by/~Y)~Iz~,~, ~:~
· ~"'~'~'~'~ ''.'~'J ' , this (J~ day
[992.
My Commission expires:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
)
CITY OF ROANOKE )
To-wit:
I hereby certify that the foregoing Real Estate Option Agreement
was acknowledged before me by W. ROBERT HERBERT and MARY F. PARKER,
City Manager and City Clerk, respectively, of the CITY OF ROANOKE,
VIRGINIA, on behalf of that municipal corporation, this day of
, 1992.
My Commission expires:
Notary Public
-9-
EXERCISE OF OPTION
I or we the undersigned do hereby exercise the Option dated
, 1991, assigned to me or us by the City of Roanoke,
This Exercise of Option is done pursuant to the Agreement of Assign-
ment dated ., 19__.
(SEAL)
(SEAL)
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) To-wit:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
I hereby certify that
appeared before me and acknowledged the foregoing Exercise of Option
on this__ day of , 19__.
My Commission expires-'
Notary Public
I of I EXHIBIT B
MARY' F. PARKER
C~ty Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
E~puty City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #77-20-237
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31104-071392 approving major design features
of the Peters Creek Road Extension Project from Melrose Avenue, N. W., to Brandon
Avenue, S. W., Project No. 0117-128-101, PE-102, RW-201, C-501, B-601, B-602,
B-603, B-604, and B-605; requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation to
acquire all necessary rights-of-way for the Project; and authorizing you to execute
all necessary railroad and utility agreements in conjunction with said project.
Ordinance No. 31104-071392 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting held on Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Eno.
pc:
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mr. John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning
Mr. WilLiam L. Stuart, Streets and Traffic
Mr. Robert K. Bengtson, Traffic Engineer
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
Mr. M. David Hooper, Police Chief
Mr. Rawleigh W. Quarles, Fire Chief
Ms. Wanda L. Reed, Manager, Emergency Services
Mr. Brian J. Wishneff, Chief, Economic Development
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31104-071392.
AN ORDINANCE approving major design features of the Peters
Creek Road Extension Project from Melrose Avenue, N.W., to Brandon
Avenue, S.W., Project No. 0117-128-101, PE-102, RW-201, C-501,
B-601, B-602, B-603, B-604, B-605; requesting the Virginia
Department of Transportation to acquire all necessary rights-of-way
for the Project; authorizing the City Manager to execute all
necessary railroad and utility agreements in conjunction with such
Project; and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, a location and design public hearing was conducted on
June 10, 1992, in the City of Roanoke by representatives of the
Commonwealth of virginia, Department of Transportation after due
and proper notice for the purpose of considering the proposed
location and design of the Peters Creek Road Extension Project,
from Melrose Avenue, N.W., to Brandon Avenue, S.W., Project No.
0117-128-101, PE-102, RW-201, C-501, B-601, B-602, B-603, B-604,
B-605, in the City of Roanoke, at which hearing aerial photographs,
drawings and other pertinent information were made available for
public inspection in accordance with State and federal
requirements;
WHEREAS, all persons and parties in attendance were afforded
full opportunity to participate in said public hearing;
WHEREAS, representatives of the City of Roanoke were present
and participated in said hearing;
WHEREAS, this Council has previously requested the Virginia
Department of Transportation to program this project; and
WHEREAS, the Council considered all such matters;
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke as follows:
1. The Council of the City of Roanoke hereby approves the
major design features of the proposed project as presented at the
public hearing.
2. The City of Roanoke requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to acquire all rights-of-way necessary for this
project conveying said rights-of-way to the City at the appropriate
time.
3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute, on
behalf of the City of Roanoke, all necessary railroad and utility
agreements required in conjunction with acquiring such rights of
way.
4.
municipal
In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
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
July 13, 1992
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Peters Creek Road Extension from Melrose
Avenue, N.W. to Brandon Avenue, S.W.
I. Backqround:
City Council, at its meeting on June 17, 1985,
unanimously approved Resolution No. 27613 which
requested that the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) program a project to extend
Peters Creek Road from Melrose Avenue, N.W. to Brandon
Avenue, S.W. (see attached map). This project, which
is consistent with the 1995 Roanoke Valley
Transportation Plan, was subsequently included in
VDOT's Six-Year Highway Improvement Program.
Location Public Hearing was held on December 14, 1988
regarding the alternative alignments. Evaluation of
information received at that public hearing led the
City to seek VDOT's assistance in employing an
individual to lead a conflict resolution process
consisting of representatives from the Greater Deyerle
Neighborhood Associates, VDOT and the City. City
Council then approved the alignment shown on the
attached map at its meeting on March 5, 1990.
Purpose of this highway project is to provide for the
efficient and rapid movement of traffic between the
north and south ends of the western half of the City of
Roanoke. It will provide the only crossing of the
Roanoke River and Norfolk Southern Railway between
Shaffer's Crossing and Route 419. The improved access
will enhance mobility for emergency vehicles, City
services, economic development (as well as
redevelopment) and the general public. Traffic volumes
are expected to average 24,500 vehicles per day in 1995
and average 37,260 vehicles per day in 2016. (Traffic
volume on Peters Creek Road north of Melrose Avenue was
16,450 vehicles per day in 1990.)
Members of Council
Page 2
II.
Pr_~_~posed design of this project consists of four lanes
along the 2.3 mile route. A median of varying widths
(3 to 16 feet) will be landscaped. Concrete curb and
gutter will be constructed along both sides of the
entire route. Sidewalk will be constructed along the
entire length of the east side of the roadway. The
west side will have sidewalk north of Salem Turnpike
and south of the new bridge over the Roanoke River.
The intersections of Peters Creek Road at Salem
Turnpike and at Shenandoah Avenue will both be
signalized.
Speed limit will be signed at 40 miles per hour from
Melrose Avenue to the new bridge over the Roanoke
River, and then 35 miles per hour from that bridge to
Brandon Avenue.
Cost estimate of $22,840,000 will be shared by the VDOT
and the City. Five percent City participation in
preliminary engineering and two percent City
participation in right-of-way and construction amounts
to a total City share of $503,000.
Current Situation:
Desiqn Public Hearinq was held on June 10, 1992 at
Fairview Elementary School, having been preceded by an
informal project plan review session on June 9. The
public hearing, after due and proper notice was given
for considering the proposed design of the project,
included aerial photographs, drawings and other
pertinent information available for public inspection
in accordance with state and federal requirements. All
persons and parties in attendance were afforded full
opportunity to participate.
Roanoke City Planninq Commission received a briefing of
the major design features at their meeting on June 17,
1992.
Resolution from City Council approving the major design
features of the proposed project as presented at the
June 10, 1992 Public Hearing will enable the
Commonwealth Transportation Board to also act upon the
project. Approval by Council and the Board would
enable VDOT to begin right-of-way acquisition as early
as October, 1992. After right-of-way has been
Members of Council
Page 3
III.
IV.
obtained, the project would be ready for advertisement
in July, 1994 with construction requiring approximately
three years to complete.
Brandon Avenue Widening from Edgewood to the west
corporate limits is a separate, but related project. A
public hearing for this project is expected to occur
later this year, with the expectation that its
construction will be complete on or before the
completion of Peters Creek Road Extension.
Issues:
A. Transportation
B. Public Hearing Comments
C. Funding
D. Schedule
E. Right-of-way acquisition
Alternatives:
ae
Citx Council approve the major design features of the
extension of Peters Creek Road from Melrose Avenue,
N.W. to Brandon Avenue, S.W. as presented at the June
10, 1992 Public Hearing; and request that the VDOT
acquire all rights-of-way necessary for the project
conveying said rights-of-way to Roanoke at the
appropriate time; and authorize the City Manager to
execute, on behalf of the City, all necessary railroad
and utility agreements required in conjunction with
acquiring such rights-of-way.
Transportation system
accordance with the
Transportation Plan.
and safety improves in
1995 Roanoke Valley
2. Public Hearing had one (1) comment which has been
reviewed:
Blue Ridge Bicycle Club representative, Ms. Barbara
Duerk, desires that this new roadway take into
account the needs of bicyclists in anticipation of
future bicycling needs as an alternate form of
transportation. However, the 1991 update of the
Roanoke Valley Bikeway Plan does not include Peters
Creek Road Extension in the bikeway network. Due
Members of Council
Page 4
to projected traffic volume and design speed, a
separately marked and/or signed bikeway will not be
included on this project. However, bicyclists
should benefit from a proposed adjustment to the
lane width markings on this project that will
provide for an eleven-foot wide inside lane and a
thirteen-foot outside lane for both directions.
One (1) additional comment received in writing
requested consideration be given to using bridge
rails on the bridge over the Roanoke River, rather
than the standard solid parapet walls, thereby
improving visibility of the river from the bridge.
This request was forwarded to VDOT for their
consideration.
Funding for City's 5% and 2% share in the amount of
approximately $503,000 is presently being funded
from the Streets and Bridges category of the 1992
Bond Series and other existing capital fund
accounts. Transfers are made annually into the
existing Peters Creek Road Extension Account (No.
008-052-9595-9003) to meet the VDOT invoices for
this multi-year project.
Schedule is for VDOT to begin right-of-way
acquisition as early as October, 1992 (dependent
upon City Council and Commonwealth Transportation
Board actions).
Riqht-of-way acquisition would be handled by VDOT
in accordance with state and federal law. A total
of one family and four businesses will be
displaced. However, the project will not be
advertised for construction until proper
replacement dwellings are found.
City Council not approve the major design features of
the extension of Peters Creek Road from Melrose Avenue,
N.W. to Brandon Avenue, $.W. as presented at the June
10, 1992 Public Hearing.
Transportation and safety in the western portion of
Roanoke remains in the same condition, and would
worsen in future years.
2. Public Hearinq comments in support of the project
are rejected.
Members of Council
Page 5
Funding for the City's share is not spent. The
$821,019.56 spent as of April 30, 1992 by VDOT on
preliminary engineering, less the City's share of
5% paid to date in the amount of $41,050.98, leaves
a balance of $779,968.58 that the City would be
responsible for if it chose to cancel the project
at this time.
4. Schedule is not met.
5. Riqht-of-way is not acquired.
V. Recommendation is that City Council:
Approve the major design features of the extension of
Peters Creek Road from Melrose Avenue, N.W. to Brandon
Avenue, S.W. as presented at the June 10, 1992 Public
Hearing.
Request that the VDOT acquire all rights-of-way
necessary for the project conveying said rights-of-way
to Roanoke at the appropriate time.
Authorize the City Manager to execute, on behalf of the
City, all necessary railroad and utility agreements
required in conjunction with acquiring such
rights-of-way.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:RKB:jrm
Attachment:
Map
copy:
Director of Finance
City Attorney
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities & Operations
Director of Public Safety
Chief, Economic Development
City Engineer
Chief, Community Planning
Police Chief
Fire Chief
Manager of Emergency Services
~,~ ~ ~ HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
ROUTE 1 17
~ su,~t ~L,~.~ ~" ~"~'. ~E. PETERS CREEK ROAD EXTENSION
PROJECT: 0117-128-101,PE-102,RW-201,C-501,
B-601,B-602,B-603,B-604,B-605
TO: MELROSE AVE.(RTE. 460)
LENGTH: 2.29
....... SA LEM
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #70-183-20
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31105-071392 approving issuance of Change
Order No. 1 to the City's contract with Contracting Enterprises, Inc., for additional
traffic signal and fire alarm work, in connection with signalization of Colonial Avenue
and Overland Road, S. W., in the amount of $25,4] 2.50, for a total contract amount,
including Change Order No. 1, of $90,722.50. Ordinance No. 31105-071392 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
Sincerely, ~__
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
pc:
Mr. Joel M. Schianger, Director of Finance
Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Mr. William L. Stuart, Manager, Streets and Traffic
Mr. Robert K. Bengtson, Traffic Engineer
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Ms. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
Mr. Rawleigh W. Quarles, Fire Chief
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2~011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #70-183-20
Mr. Lucian Y. Grove, President
Contracting Enterprises, Inc.
P. O. Box 13725
Roanoke, Virginia 24036
Dear Mr. Grove:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31105-071392 approving issuance of Change
Order No. 1 to the City's contract with Contracting Enterprises, Inc., for additional
traffic signal and fire alarm work, in connection with signalization of Colonial Avenue
and Overland Road, S. W., in the amount of $25,412.50, for a total contract amount,
including Change Order No. 1, of $90,722.50. Ordinance No. 31105-071392 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Eric o
IN THE COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31105-071392.
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE
Order No.
Inc. for
emergency.
approving the City Manager's issuance of Change
1 to the City's contract with Contracting Enterprises,
additional traffic signal work; and providing for an
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City Manager or Assistant City Manager is authorized
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
Contracting Enterprises, Inc., dated March 23, 1992, related to
underground traffic signal and fire alarm work.
2. Such Change Order shall provide for the following changes
in the work to be performed:
ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT
$ 65,310.00
CONTRACT AMOUNT INCLUDING
PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS
65,310.00
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
Work related to signalization
of Colonial Avenue and Overland
Road, S.W.
CONTRACT AMOUNT INCLUDING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1.
25,412.50
90,722.50
Additional time required for Change
Order No. i 0 days.
3. 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
July 13, 1992
Honorable David A. Bowers,
and Members of Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Mayor
Dear Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Change Order No. 1
Underground Traffic Signal and Fire Alarm Work
I. Backqround:
II.
Construction contract with Contracting Enterprises,
Inc. for Underground Traffic Signal and Fire Alarm Work
at various locations throughout the City was authorized
by City Council on March 23, 1992 (Ordinance No.
30921-032392), in the amount of $65,310.00.
~ Council, at a regularly scheduled meeting on
February 10, 1992, endorsed several traffic control
measures as an alternative to barricading the Wright
Road, Creston Avenue and Rosewood Avenue corridor.
Ordinance No. 30869-021092 directed the City Manager to
implement certain traffic control measures, one of
which is the signalization of Colonial Avenue and
Overland Road, S.W.
Current Situation:
Traffic si ng~ construction plans are now complete for
the intersection of Colonial Avenue and Overland Road.
These plans include several work items similar to those
included in the Underground Traffic Signal and Fire
Alarm Work contract. Such items include concrete
foundations for poles, conduit encased in concrete
installed in a trench, and vehicle loop detector
installation (see attached).
Chanqe Order No. ] to the contract with Contracting
Enterprises, Inc. is reasonable since scope of work is
similar, unit prices are acceptable, and schedule for
installation of these underground work items can be
done more quickly than if the work were advertised for
bids.
Members of City Council
Page 2
III.
IV.
Ve
C. Current contract
Time limit will
change order.
does not expire until May 6, 1993.
not be extended as a result of this
Issues:
A. Funds
B. Cost
C. Need
D. Timinq
Alternatives:
ae
Approve Change Order No. 1 to
Contracting Enterprises, Inc.
$25,412.50.
the contract with
in the amount of
Funds are available in
Overland Road Traffic
008-052-9586-9065.
the Colonial Avenue &
Signal Account No.
2. Cost is reasonable.
3. Need for signal is addressed.
4. Timing to complete underground work items is
expedited.
Be
Do not approve Change Order No.
Contracting Enterprises, Inc.
$25,412.50.
1 to the contract with
in the amount of
1. Funds remain available.
2. Cost is not an issue.
3. Need for signal is not addressed.
4. Timing of project is delayed.
Recommendation is that City Council approve Alternative "A"
thereby authorizing the execution of Change Order No. 1 in
the amount of $25,412.50 to the contract with Contracting
Enterprises, Inc.
Members of City Council
Page 3
WRH:RKB:jrm
Attachment
copy: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Construction Cost Technician
Respectfully submitted,
W ~~e~t~~
City Manager
COLONIAL AVENUE/OVERLAND ROAD INTERSECTION
PROPOSED CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
PROPOSAL
ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITIES PRICE AMOUN9
Concrete Controller Foundation (CF-l) 1 ea. 760.00 760.00
Concrete Pole Foundation (PF-1) 3 ea. llSS.00 3,555.00
Handholes Precast 2'x2'x2'6" Installed
w/Frame & lid to specified grade (City
to furnish frames & lid) 7 ea. 635.00 4,445.00
1-1" Aluminum Conduit Installed 45 LF 4.30 193.50
1-1-1/4" Aluminum Conduit installed 30 LF ~.90 1~7.00
Additional 1" Aluminum Conduits
installed with above 45 LF 1.50 67.50
1-3" PVC Conduit encased in
concrete installed in trench 400 LF 10.00 4,000.00
2" PVC Conduit (Additional conduit
in open trench encased in concrete) 650 LF 1.30 845.00
Pavement Removal 25 SY 4.50 112.50
Aggregate Base Material; Type I 15 CY 20.00 300.00
Asphalt Concrete; Type BM-2 10 $.Y. 50.00 500.00
Asphalt Concrete; Type SM-2A 4 S.Y. 50.00 200.00
Quadrapole Loop Detectors installed 1266 LF 7.00 8,862.00
Topsoiling & Seeding 150 SF 1.50 225.00
Electronic Arrow for Traffic Control 120 Hrs. 10.00 1,200.00
TOTAL $25,~12.50
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-254.1
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #188-237
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31106-071392 designating Diane S. Akers,
Budget Administrator, to apply for federal financial assistance regarding the flood
of April 1992, and authorizing submission of any required assurances and
agreements. Resolution No. 31106-071392 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, July 13, 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, Public Safety
Ms. Wanda L. Reed, Manager, Emergency Services
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Public Facilities
Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Development
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Ms. Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator
IN THE COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31106-071392.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION designating an agent to apply for federal
financial assistance regarding the flood of April 1992 and
authorizing the submission of any required assurances and
agreements.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke:
1. That Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator is hereby
authorized to execute for and in behalf of the City of Roanoke, a
public entity established under the laws of the State of Virginia,
this application and to file it in the appropriate State office for
the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial assistance under
the Disaster Relief Act (Public Law 288, 93rd Congress) or
otherwise available from the President's Disaster Relief Fund.
2. That the City of Roanoke, a public entity established
under the laws of the State of Virginia, hereby authorizes its
agent to provide to the State and to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) for all matters pertaining to such Federal
disaster assistance the assurances and agreements printed on the
reverse side of FEMA Form 90-63.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
July 13, 1992
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Designation of Applicant's Agent
Flood of April 21, 1992
I. Backqround:
April 21, 1992, approximately 3.80 inches of rain were
received in a 24 hour period causing the Roanoke River to
exceed flood stage, cresting at 18.1 feet.
Emerqency procedures were put into effect immediately
including:
Activation of City work forces to assist in neces-
sary emergency activities.
Activation of Emerqency Operations Center in the
Municipal Building to coordinate emergency opera-
tions.
3. Installation of four (4) emerqenc¥ hotlines for
public to request flood related assistance and
report damages.
April 22, 1992, declaration of local emergency was made
by the City Manager.
April 22, 1992, City emergency personnel and operational
staff met to:
1. Obtain situation reports from emergency personnel.
2. Gather initial flood damage data.
Initiate documentation procedures for disaster-
related City expenditures.
Designation of Applicant's Agent
Page 2 of 3
April 25, 1992, initial Damage Assessment Report was
filed. Estimated total dollar loss and loss not covered
by insurance were as follows:
Total Loss
Not Covered
by Insurance
1. Private Property $4,812,000 $2,600,000
2. Public Property $ 395,000 $ 169,250
3. Grand Total $5,207,000 $2,769,250
April 27, 1992, City Council confirmed declaration of
local emergency by Resolution No. 30975-042792.
May 5, 1992, Governor declared a state of emergency
thereby activating appropriate State agencies to assist
in disaster-related activities.
May 19, 1992, President issued a major disaster declara-
tion at the request of the Governor and after reviewing
disaster damage reports, thereby activating federal
disaster assistance programs.
May 21, 1992, a Notice of Intent to apply for Federal
Disaster Assistance for public property was filed by City
of Roanoke.
II. Current Situation:
Damaqe Survey Reports have been completed for public
property and claims in the amount of $137,347.97 have
been submitted to Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) for approval.
An applicant's aqent must be desiqnated prior to fun~
beinq received for damaqes incurred
III. Issues:
A. Fundinq
B. Timinq
IV. Alternatives:
City Council pass a resolution desi~natinq an authorized
aqent to act on behalf of the City to receive official
correspondence and receive funding for subgrant reim-
bursement. The "Designation of Applicant's Agent"
resolution (FEMA 90-63) must be submitted to the Virginia
Department of Emergency Services prior to the conveyance
of the subgrant. (Attachment "A")
Designation of Applicant's Agent
Page 3 of 3
Fundinq - Federal assistance is limited to 75% o~
eliaible expenditures; State assistance is limited
to 25% of eliqible costs.
Timinq - subqrant will not be received until appli-
cant's aqent is desiqnated.
City Council not desiqnate an authorized aqent to act on
behalf of the City to receive official correspondence and
not receive funding for subgrant reimbursement.
Fundinq - Federal and State assistance would not bn
available. Local government must incur all costs.
2. Timinq would not be an issue.
Recommendations:
city Council authorize Diane S. Akers, Budget
Administrator, as the designated applicant's aqent for
the City of Roanoke and submit the "Designation of
Applicant's Agent" FEMA 90-63 form to the Virginia
Department of Emergency Services.
Authorize the applicant's aqent to siqn and submit copies
of the State/Grantee-Subgrantee Disaster Assistance
Agreement (attachment "B"), the Certification Regarding
Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (attachment "C"), and
Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and
Cooperative Agreements (attachment "D").
Submit completed application for Federal Assistance.
(Attachment "E" )
WBR:cw
cc:
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Management and Budget
Coordinator of Emergency Services
Attachments
COUNREP.FLD
ATTACHMENT "A"
DESIGNATION OF AI~LICANT'S AGENT
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED BY
THAT
(Governing Body)
* (Name of Incumbent)
* (Name oflncumbent)
is hereby authorized to execute for and in behalf of
OF
(Public Entity)
OR (Official Position)
, Governor's Authorized Representative,
, a public entity established under the laws of the State of
this application and to file it in the appropriate State office for the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial'
assistance under the Dmaster Relief Act (Public Law 288, 93rd Con~'ess) or otherwise available from the President's
Disaster Relief Fund.
THAT
, a public entity established under th~ laws of the State
of , hereby authorizes its agent to provide to the State and to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for all matters pertaining to such Federal disaster assistance the assurances
and agreements printed on the reverse side hereof.
Passed and approved this day of ,19
(Name and Title)
(Name and Title)
(Name and Title)
resolution passed and approved by the
CERTIFICATION
, duly appointed ~nd of
(7~'tle)
· do hereby cerX,fy t~at the above is a true and con'ect copy of a
of
(Governing Bod~ ~ (P~blic Entity)
on the day of ,19
Date:
(Official Position) (Signature)
*Name of incumbent need not be provided in tho~ ca,es wheee the govermng body of the public entity dcsims to authorize any
incumbent of the de#~gnatcd official position to repr~nt it.
AI~LICANT J~URANC~e
~TAT~ ,t _e~t_ ~I, NCt~S
ATTACHMENT
STATE/GRANTEE-SUBGRANTEE DISASTER ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT
This agreement between the Commonwealth of Virginia (the
State/Grantee) and the City of Roanoke, (the Subgrantee) shall be
effective on the date signed by the State/Grantee and the
Subgrantee. It shall apply to all assistance funds provided by or
through the State/Grantee to the Subgrantee as a result of flooding
which occurred during April 21 and 22, 1992, and pursuant to
Presidential major disaster declaration FEMA-944-DR-Virginia.
The designated representative of the Subgrantee certifies that:
He/She has legal authority to apply for assistance on behalf
of the Subgrantee and to sign the attached certifications.
The Subgrantee shall provide all necessary financial and
managerial resources to meet the terms and conditions of
receiving federal and state disaster assistance.
The Subgrantee shall use disaster assistance funds solely for
the purposes for which these funds are provided and as
approved by the Governor's Authorized Representative.
The Subgrantee is aware of and shall comply with cost-sharing
requirements of federal and state disaster assistance;
specifically that federal assistance is limited to 75% of
eligible expenditures, that State assistance is limited to
25% of eligible costs (excluding alternate projects selected
by the applicant) and that the Subgrantee shall provide from
the Subgrantee's funds the remaining 00% of eligible costs.
EXCEPTION: The State will not participate in the non-federal
share for Private Non-profit Subgrantees.
The Subgrantee is aware that limited funding may be made
available for mitigation of future flood caused damages
under Section 404 of the Stafford Act which requires cost-
sharing on the basis of 50% federal and 50% non-federal con-
tribution and that the Subgrantee may be required to provide
the full non-federal share for such mitigation activities.
The Subgrantee shall establish and maintain a proper
accounting system to record expenditures of disaster
assistance funds in accordance with federally accepted
accounting standards or as directed by the Governor's
Authorized Representative.
The Subgrantee shall retain documentation supporting each
claim for a period of not less than three years from the
date of the final payment and; the Subgrantee shall give
state and federal agencies designated by the Governor's
Authorized Representative access to and the right to examine
all records and documents related to the use of disaster
assistance funds.
The Subgrantee shall return to the State, within sixty (60)
days of such request by the Governor's Authorized
Representative, any advance funds which are not supported by
audit or other federal or state review of documentation
maintained by the Subgrantee.
9. The Subgrantee shall comply with all applicable codes and
standards in completion of eligible repair or replacement of
damaged public facilities.
10. The Subgrantee shall comply with all applicable provisions of
federal and state law and regulation in regard to
procurement of goods and services and to contracts for
repair or restoration of public facilities.
11. The Subgrantee shall begin and complete all items of work
within the time limits established by the Governor's
Authorized Representative.
12. The Subgrantee shall comply with all federal and state
statutes and regulations relating to non-discrimination.
13. The Subgrantee shall comply with provisions of the Hatch Act
limiting the political activities of public employees.
14. The Subgrantee shall comply, as applicable, with the pro-
visions of the Davis-Bacon Act relating to labor standards.
15. The Subgrantee shall comply with the flood insurance purchase
requirements of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
which may require purchase of flood insurance for some costs
over $5,000.
16. The Subgrantee shall not enter into cost-plus-percentage-of_
cost contracts for completion of disaster restoration or
repair work.
17. The Subgrantee shall not enter into any contracts for which
payment is contingent upon receipt of state or federal funds.
18. The Subgrantee shall not enter into any contract with any
party which is debarred or suspended from participating in
federal assistance programs.
19. The Subgrantee shall comply with all uniform administrative
requirements which are set forth in the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-
288, as amended, and as implemented by 44 CFR Part 206.
NOTEI The following certifications must be signed by the
subgrantee,s authorized agent to complete this agreement:
Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements
Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans,
and Cooperative Agreements
Signed for the Subgrantee:
Diane S. Akers
Typed Name
BudqetAdm~nistrator
Title
Subgrantee's Designated Agent
Signed for the State/Grantee:
Date
Richard S. J~es
Typed Name
Governor's Authorized Representative Date
ATTACHMENT
CERTIFICATION REGARDING DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS
This certification is required by the regulations implementing the
Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, 44 CFR Part 17, Subpart F. The
regulations, published in the May 25, 1990 Federal Reqister,
require certification by grantees, prior to award, that they will
maintain a drug-free workplace. The certification set out below is
a material representation of fact upon which reliance will be
placed when the agency determines to award the grant. False
certification or violation of the certification shall be grounds
for suspension of payments, suspension or termination of grants, or
governmentwide suspension or debarment. (See 44 CFR Part 17,
Subpart C, 17.300, and Subpart D, 17.400.)
A. The grante~ certifies that it will or will continue to provide
a drug-free workplace by:
(a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful
manufacture, distribution,.dispensing, possession, or use of
a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's
workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken
against employees for violation of such prohibition;
(b) Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform
employees about--
(i) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
(2) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free
workplace;
(3) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and
employee assistance programs: and
(4) The penalties that may be ~mposed upon employees for drug
abuse violations occurring In the workplace;
Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in
the performance of the grant ~e g~¥en a copy of the statement
required by paragraph (a);
Notifying the employee in the statenent required by paragraph
(a) that, as a condition of -nployment under the grant, the
employee will--
(l) Abide by the terms of the statement; and
(2) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction
for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in
the workplace no later than five calendar days after such
conviction;
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Notifying the agency in writing within ten calendar days after
receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2) from an employee or
otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction.
Employers of convicted employees must provide notice,
including position title, to every grant officer or other
designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee was
workihg, unless the Federal agency has designated a central
point for the receipt of such notices. Notice shall include
the identification number(s) of each affected grant;
Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days
of receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2), with respect to
any employee who is so convicted--
(1) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an
employee, up to and including termination, consistent
with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
as amended; or ,
(2) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in
a drug abuse sslstance or rehabilitation program
a '
approved for such purposes by a Federal, Commonwealth, or
local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate
agency;
(g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free
workplace through implementation of paragraphs (a) (b) (c)
(d), (e) and (f). , , ,
B. The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s)
for the performance of work done in connection with this grant:
Place(s) of Performance: (Street address, city, county, state, zip'
code)
Organization Name
Name and Title of Authorized Representative
Signature
Disaster Number
Date
ATTACHMENT "D"
CERTIFICATION FOR CONTRACTS, GRANTS, LOANS,
AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
This certification is required by the regulations implementing the
New Restrictions on Lobbying, 44 CFR Part 18. The undersigned
certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid,
by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee
of an agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection
with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any
Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering
into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension,
continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any
Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been
paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency,
a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or
an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this
Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the
undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL,
"Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,,, in accordance with its
i
nstructlons.
3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this
certification be included in the award documents for all
subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, an~
contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and
that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which
reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into.
Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or
entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31,
U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification
shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and
not more than $100,000 for each such failure,
Name and Title of Authorized Representative
Signature Date
APPLICATION FOR
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
J-'l Const~lCtiO~ [2] C.,o~l~tructi~~
~ Non-~,onstt'ucti0fl r"'] N0ft-~-,,o~atrucfiort
L.~,~ N,~iil::y' O~ Roanoke
ATTACHMENT
_ A~0J,canl ~denl,fie,
Unit: City
New [] Continuer,on [] Revision
OMB a pp,,oval NO.
g TOTAL
Ending Date
$ --
.00
S
.00
S
.00
S
.00
.00
$
YES THfS PREApPLtCATTON~APPLiCAT1ON WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON:
DATE
b NO. [] PROGRAM IS NOT CO~ERED BY E.O. 12372
[] O;[ pROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE FOR REVIE~V
Authorized for Local Reoroduction
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SF 424
This is a standard form used by applicants as a-required facesheet for. preapplicatlons and applications submitted
for Federal assistance. It will be used by Federal agencies to obtain applicant certification that States which have
established a review and comment procedure in response to Executive Order 12372 and have selected the program
to be included in their process, have been given an opportunity to review the applicant's submission.
Item: Entry: Item: Entry:
1. Self-explanatory. 12.
2. Date application submitted to Federal agency (or
State ff applicable) & applicant's control number
(if applicable). 13.
3. State use only (ifapplicable). 14.
4. If this application is to continue or revise an
existing award, enter present Federal identifier
number. If for a new project, leave blank. 15.
5. Legal name of applicant, name of primary
organizational unit which will undertake the
assistance activity, complete address of the
applicant, and name and telephone number of the
person to contact on matters related to th. is
application.
6. Enter Employer Identification Number (EIN} as
assigned by the Internal Revenue Service.
7. Enter the appropriate letter in the space
provided.
8. Check appropriate box and enter appropriate 16.
letter(s) in the space(s) provided:
-- "New" means a new assistance award.
-- "Continuation" means an extension for an
additional funding/budget period for a project
with a projected completion date. 17.
--"Revision" means any c~ange in the Federal
Government's financial obligation or
contingent liability from an existing
obligation.
9. Name of Federal agency from which assistance is
being requested with this application. 18.
10. Use the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
number and title of the program under which
assistance is requested.
11. Enter a brief descriptive title of the project, if
more than one program is involved, you should
append an explanation on a separate sheet. If
appropriate (e.g., construction or real property
projects), attach a map showing project location.
For preapplications, use a separate sheet to
provide a summary description of this project·
List only the largest political entities affected
(e.g., State, counties, cities).
Self-explanatory.
List the applicant's Congressional District and
any District(s) affected by the program or project.
Amount requested or to be contributed during
the first funding/budget period by each
contributor. Value of in-kind contributions
should be included on appropriate lines as
applicable. If the action will result in a dollar
change to an existing award, indicate on/? the
amount of the change. For decreases, enclose the
amounts in parentheses. If both basic and
supplemental amounts are included, show
breakdown on an attached sheet. For multiple
program funding, use totals and show breakdown
using same categories as item 15.
Applicants should contact the State Single Point
of Contact (SPOC) for Federal Executive Order
12372 to determine whether the application is
subject to the State intergovernmental review
process.
This question applies to the applicant organi-
zation, not the person who signs as the
authorized representative. Categories of debt
include delinquent audit disallowances, loans
andtaxes.
To be signed by the authorized representative of
the applicant. A copy of the governing body's
authorization for you to sign this application as
official representative must be on file in the
applicant's off/ce. (Certain Federal agencies may
require that this authorization be submitted as
part of the application.}
OMB Approved NO. 034e-OQ42
ASSURANCES--CONSTRUCTiON PROGRAMS
Note: Certain of these assurances may not be applicable to our r '
please contact the Awarding Agency. Further, certain ~eY~lP~°~t or progra,m., If you have questions,
....... am~ance awaramg agencies may require
applicants to cert/fy to additional assurances. I£such is the case, you will be notified.
As the duly authorized representative oft.__he applicant I certi/'y that the applicant:
1. Has the legal authority to apply for Federal 8. Will comply with the Intergovernmental
assistance, and the institutional, managerial and
financial capability (including funds sufficient to
pay the non-Federal share of project costs) to
ensure proper planning, management and
completion of the project described in this
application.
2. Will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller
General of the United States, and/f appropriate,
the State, through any authorized representative,
access to and the right to examine all records,
books, papers, or documents related to the
assistance; and w/ll establish a proper accounting
system in accordance with generally accepted
accounting standards or agency directives.
3. Will not dispose of, mod/fy the use of, or change
the terms of the real property title, or other
interest in the site and facilities without
permission and instructions from the awarding
agency. Will record the Federal interest in the
title of real property in accordance with awarding
. agency directives and will include a covenant in
the title of real property acquired in whole or in
part with Federal assistance funds to assure
nondiscrimination during the useful llfe of the
project.
4. Will comply with the requirements of the
assistance awarding agency with regard to the
drafting, review and approval of construction
plans and specifications.
5. Will provide and maintain competent and
adequate engineering supervision at the
construction site to ensure that the complete work
conforms with the approved plans and spoci~ca-
tions and will furnish progress reports and such
other information as may be required by the
assistance awarding agency or State.
6. Will initiate and complete the work within the
appllcabIe time frame after receipt bf approval of
the awarding agency.
7. Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees
from using their positions for a purpose that
constitutes or presents the appearance of personal
or organizational conflict of interest, or personal
gain..
o
10.
Personnel Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4§ 4728-4763)
relating to prescribed standards for merit systems
for programs funded under one of the nineteen
-statutes or regulations specified in Appendix A of
OPM's Standards for a Merit System of Personnel
Administrat/on (5 C.F.R. 900, Subpart F).
Will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning
Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 44 4801 et seq.) which
prohibits the use of lead based paint in
construction or rehabilitation of residence
structures.
Will comply with all Federal statues relating to
non-d/scrim/nation. These include but are not
limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (P.L. 88-352} which prohibits discrimination
on the basis of race, color or national origin; (b)
Title [X of the Education Amendments of 1972, as
amended (20 U.S.C. 4§ 1681-1683, and 1685-
1686) which prohibits discrimination on the basis
of sex; (c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 794) which prohibit
discrimination of the basis of handicaps) (d) the
Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42
U SC. 44 6101-6107) which prohibits discrimi-
nation on the basis of age; (e) the Drug Abuse
O~ce snd Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 93-255), as
emended, relating to non-discrimination on the
basis of drug abuse; (f) the Comprehensive
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention,
Trestment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (P.L.
91.616). as amended, relating to nondlscriml.
nation on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism;
Cg) il 523 and 527 of the Public Health Service
Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. 290 dd-3 and 290 ee-3), as
emended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol and
drug ebuse patient records; (h) Title VIII of the
C~* d Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et Seq.),
es amended, relating to non-discrimination in the
~ale, rental or financing of housing; (i} any Other
non-d~scrimination provisions in the Specific
statute(s) under which application for Federal
sssistance is being made, and (j) the requirements
on any other non-discrimination Statute(s} which
may apply to the application.
Authorized for Local Reproduction
11. Will comply, or has already complied, with the
requirements of Titles II and III of the Un~form
Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646)
which provides for fair and equitable treatment
of persons displaced or whose property is
acquired as a result of Federal and federally
assisted programs. These requirements apply to
all interests in real property acquired for project
purposes regardless of Federal participation in
purchases.
12. Will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act
(5 U.S.C. 5§ 1501-1508 and 7324-7328) which
limit the political activities of employees whose
principal employment activities are funded in
whole or in part with Federal funds.
13. Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of
the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §5 276a to 276a-
7), the Copeland Act (40 U.S.C. § 276c and 18
U.S.C. § 874), the Contract Work Hours and
Safety Standards Act (40 U.S. §§ 327-333)
regarding labor standards for federally assisted
construction subagreements.
14. Will comply with the flood insurance purchase
requirements of Section 102(a) of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234)
which requires recipients in a special flood
hazard area to participate in the program and to
purchase flood insurance if the total cost of
insurable construction and acquisition is $10,000
or more.
15. Will comply with environmental atandards
which may be prescribed pursuant to the
following: (a) institution of environmental
qua{ity contro} measures under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190)
and Executive Order (ED) 11514; (b)
16.
17.
18.
19.
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190)
and Executive Order (ED) 11514; (b) notification
of violating facilities pursuant to ED 11738; (c)
p[otection of wetlands pursuant to ED 11990; (d)
evaluation of flood hazards in floodplains in
accordance with ED 11988; (e) assurance of
project consistency with the approved State
management program developed under the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.
§§ 1451 et seq.); (f) conformity of Federal actions
to State (Clean Air) Implementation Plans under
Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of 1955, as
amended (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.); (g) protection
of underground sources of drinking water under
the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as
amended, (P.L. 93-523}; and (h) protection of
endangered species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended, (P.L. 93-205).
Will comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
of 1968 (16 U.S.C. §5 1271 et seq.) related to
protecting components or potential components
of the national wild and scenic rivers system.
Will assist the awarding agency in assuring
compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 470), ED 11593 (identification and
preservation of historic properties), and the
Archaeo[ogical and Historic Preservation Act of
1974 (16 U.S.C. 469a-1 et seq.).
Will cause to be performed the required financial
and compliance audits in accordance with the
Single Audit Act of 1984.
Will comply with all applicable requirements of
all other Federal laws, Executive Orders,
regulations and policies governing this program
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICIAL
APPLICANT ORGANIZATION
DATE SUBMITTED
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #60-304-33
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31107-071392 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93 General Fund Appropriations, providing for the transfer of
$29,914.00 from General Fund Contingency to Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Recreation, in connection with implementation of immediate and long-term
recommendations submitted by "Youth Summit" participants. Ordinance No. 31107-
071392 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
pc:
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Development
Ms. Marion V. Crenshaw, Youth Planner
Mr. Howard R. Bullen, Acting Administrator, Fifth District Employment and
Training Consortium
Ms. Donna S. Norvelle, Human Resources Coordinator
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
Mr. Gary N. Fenton, Manager, Parks and Recreation
Mr. Owen M. Grog/tn, Superintendent, Recreation
Ms. M. Michelle Bono, Public Information Officer
1992-93
emergency.
WHEREAS,
Government of the
exist.
THEREFORE,
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31107-071392.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
General Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
BE IT ORDAINED by
Roanoke that certain sections of the
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby,
to read as follows, in part:
the Council of the City of
1992-93 General Fund
amended and reordained
~eneral Fund
Appropriations
Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Recreation (1-2) ..................................
Nondepartmental
Contingency - General Fund (3) ....................
1) Temporary
Employee Wages (001-050-7110-1004) $ 28,081
2) FICA (001-050-7110-1120) 1,833
3) Contingency (001-002-9410-2199) (29,914)
$ 4,301,906
1,219,647
11,523,255
512,865
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
July 10,
George C. Snead, Director of Public Safety
Rm. 354 Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue SW
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Mr. Snead:
1992
Subject: Teen Special Events Committee
The Teen Special Events Committee's projected start date
the July 13, 1992 Council Report is July 18, 1992.
in
It is the recommendation of the Teen Special Events Committee
that the date of the First Event be changed from July 18, 1992 to
July 25, 1992.
This decision was based on the following reasons:
1. Committee needs more time for proper advertisement of
program.
2. Committee needs more time to secure sponsors and
volunteers for program.
Committee needs more time to coordinate the various tasks
needed to follow through on events such as:
a) hiring a coordinator
b) hiring an assistant coordinator
c) hiring a clerk
4. Committee needs more time for proper scheduling of
security for event.
The Committee feels that the First Event must be carried out
in a sincere manner and the first event will help dictate the
success of the seven other scheduled events.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 983-9237.
Sincerely,
Earl W. Saunders, Jr.
Teen Special Events Committee
Roanoke, Virginia
July 13, 1992
Honorable Mayor David A. Bowers
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
REQI/EMT FOR Anl~CATIO~ OF FU]/DS FOR
YOI]TH S~31~{IT ~TIOl~J
In April~ 1992, representatives from a~encies~ area religious
con~re~ations, minority leaders~ and interested citizens were
invited by the Director of Public Safety to participate in a
process to identify resources and needs for youth in the City
during the su~er months.
B. The objectives of this process, called the "Youth Summit" were to:
Identify the resources available for City children and youth
during the sunnier;
2. Identify gaps, prioritize and brainstorm the unmet needs;
Form teams to develop strategies to address the unmet needs
this year; and
4. Develop a strategic plan for next year.
Co
The Youth Sun, nit was developed on the premise that although
individually the City, religious congregations, schools and
organizations do not have all the necessary resources to meet the
needs, collectively our community can make a positive difference.
Do
Realizin~ that this process was ,just the first step and in light
of time constraints, the group focused on finding methods to
address the most critical gaps and needs.
A survey of fifty-one organizations and religious congregations
serving youth was conducted to identify available programs and
solicit the comm~mity's perception of the gaps and unmet needs.
F. Twenty-seven unmet needs were identified and prioritized.
Four committees were formed to develop strategies to address the
top four unmet needs. These committees were:
1. Teen Special Events (initially called Activities That
Interest 'High Risk' Youth;
Honorable Mayor David A. Bowers
and Members of City Council
Page 2
July 13, 1992
II.
Youth Role Model ProKrem (initially called the Black Youth
Role Model Program);
3. Internships~ Jobs~ Volunteer Opportunities; and
4. Recreational Opportunities in the Parks.
Ho
Three "Youth Summit" meetings were held and each committee met
approximately four times. Twenty-one young people shared their
ideas, suggestions and concerns at the second "Youth Sum~nit"
meeting.
CI~R~TSITUATIO~
The "Youth Sun, nit" participants submitted a detailed report
including the individual committee reports, methodology,
statistical information and immediate and long-term
recommendations to the Director of Public Safety.
The report cited recommendations for immediate action this summer
and recommendations for long-range planning.
The followinK seven recommendations for immediate action were made
based on the identified needs, input from the youth, and the
survey findings:
Implement weekend dances for teens ages 16-20 years old
throughout the City;
Create a resource brochure listing persons who are willing
to serve as mentors, workshop and small group leaders for
youth;
Establish a mechanism for youth to advertise their job
skills;
Establish a clearing house for youth and business to contact
each other in regard to employment and volunteer
opportunities;
Establish a centrally located summer youth employment
agency;
Establish a playground program for children 7-12 years old
using four parks for three days a week, three hours a day,
for six weeks;
Honorable Mayor David A. Bowers
and Members of City Council
Page 3
July 13, 1992
III.
o
Establish a permanent planning committee to monitor the
implementation of the irf~ediate recommendations and to
address the long-term recommendations and unmet needs.
The Youth Summit report cited the following lonK-term
recommendations to be addressed before March 1, 1993.
Expand the park's playground program to five days per week,
six hours per day, for twelve weeks, in at least nine parks
during the stm~ner of 1993;
Incorporate the Sun,her Food Services Program sponsored by
the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium into
appropriate playground programs;
Establish a structured volunteer program to provide support
for the playground program, the teen dances and the teen
center;
Establish a teen center under the auspices of Roanoke City
Parks and Recreation;
6. Continue and expand the weekend teen dances;
Establish a program to mandate hiring youth in planning and
operation of teen activities;
8. Continue and expand the youth employment agency;
Establish a mechanism (i.e. foundation) to fund youth
programs.
The anticipated cost of implementing the immediate recommendations
is $37~361. A detailed budget is included in Attachment A.
FundinK is available in the Recreation Department budget for non-
personnel operating costs ($7,447). Funding for additional
personnel costs ($29~914) is available in the Contingency Reserve
Account.
ISSUES
A. Timing.
B. Funding.
C. Services to Citizens.
Honorable Mayor David A. Bowers
and Members of City Council
Page 4
July 13, 1992
IV. AL-£~u~ATIVES
Concur with the immediate recommendations cited by the "Youth
Sun, mit" participants to a) implement weekend dances for teens; b)
establish a playground program for children; c) create a resource
brochure for the youth role model program; d) establish a
mechanism for youth to advertise their job skills; e) establish a
clearing house for youth and businesses to contact each other in
regard to youth employment and volunteer opportunities; f)
establish a centrally located summer youth employment agency; and
g) establish a permanent planning co~ittee to monitor the
implementation of the i~nediate reco~endations and to address the
long-term recommendations and unmet needs.
Timin~ is an issue. While several weeks of summer have
passed, ample time remains to address the recommendations.
FundinK. The total cost to implement the immediate
reco~anendattons will be $37~361. Funding for personnel
costs in the amount of $29,914 will be needed to provide
adequate staff support and to protect the safety of the
children and youth. Funds are available in Contingency
Reserve Account Number 001-002-9410-2199.
Services to Citizens. The unmet needs for children and
youth in the summer time have been documented through the
"Youth Summit" process. It is the community's
responsibility to provide resources and guidance to enable
our young people to effectively utilize their leisure time
and to make appropriate choices. Implementation of the
recommendations would have a positive impact on services to
citizens by providing a strategy to address the inunediate
and long-term unmet needs.
B. Do not concur with the recommendations cited by the Youth Summit.
TiminK is an issue. Action must be taken in a timely
fashion to assure that programs are implemented as
recommended this summer.
2. FundinK would not be an issue.
Services to Citizens. Investing in our young people and
providing constructive activities and opportunities for them
will benefit the cormnunity as a whole. Failure to address
the recormnendations will result in more idle time for
Honorable Mayor David A. Bowers
and Members of City Council
Page 5
July 13, 1992
Vo
children and youth to become involved in detrimental
activities.
ao
City Council concur with the implementation of Alternative A and
address the immediate and long-term recommendations:
1. Immediate Recommendations:
Implement weekend dances for teens, ages 16-20 years
old throughout the City starting July 18, 1992;
Create a resource brochure listing persons who are
willing to serve as mentors, workshop and small group
leaders for youth;
Establish a mechanism for youth to advertise their job
skills;
Establish a clearinghouse for youth and businesses to
contact each other in regard to employment and
volunteer opportunities;
Establish a centrally located summer youth employment
agency;
Establish a playground program for children 7-12 years
old using four parks for three days a week, three
hours a day, for six weeks starting on July 21, 1992;
Establish a permanent planning committee to monitor
the implementation of the immediate recommendations,
to address the long-term recommendations, and to
address the remaining identified unmet needs.
Long-term recommendations for consideration by March 1,
1993:
Expand the park's playground program to five days per
week, 6 hours per day, for twelve weeks, in at least
nine parks during the summer of 1993;
Incorporate the Summer Food Services Program
coordinated by the Fifth District Employment and
Training Consortium into appropriate playground
programs;
Honorable Mayor David A. Bowers
and Members of City Council
Page 6
July 13, 1992
Establish a structured volunteer program to provide
support for the playground program, the teen dances
and the teen center;
Establish a teen center under the auspices of Roanoke
City Parks and Recreation;
e. Continue and expand the weekend teen dances;
Establish a program to mandate hiring youth in
planning and operation of teen activities;
g. Continue and expand the youth employment agency;
Establish a mechanism (i.e. foundation) to fund youth
programs.
Funding for personnel costs should be transferred from
Contingency Reserve Account 001-002-9410-2199 to the
following accounts:
001-050-7110-1004 $28,081
001-050-7110-1120 1~833
$29,914
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/GCS/DSN/hw
CC:
Wilburn Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
George C. Snead, Director of Public Safety
James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Development
Gary N. Fenton, Manager, Parks and Recreation
M. Michelle Bono, Public Information Officer
Howard Bullen, Acting Administrator, FDETC
Donna S. Norvelle, Human Development Coordinator
Appendix I - A
YOUTH ~ S-~T C(~l'r~ BUI)~iS
RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITES IN THE PARKS
PersuLa~el: (See Appendix I - B)
1 Coordinator @ 8.00/hour
4 Site Leaders @ 5.50/hour
20 Assistants @ 5.00/hour
2 weeks preparation time for staff
Supplies and Materials: ($625/Site X 4 Sites)
Arts and crafts, field games and athletic equipment
Promotional/Administrative Costs: (See Appendix I - B)
Transportation: (Valley Rental Bus Rental)
Buses to take children swinming ($125/wk X 6 wks)
12,419
2,500
1,250
750
$16,919
Promotional/Administrative Costs: (Production/
Distribution of 200 copies of a resource brochure)
Copying Cost (In-House)
Envelopes 9X12 (200)
Mailing Labels
Bulk Mailing
55
42
12
38
TOTAL: $ 147
Appendix I - A
JOBS IN£~iNSHIPS/VOLUN£~2I ~t~OYMENT CO~f~I'r£~
Persu~ml:
Job Coordinator/Developer, Temp. P/T (7/20/92 - 9/4/92)
30 hrs/wk X $8/hr X 7 wks 1,680
Fringe Benefits 129
3 Youth Workers X $5.00/hr X
20 hrs/wk X 7 wks
Fringe Benefits
2,100
161
Supplies end Materials:
1,809
2,261
500
$4~570
SPECIAL EV~qTS
Personnel:
1 Coordinator $8/hr X 25 hrs X 9 wks 1,800
1Asst. Coordinator $6.00 per hour 1,350
1 Clerk $5/hrX 15 hfs X 9wks 675
D.J. for 8 events $150/event 1,200
FICA (7.65%) (Excluding D.J.)
@ 37.50/hrX 8 events
X 5 hfs/event 1,500
4 Police Officers (Rke. City Personnel)
4 @ $30/hrX 8 Events X 5 hours 4,800
FICA (7.65%) 367
4unarmedprivate security officers @
9.00/hrX 8 events X 5 hrs/event 1~440
Additional Alternative: Utilization of 2 auxiliary
police officers, end 2 resource officers reassigned
to schedules to acc~m~xtate events.
Insurance Cost:
100.00/event X 8 (based on 500 participants)
Miscellaneous: (Space end Porta-John rental)
5,025
293
8,107
8O0
$1,500
$15,725
$37,361
GRAND BLIk~'r TOTAL:
Appendix I - B
RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES IN THE PARKS - Budget Backop
Personnel:
(Total employment 8 weeks: 1st week for staff training; last week for
post-progr~n evaluation; middle 6 weeks for actual program implementation)
1 Coordinator
Training:
8.00/hr X 4 hours X 4 sites X 2 weeks 256
Program Implementation:
8.00/hr X 4 hours X 4 sites X 6 weeks
768
4 Site Leaders (1 @ each pgrk)
5.50/hr X 12 hours X 8 weeks X 4
2,112
20 Assistants (5 @ each park)
Training:
5.00/hr X 10.5 hours X 2 weeks X 20
Program Implemmntation:
5.00/hr X 10.5 hours X 6 weeks X 20
FICA (7.65%)
2,100
6,300
883
12,419
Promotional/Administrative Costs:
Coordinator (55 Hours)
equipment logistics, marketing, pro-
gram planning, staff interviewing
4
Site Leaders (8 Hours Each)
dis~ibute flyers in
neighborhoods
12Assistants (6 Hours Each)
distribute flyers in
neighborhoods
FICA (7.65%)
Publishing flyers and materials
44O
176
360
74
200
1,250
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, $.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #70-524
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31109-071392 accepting the bid of I. N. McNeil
Roofing and Sheet Metal Co., Inc., in the total amount of $30,599.00, for roof
replacement work on the Commonwealth Building and Fire Station No. 6. Ordinance
No. 31109-071392 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely, fO.~.J~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sw
Enc.
pc:
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. William F. Clark, Dilmctor, Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Ms. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Mr. L. Bane Coburn, Civil Engineer
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
Ms. Dolores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community
Relations
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (?03) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #70-524
Mr. Rodney W. McNeil, President
I. N. McNeil Roofing and
Sheet Metal Co., Inc.
P. O. Box 973
Roanoke, Virginia 24005
Dear Mr. McNeil:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31109-071392 accepting the bid of I. N. McNeil
Roofing and Sheet Metal Co., Inc., in the total amount of $30,599.00, for roof
replacement work on the Commonwealth Building and Fire Station No. 6. Ordinance
No. 31109-071392 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clork
MFP: sw
EBC.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue. S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #70-524
Mr. John T. Morgan, President
J. T. Morgan Roofing and
Sheet Metal Co., Inc.
1620 6th Street, N. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Dear Mr. Morgan:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31109-071392 accepting the bid of I. N. McNeil
Roofing and Sheet Metal Co., Inc., in the total amount of $30,599.00, for roof
replacement work on the Commonwealth Building and Fire Station No. 6. Ordinance
No. 31109-071392 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, July 13, 1992.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express
appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovestated projects.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk ;
MFP:sw
EHC.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31109-071392.
AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of I. N. McNeil Roofing and
Sheet Metal Co., Inc., for roof replacement work on the
Commonwealth Building and Fire Station No. 6, upon certain terms
and conditions, and awarding a contract therefor; authorizing the
proper City officials to execute the requisite contract for such
work; rejecting all other bids made to the City for the work; and
providing for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The bid of I. N. McNeil Roofing and Sheet Metal Co., Inc.
made to the City in the total amount of $30,599.00 for roof
replacement work on the Commonwealth Building and Fire Station No.
6, such bid being in full compliance with the City's plans and
specifications made therefor and as provided in the contract
documents offered said bidder, which bid is on file in the Office
of the City Clerk, be and is hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the
City Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to execute
and attest, respectively, the requisite contract with the
successful bidder, based on its proposal made therefor and the
City's specifications made therefor, said contract to be in such
form as is approved by the City Attorney, and the cost of said work
to be paid for out of funds heretofore or simultaneously
appropriated by Council.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid
work are hereby REJECTED, and the City Clerk is directed to notify
each such bidder and to express to each the City's appreciation for
such bid.
4. 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
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #60-70-524
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31108-071392 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93 General Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation
of $30,599.00, in connection with award of a lump sum contract to I. N. McNeil
Roofing and Sheet Metal Co., Inc., for roof replacement work for the Commonwealth
Building and Fire Station No. 6. Ordinance No. 31108-071392 was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, July 13, 1992.
g"~'~ '~'~ ~'SincerelY,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
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. L. Bane Coburn, Civil Engineer
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Opera:ions
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
Ms. Dolores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community
Relations
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
1992-93
emergency.
WHEREAS,
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31108-071392.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
General Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
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
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1992-93
of the City of
General Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained
to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Public Works
Building Maintenance
1) Maintenance 3rd
Party Contracts
(001-052-4330-3056) $ 30,599
$ 18,571,246
2,622,214
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing,
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
this
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virgin~/a
July 13, 1992
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Bid Committee Report
Roof Projects - 92A
Commonwealth Building and
Fire Station No. 6
Roanoke, Virginia
II.
Background:
Bids, following proper advertisement, were
publicly opened and read aloud by General Services
on June 15, 1992 for Roof Projects - 92A,
Commonwealth Building and Fire Station No. 6.
Two (2) bids were received with the combined bid
of I. N. McNeil Roofing and Sheet Metal Co., Inc.
being the low bidder in the amount of $30t599.00
and 4--0 consecutive calendar days.
C. Work consists of the following:
Commonwealth Building consists of the roof
replacement over the main floor area above Social
Services. This includes the sloped roof area to
frame the skylight (sawtooth or factory window
area).
Fire Station No. 6 roof is over the Living-
Dormitory area plus the Fire-Hose Drying Tower.
Lease of portions of structure to the Commonwealth
of Virginia requires that City receive state
approval of any capital maintenance expenditure
over $10,000.00. Approval for this expenditure
has been received from the State Department of
General Services.
Issues in order of importance are:
Compliance of the bidders with the requirements of
the contract documents.
B. Amount of the low bid.
Page 2
III.
C. Fundinq for the project.
D. Time of completion.
Alternatives are:
Award a lump sum contract to I. N. McNeil Roofing
and Sheet Metal Co., Inc., of Roanoke, Virginia,
in the combined amount of $30~599.00 and 40
consecutive calendar days for the Roof Projects
92A, Commonwealth Building and Fire Station No. 6
in accordance with the contract documents as
prepared by the Office of the City Engineer.
Compliance of the bidders with the
requirements of the contract documents was
met.
2. Amount of the low combined bid is acceptable.
Funding for this project was included in the
FY 1991-92 Fixed Asset Maintenance Account;
however, bids for this project were not
received in time to enable the funding to be
obligated by June 30, 1992. The available
funding, therefore, is included in the FY
1992 year-end fund balance. Maintenance
items on the Commonwealth Building are
eligible for inclusion in the following
year's billing rate to the Commonwealth for
leased space.
Time of completion is quoted as 40
consecutive calendar days which is
acceptable.
Reject the bids and do not award a contract at
this time.
Compliance of the bidders with the
requirements of the contract documents would
not be an issue.
Amount of the low bid would probably increase
if rebid at a later date.
3. Fundinq would not be encumbered at this time.
4. Time of completion would be extended.
Page 3
IV.
Recommendation is that City Council take the following
action:
WRH/LBC/mm
Attachment:
cc:
A. Concur with the implementation of Alternative "A".
Authorize the City Manager to enter into a
contractual agreement, in form approved by the
City Attorney, with I. N. McNeil Roofing and Sheet
Metal Co., Inc. for the Roof Projects 92A for
the Commonwealth Building and Fire Station No. 6
in accordance with the contract documents as
prepared by the Office of City Engineer in the
amount of $30,599.00 and 4_90 consecutive calendar
days.
Authorize the Director of Finance to appropriate
the sum of $30,599.00 from the FY 1991-92 year-end
fund balance into the Building Maintenance account
(001-052-4330-3056).
Reject the other bid received.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Tabulation of Bids
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities & Operations
City Engineer
Manager, General Services
Citizens' Request for Service
Construction Cost Technician
TABULATION OF BIDS
ROOF PROJECTS - 92A
COMMONWEALTH BUILDING
AND FIRE STATION NO. 6
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Bids opened by General Services on Monday, June 15, 1992 at
2:00 p.m.
COMMONWEALTH FIRE COMBINED
BIDDER BUILDING STATION 6 BID TIME BOND
I. N. McNeil
Roofing and Sheet $20,787.00 $10,437.00 $30,599.00 40 YES
Metal Co., Inc. TOTAL
John T. Morgan
Roofing and Sheet No Bid $9,905.00 -0- 90 YES
Metal Co., Inc.
Estimated Cost: $31,000.00
I. N. McNeil's combined bid reduction is $625.00 less than the
individual bids which would make his Fire Station No. 6 bid $93.00
less than John T. Morgan's.
William F. Clark,
~~Charle~s ~no
Chairman
D. Do Roupo
Office of City Engineer
Roanoke, Virginia
July 13, 1992
DGS DEB DIRECTOR'S OFF. TEL: $04-3T1-T934 Jul 1,92 16:19 No.OO9 P.02
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
D~VIE, ION OF FNOIN[LIqlNG AND BLJILDING,~
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
July 1, 1992
605 EAST BROAD STREET, ROOM 101
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219
(804) 786-3263
By Facsimile and U. $. Mail
Mr. Richard V. Hamilton
City of Roanoke
Munlc~pal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 361
Roanoke, Virglnia 2401l
Dear Mr. Hamilton:
I have reviewed your draft Bid Committee Report regarding Roof
Projects - 92A; specifically, the proposed re-roofing of a part of the
Commonwealth Building.
We concur with the proposed contract for the roof replacement at the
contractor's adjusted bid price, for which the Commonwealth will be
responsible for the prorata share as calculated under the terms of the lease
agreement.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
'}oock
Director
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Vir ~inia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAK1N
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #60-72-44
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31116-071392 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93 Nursing Home Fund Appropriations, providing for
reappropriation of $22,140.00 into the current year budget in order that certain
expenditures may be properly classified and liquidated. Ordinance No. 31116-071392
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely, ~.~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Eric.
pc:
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Development
Mr. Robert F. Hyatt, Manager, Nursing Home
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROi~IOKE, VIRGINIA
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31116-071392.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1992-93 Nursing Home 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 1992-93 Nursing Home Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained
to read as follows, in part:
Operating $ 464,756
Other Charges (1-3) ............................... 266,950
Capital Outlay (4) ................................ 12,032
R~ven~e
Miscellaneous - Operating Supplement (5) .......... $ 405,553
1) Administrative
Supplies (009-054-5340-2030) $ 61
2) Expendable
Equipment (009-054-5340-2035) 8,307
3) Medical (009-054-5340-2062) 1,740
4) Other Equipment (009-054-5340-9015) 12,032
5) Operating
Supplement (009-020-1234-1037) 22,140
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roarloke, Vir~illia 2,1011
Telephone: ('/03) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #60-331
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31115-071392 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93 Transportation Fund Appropriations, providing for
reappropriation of $19,637.00 into the current year budget in order that certain
expenditures may be properly classified and liquidated. Ordinance No. 31115-071392
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
gnc.
pc:
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31115-071392.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1992-93 Transportation 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
Roanoke that certain sections of the
Appropriations, be,
to read as follows,
of
1992-93 Transportation Fund
and the same are hereby, amended and reordained
in part:
Williamson Road Parking Garage $ 209,853
Other Charges (1~2) ......... 54 757
Other Charges (3-4) ......... 26,722
Tower Parking Garage 549,041
Other Charges (5-6) ............................... 93,899
1) Administrative
Supplies
2) Maintenance
Buildings
3) Administrative
Supplies
4) Maintenance
Buildings
5) Administrative
Supplies
6) Maintenance
Buildings
(007-056-8205-2030) $ 165
(007-056-8205-2050) 15
(007-056-8215-2030) 193
(007-056-8215-2050) 5
(007-056-8225-2030) 134
(007-056-8225-2050) 19,125
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing,
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
this
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #60
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31114-071392 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93 Internal Service Fund Appropriations, providing for
reappropriation of $128,082.00 into the current year budget in order that certain
expenditures may be properly classified and liquidated. Ordinance No. 31114-071392
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Eno.
pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
HN THE COUNCHL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKEv VIRGINIA
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31114-071392.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1992-93 Internal Service 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 1992-93 Internal Service Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained
to read as follows, in part:
& ro riations
Management Services
Other Charges (1) .................................
City Information Systems
Other Charges (2-5).
capital Outlay :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Materials Control
Other Charges (8)
Fleet Maintenance .................................
Contractual Services (9) ..........................
Other Charges (10-14) .............................
Capital Outlay (15-16) ............................
Utility Line Services
Contractual Services (17) .........................
Other Charges (18-23) .............................
Capital Outlay (24) ...............................
$ 464,756
266950
2,178 894
209 212
201 651
204 750
6 928
2,926 228
27 961
599 493
1,025,972
2,801,169
17,702
292,035
133,375
1) Administrative
Supplies
2) Administrative
Supplies
3) Expendable
Equipment
(006-002-1617-2030) $ 7,923
(006-050-1601-2030} 2,824
(006-050-1601-2035) 1,992
4)
5)
6)
7)
Equipment
8) Administrative
Supplies
9) Fees for
Professional
Services
10) Administrative
Supplies
11) Expendable
Equipment
12) Chemicals
13) Maintenance
Equipment
14) Project Supplies
15) Furniture and
Equipment
16) Other Equipment
17) Fees for
Professional
Services
18) Administrative
Supplies
19) Expendable
Equipment
20) Motor Fuels
and Lubricants
21) Training and
Development
22) Maintenance
Equipment
23) Project Supplies
24) Other Equipment
Publications and
Subscriptions (006-050-1601-2040)
Training and
Development (006-050-1601-2044)
Other Equipment (006-050-1601-9015)
Automated Library
(006-050-1601-9018)
(006-050-1613-2030)
(006-052-2641-2010)
(006-052-2641-2030)
(006-052-2641-2035)
(006-052-2641-2045)
(006-052-2641-2048)
(006-052-2641-3005}
(006-052-2641-9005)
(006-052-2641-9015)
(006-056-2625-2010)
(006-056-2625-2030)
(006-056-2625-2035)
(006-056-2625-2038)
(006-056-2625-2044)
(006-056-2625-2048)
(006-056-2625-3005)
(006-056-2625-9015)
$ 56
11,801
25,493
11,158
1,103
27,961
1,612
500
3,094
1,576
4,715
4,616
1,356
9,702
426
2,972
458
56
435
1,878
4,375
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing,
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
this
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2,g)l 1
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #60-192
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31113-071392 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93 Civic Center Fund Appropriations, providing for
reappropriation of $29,011.00 into the current year budget in order that certain
expenditures may be properly classified and liquidated. Ordinance No. 31113-071392
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Ene.
pc:
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Mr. Bob E. Chapman, Manager, Civic Center Facilities
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31113-071392.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1992-93 Civic Center 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 1992-93 Civic Center Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained
to read as follows, in part:
Civic Center - Operating
Other Charges (1 2) $
Capital Outlay - ' ..............................
- Equipment
Capital Outlay (3) ................................
1) Administrative
Supplies
2) Expendable
Equipment
3) Other Equipment
(005-050-2105-2030) $ 1,823
(005-050-2105-2035) 394
(005-050-8600-9015) 26,794
1,608,868
570,304
76,794
76,794
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W.. Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2~41
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #60-27
Mr. Joel M. Sehlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31112-071392 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93 Sewage Fund Appropriations, providing for reappropriation
of $535,757.00 into the current year budget in order that certain expenditures may
be properly classified and liquidated. Ordinance No. 31112-071392 was adopted by
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, July 13,
1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
gnc.
pc:
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Mr. Steven L. Walker, Manager, Sewage Treatment Plant
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CZTY OF RO~OKE, VIRGINIA
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31112-071392.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1992-93 Sewage 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 1992-93 Sewage Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained
to read as follows, in part:
Administration
Contractual Services
Other Charges (2) .... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Maintenance
Other Charges (3-6) ...............................
Operations
Other Charges (7-8) ...............................
Laboratory
Other Charges (9 12)
Lateral Maintenanc~ ..............................
C~pital Outlay (13) ...............................
Capital Outlay from Revenue Capital Outlay (14) ...............................
$1,772,558
1,073,663
16,923
836,239
491 093
2,063 827
1,187,960
26,507
81,419
1,383210
75 995
25 545
25 545
1) Fees for
Professional
Services
2) Administrative
Supplies
3) Expendable
Equipment
4) Chemicals
(003-056-3150-2010) $ 423,163
(003-056-3150-2030) 3
(003-056-3155-2035) 158
(003-056-3155-2045) 91
5) Maintenance
Equipment
6) Maintenance
Buildings
7) Administrative
Supplies
8) Maintenance of
Infrastructures
9) Administrative
Supplies
10) Chemicals
11) Pretreatment
(EPA
Regulations)
12} Maintenance of
Infrastructures
13) Unidentified
Construction
14) Other Equipment
(003-056-3155-2048)
(003-056-3155-2050}
(003-056-3160-2030)
(003-056-3160-3055)
(003-056-3165-2030)
(003-056-3165-2045)
(003-056-3165-2047)
(003-056-3165-3055)
(003-056-3170-9085)
(003-056-3175-9015)
$ 54,603
16,421
41
205
6
603
1,715
1,203
28,000
9,545
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2~011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #60-468B
Mr. Joel M. Sehlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31111-071392 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93 Water Fund Appropriations, providing for reappropriation
of $40,287.00 into the current year budget in order that certain expenditures may
be properly classified and liquidated. Ordinance No. 31111-071392 was adopted by
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, July 13,
1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
pc:
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Mr. M. Craig SIuss, Manager, Water Department
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITy OF ROANoKE,VIRGINIA
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31111-071392.
AN ORDINANcE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1992-93 Water 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 1992-93 Water Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained
to read as follows, in part:
Pumping Stations
Other C~arges (1-2) ......
Purification.
O~her Charges (4-6) ......
Capital Outlay from Revenue
Capital Outlay (7) .................................
1) Expendable
Equipment
2) Maintenance
Buildings
3) Fees for
Professional
Services
4) Chemicals
5) Maintenance
Equipment
6) Maintenance
Buildings
7) New Services,
Hydrants, Lines
(002-056-2165-2035) $ 219
(002-056-2165-2050) 3,500
(002-056-2170-2010) 1,648
(002-056-2170-2045) 17,818
(002-056-2170-2048) 299
(002-056-2170-2050) 11,028
(002-056-2178-9025) 5,775
$ 592,183
411,058
881,927
33,648
241,995
1,493,329
1,493,329
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKI~
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, $.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-25al
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #60
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31110-071392 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93 General Fund Appropriations, providing for reappropriation
of $3,625,061.00 into the current year budget in order that certain expenditures may
be properly classified and liquidated. Ordinance No. 31110-071392 was adopted by
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, July 13,
1992.
Sincerely, ;~A~__
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Eno.
pc:
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31110-071392.
AN
1992-1995 General
WHEREAS,
VIRGINIA
ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
Fund Appropriations, and providin9 for an emergency.
for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1992-95
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby,
read as follows, in part:
is declared to exist.
of the City of
General Fund
amended and reordained to
General Government (1-56) ............................... $ 8,927
Judicial Administration (57-76) ...... ~ .................. 3,564
Public Safety (77-141) .................................. 29,968
Publlc Works (142-193) ....... ' ........................... 20,134
Health and Welfare (194-199) ............................ 14,458
Parks, Recreation and Cultural (200-214) ................ 4,326
Community Development (215-225) ......................... 870
Education (226-344) ..................................... 69,199
Nondepartmental (345-346) ............................... 11,582
432
423
577
214
899
980
670
619
180
Fund Balance
Reserve For Prior Year Encumbrances (347) .................. $ (3,625,061)
1) ADMINISTRATIVE .
SUPPLIES
2) FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
3) FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
4) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
5) FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
(001-001-1110-2050)
(001-001-1120-2010)
(001-002-1211-2010)
(001-002-1211-2030)
(001-002-1212-2010)
(001-002-i2i2-2030)
1,085
710
2,845
855
7,025
992
7) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
lO) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
i1) PUBLIOATIONS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
i2) FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
15) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
14) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
15) FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
16) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
17) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
i8) PUBLICATIONS AND
SU8SCRIPTIONS
19) MAINTENANCE-EQUIPMENT
20) FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
21) FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
22) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
25) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
24) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
25) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
26) FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
27) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
28) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
29) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
50) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
52) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
55) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
54) OTHER EQUIPMENT
55) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
56) EXPENDA8LE EQUIPMENT
37) FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
58) MINORITY RECRUITMENT
PROGRAM
EMPLOYEE PHYSICALS
40) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
001-002-1212-2055)
001-002-1212-9005)
001-005-1220-2050)
00i-005-i220-2055)
001-005-1220-2040)
001-005-1220-9005)
001-004-i25i-2050)
001-004-i25i-2055)
(001-004-125i-9005>
¢001-004-1252-2050)
(00i-004-i252-2055)
(001-004-1252-2040)
(00i-004-i252-2048>
(001-004-1252-9005)
(001-005-1240-20i0)
(001-005-1240-2050)
(00i-005-1240-2055)
(OOi-OiO-iSiO-2050)
(OOi-OiO-iSiO-2055)
(001-010-1510-9005)
(001-020-1254-2050)
(001-022-1255-2050)
(001-022-1255-2055)
(001-025-1255-2050)
(001-025-1255-9005)
(001-050-1257-2050)
(001-050-1257-2055)
(001-050-1257-9015)
(001-050-1260-2050)
(001-050-1260-2055)
(001-050-1260-9005)
(001-050-1261-2019)
(001-050-1261-2110)
(001-050-1261-2050)
581
2,654
208
800
1,612
6,171
4,062
605
2,481
1,078
6,190
79
6O
8,912
55,870
2,569
156
584
1,189
878
910
1,015
1,545
1,545
5,475
154
576
5,506
145
ilO
1,608
758
2,220
715
41) EMPLOYEE PROGRAMS
42) MEDICAL
45 FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
44 OTHER EQUIPMENT
45 FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
47 EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
48 INSURANCE
49 FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
50) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
51) FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
52) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
55) TRAINING AND
DEVELOPMENT
54) FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
55) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
56) FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
57) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
58) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
59) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
60) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
PUBLICATIONS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
65) MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS
ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
68) PUBLICATIONS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
69) FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
70) MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS
71) FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
72) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
75) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
74) PU8LICATIONS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
001-050-1261-2045
001-050-1261-2062
001-050-1261-9005
00i-050-i26i-90i5)
001-050-i262-2010)
(001-050-i262-2030)
(00i-050-1262-2055)
(00i-050-1262-3020)
(00i-050-1262-9005)
(001-052-i280-2030)
(001-052-1280-9005)
(00i-054-1270-2030)
(00i-054-1270-2044)
(001-054-1270-9005)
(001-056-i250-2055)
(00i-056-i250-9005)
(00i-024-2140-2030)
(0Q1-024-2140-2035)
(00i-026-2210-2030)
(001-026-22i0-2055)
(001-026-22i0-2040)
(001-028-21ii-2050)
(001-054-2i50-2050)
(001-054-2150-2055)
(001-070-2120-2005)
(001-070-2120-2030)
(001-070-2120-2035)
(001-070-2120-2040)
(001-070-2120-9005)
(001-072-2110-2005)
(001-072-2110-2010)
(001-072-2110-2030)
(001-072-2110-2035)
(001-072-2110-2040)
$ 1,646
11,231
2,912
549
15,000
71
660
25,000
699
322
1,608
72
1,608
100
1,608
445
87
8O5
427
115
16,570
271
366
32
1,533
380
1,903
749
961
1,815
170
1,412
123
75) FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
76) TRAINING AND
DEVELOPMENT
77) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
78) MAINTENANCE-EQUIPMENT
79) MEDICAL
80) WEARING APPAREL
81) OTHER EQUIPMENT
82) CONSTRUCTION-OTHER
85) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
84) PUBLICATIONS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
85) RENOVATION CONSTRUCTION
86) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
87) PUBLICATIONS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
88) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
89) PUBLICATIONS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
90) WEARING APPAREL
91) FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
92) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
95) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
94) PUBLICATIONS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
95) WEARING APPAREL
96) FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
97) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
98) PUBLICATIONS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
99) TRAINING AND
DEVELOPMENT
lO0) FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
iOi) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
102) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
i05) MAINTENANCE-EQUIPMENT
104) WEARING APPAREL
105) FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
i06) OTHER EQUIPMENT
i07) MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS
i08) FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
i09) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
ilO) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
(001-076-2150-9005)
(001-078-2151-2044)
(001-024-55i0-2050)
(001-024-5510-2055)
(00i-024-55i0-2062)
(00i-024-5510-2064)
(001-024-3510-9015)
(001-024-5510-9065)
(001-050-5111-2050)
(001-050-5111-2040)
(001-050-5111-9020)
(001-050-5112-2050)
(001-050-5112-2040)
(001-050-5115-2055)
(001-050-5115-2040)
(001-050-5115-2064)
(001-050-5115-9005)
(00i-050-5114-2050)
(00i-050-5ii4-2055)
(001-050-5114-2040)
(001-050-3114-2064)
(001-050-5114-9005)
(001-050-5115-2050)
(001-050-5115-2040)
(001-050-5115-2044)
(001-050-5215-2010)
(001-050-5215-2050)
(001-050-52i5-2055)
(001-050-5215-2048)
(001-050-5215-2064)
(001-050-5215-9005)
(001-050-52i5-9015)
(00i-050-5520-2005)
(001-050-5520-20i0)
(001-050-5520-2050)
(001-050-5520-2055)
97
505
75
701
667
4,822
10,926
i4,i60
1,514
128
2,775
8,275
559
2,754
79
79,075
5,886
1,329
5,950
79
621
5,520
171
218
13,555
4,500
1,974
10,269
88
19,089
2,400
18,556
1,512
6,700
1,569
1,507
111) DUES AND MEMBERSHIPS
112) TRAINING AND
DEVELOPMENT
ii3) MAINTENANCE-EQUIPMENT
114) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
115) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
ii6) PUBLICATIONS AND
SU8SCRIPTIONS
lit) TRAINING AND
DEVELOPMENT
llS) MAINTENANCE-EQUIPMENT
Jig) WEARING APPAREL
i20) OTHER EQUIPMENT
i2i) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
122) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
125) WEARING APPAREL
i24) FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
125) ADVERTISING
126) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
~27) PUBLICATIONS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
I28) PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
129) OTHER EQUIPMENT
i50) TRAINING AND
DEVELOPMENT
iSi) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
i52) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
155) WEARING APPAREL
154) PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
155) MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS
156) FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
i57) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
158) HOUSEKEEPING
SUPPLIES
159) USDA EXPENDITURES
i40) PURCHASED SERVICES
i4i) OTHER EQUIPMENT
142) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
145) MAINTENANCE-EQUIPMENT
i44) MAINTENANCE-BUILDINGS
i45) WEARING APPAREL
i46) PROJECT SUPPLIES
147) FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
148) VEHICULAR EQUIPMENT
149) OTHER EQUIPMENT
150) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
i51) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
001-050-5520-2042) $
00i-050-5520-2044)
00i-050-5520-2048)
001-050-5521-2030)
(001-050-3521-2035)
(001-050-5521-2040)
(001-050-5521-2044
(001-050-3521-2048
(001-050-5521-2064
(001-050-352i-90i5
(001-050-5550-2050
(00i-050-5550-2055
(001-050-5550-2064
(001-052-3410-2010)
(001-052-54i0-2015)
(00i-052-5410-2050)
(001-052-5410-2040)
(001-054-3320-2066)
(001-054-3520-9015)
(001-054-3550-2044)
(001-054-5550-2050)
(001-054-5550-2035)
(001-054-3550-2064)
(001-054-5550-2066)
(001-054-5560-2005)
(001-054-3360-2010)
(001-054-3360-2050)
(001-054-3360-2032)
(001-054-3560-3000)
(001-054-3560-5160)
(001-054-5360-9015)
(001-050-4540-2035)
(00i-050-4540-2048)
(00i-050-4340-2050)
(001-050-4540-2064)
(00i-050-4540-5005)
(001-050-4540-9005)
(001-050-4540-9010)
(001-050-4340-9015)
(001-052-4110-2050)
(001-052-4110-2055)
135
412
492
402
2,004
48
560
308
504
12,561
162
199
58
13,957
210
171
510
648
1,869
195
24
3,585
20
51
gO
4,500
515
209
965
12,451
4,967
2,788
7,062
7,545
12i
6,859
1,227
455,741
20,978
696
1,675
152) PROJECT SUPPLIES
155) MAINTENANCE OF
INFRASTRUCTURES
154) EQUIPMENT RENTAL
155) VEHICULAR EQUIPMENT
156) OTHER EQUIPMENT
157) FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
158) MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS
159) FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
160) TELEPHONE
161) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
162) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
165) PROJECT SUPPLIES
164) OTHER RENTAL
165) OTHER EQUIPMENT
166) CHEMICALS
167) FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
168) MAINTENANCE-EQUIPMENT
169) OTHER EQUIPMENT
370) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
171) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
172) MAINTENANCE-EQUIPMENT
175) MAINTENANCE OF
INFRASTRUCTURES
i74) OTHER EQUIPMENT
175) MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS
176) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
177) VEHICULAR EQUIPMENT
i78) OTHER EQUIPMENT
179) FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
i80) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
181) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
182) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
185) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
184) FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
185) MAINTENANOE CONTRACTS
186) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
187) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
188) PROJECT SUPPLIES
189) MAINTENANCE-
GENERAL FUND
190) MAINTENANCE-
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
191) MAINTENANCE 5RD
PARTY CONTRACT
(001-052-4110-5005)
(001-052-4110-5055)
(001-052-4110-5070)
(001-052-4110-9010)
(001-052-4110-9015)
(001-052-4120-2010)
(00i-052-4150-2005)
(001-052-4150-2010
(001-052-4150-2020
(001-052-4i50-2050
(001-052-4150-2055
(001-052-4i50-5005
(001-052-4150-5075
(001-052-4150-9015
(001-052-4140-2045
(001-052-4i50-2010)
(001-052-4150-2048)
(001-052-4150-9015)
(001-052-4160-2050)
(001-052-4160-2055)
(001-052-4160-2048)
(001-052-4160-5055)
(001-052-4160-90i5)
(001-052-4210-2005)
(001-052-4210-2050)
(001-052-4210-9010)
(001-052-4210-9015)
(00i-052-42ii-20i0)
(001-052-4211-2050)
(001-052-4211-2055)
001-052-4510-2050)
001-052-4510-2055)
001-052-4510-9005)
001-052-4550-2005)
001-052-4550-2050)
001-052-4550-2055)
001-052-4550-5005)
(001-052-4550-5050)
(001-052-4550-5051)
(001-052-4550-5056)
$ 44,407
108,188
1,250
151,857
162,819
161,229
2,201
6,770
115
5,954
4,056
1,921
58,888
45,415
41,800
10,000
514
10,521
487
1,402
1,886
565
16,548
42
1,901
125,616
59,087
11,999
751
855
655
2,990
9,072
42
285
1,050
275
14,925
66,585
192) EQUIPMENT RENTAL
19~) VEHICULAR EQUIPMENT
194l OTHER EQUIPMENT
195) RENOVATION CONSTRUCTION
196) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
197) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
198) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
199 EQUIPMENT RENTAL
200 TELEPHONE
201 ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
202 EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
205 CHEMICALS
204 MAINTENANCE-EQUIPMENT
205 PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
206 SPECIAL EVENTS
207 FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
208) OTHER EQUIPMENT
209) CONSTRUCTION OTHER
210) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
211) EXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
212) PUBLICATIONS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
215) MAINTENANOE-EQUIRMENT
214) FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
215) ADVERTISING
216) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
217) TRAINING AND
DEVELOPMENT
218) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
219) FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
220) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
221) NEIGHBORHOOD
IMPROVEMENT GRANTS
222) CONTRIBUTIONS
BUSINESS PARTNERSHIPS
225) FURNITURE AND
EQUIPMENT
224) ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPPLIES
225) TRAINING AND
DEVELOPMENT
226) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
227) FIELD TRIPS
(001-052-4550-5070
(001-052-4550-9010
(001-054-5110-9015
(00i-054-55ii-9020
(00i-054-55i5-2050
(001-054-5514-2050
(001-054-5516-2050
(001-054-5317-5070
(001-050-7110-2020
(001-050-7110-2050)
(001-050-7110-2055)
(001-050-7110-2045)
(001-050-7110-2048)
(001-050-7110-2066)
(001-050-7110-2125)
(001-050-7110-9005)
(001-050-7110-9015)
(001-050-7110-9020)
(001-054-7510-2050)
(001-054-7510-2055)
(001-054-7510-2040)
(001-054-7510-2048)
(001-054-7510-9005)
(001-002-8120-2015)
(001-002-8120-2050)
(001-002-8120-2044)
(001-002-8125-2050)
(001-052-8110-2010)
(001-052-8110-2050)
(001-052-8110-5770)
(001-052-8110-5772)
(001-052-8110-9005)
(001-054-8170-2050)
(001-054-8170-2055)
(001-060-6001-6000-0614)
(001-060-6001-6100-0585)
198
18,208
12,505
2,184
708
210
92
270
525
1,104
5,951
24
24
9,025
1,026
9,152
11,129
2,101
5,051
2,900
518
555
10,525
6,000
484
100
104
12,000
1,062
2,926
105
6,207
941
174
1,158
156
228) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
229) OFFICE SUPPLIES
250) EDUCATIONAL AND
REOREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
25i MAINTENANCE
SERVICE OONTRACTS
232) OFFICE SUPPLIES
235) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
254) REPLACEMENT-
MACHINERY AND
EQUIPMENT
255) BOOKS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
256) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
257) BOOKS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
258) 800KS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
259) EDUCATIONAL AND'
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
240) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
241) MILEAGE
242) FIELD TRIPS
245) BOOKS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
244) TESTING/EVALUATION
/DISSEMINATION
245) OTHER OPERATIONAL
SUPPLIES
246) CONVENTIONS/
EDUCATION
247) INSERVICE
WORKSHOPS
248) INSERVIOE
SUPPLIES
249) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
250) OTHER OPERATIONAL
SUPPLIES
251) BOOKS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
252) BOOKS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
255) OTHER OPERATIONAL
SUPPLIES
(001-060-6001-6100-0614)
(001-060-6001-6200-0601)
(001-060-6001-6201-0614)
(001-060-6001-6202-0552)
(001-060-6001-6202-0601)
(001-060-6001-6202-0614)
(001-060-6001-6202-0801)
(001-060-6001-6204-0615)
(001-060-6001-6204-0614)
001-060-6001-6205-0615)
001-060-6001-6208-0615)
001-060-6001-6208-0614)
001-060-6001-6209-0614)
001-060-6001-6211-0551)
001-060-6001-6211-0585)
001-060-6001-6212-0615)
001-060-6001-6215-0584)
(001-060-6001-6215-0615)
(001-060-6001-6214-0554)
(001-060-6001-6214-0587)
(001-060-6001-6214-0617)
(001-060-6001-6215-0614)
(001-060-6001-6215-0615)
(001-060-6001-6218-0615)
(001-060-6001-6225-0615)
(001-060-6001-6229-0615)
$ 1,754
1,606
518
1,240
1,84B
10
687
257,628
46
458
50,556
213
1,071
227
597
42,740
1,839
684
551
1,599
41
258
1,128
151
254
254) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
255) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
256) MAINTENANCE
SERVICE CONTRACTS
257) OFFICE SUPPLIES
258) EDUCATIONAL AND
REOREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
259) REPLACEMENT-
MACHINERY AND
EQUIPMENT
260 BOOKS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
26i BOOKS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
262 OTHER PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
265 BOOKS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
264) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
265) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
266) BOOKS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
267) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
268) BOOKS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
269) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
270 REPAIR AND
MAINTENANCE
PAYMENTS
27i) FIELD TRIPS
272) 800KS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
275) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
274) BOOKS AND
SU8SCRIPTIONS
275) EDUCATIONAL AND
REOREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
276) TESTING/EVALUATION
/DISSEMINATION
277) OFFICE SUPPLIES
001-060-6001-6246-0614)
001-060-6001-6501-0614)
001-060-6001-6502-0552)
001-060-6001-6502-0601)
001-060-6001-6502-0614)
001-060-6001-6502-0801)
001-060-6001-6504-0615)
(001-060-6001-6505-0615)
(001-060-6001-6506-0515)
(001-060-6001-6506-0615)
(001-060-6001-6506-0614)
(001-060-6001-6507-0614)
(001-060-6001-6508-0615)
(001-060-6001-6508-0614)
(001-060-6001-6509-0615)
(001-060-6001-6509-0614)
(001-060-6001-6511-0551)
(001-060-6001-6511-0585)
(001-060-6001-6511-0615)
(001-060-6001-6511-0614)
(001-060-6001-6512-0615)
(001-060-6001-6512-0614)
(001-060-6001-6515-0584)
(001-060-6001-6515-0601)
254
478
1,250
1,556
17,000
2,700
708
16,719
14,455
4,088
9,951
150
5,275
1,815
421
59O
2,816
1
56,695
42
56,229
i,041
597
278) CONVENTIONS/
EDUCATION
279) INSERVICE
SUPPLIES
280) LEASE/RENT
OF EQUIPMENT
281) MILEAGE
282) BOOKS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
285) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
284) BOOKS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
285) 800KS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
286) OFFICE SUPPLIES
287) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
288) 800KS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
289) BOOKS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
290) BOOKS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
29i) MAINTENANCE
SERVICE CONTRACTS
292) MILEAGE
295) BOOKS AND
SUBSCRIPTIONS
294) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
295) OTHER OPERATIONAL
SUPPLIES
296) REPLAOEMENT-
MACHINERY AND
EQUIPMENT
297) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
298) FIELD TRIPS
299) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
500) OTHER OPERATIONAL
SUPPLIES
501) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
502) REPLAOEMENT-
OTHER OAPITAL
OUTLAYS
505) PRINTING AND
BINDIN6 SERVICES
(001-060-6001-6514-0554)
(001-060-6001-6514-0617)
(001-060-6001-6515-0541)
(001-060-6001-6515-0551)
(001-060-6001-6518-0615)
(001-060-6001-6518-0614)
(001-060-6001-6521-0615)
(001-060-6001-6525-0615)
(001-060-6001-6529-0601)
(001-060-6001-655i-0614)
(001-060-6001-6554-0615)
(001-060-6001-6557-0615)
001-060-6001-6558-0615)
001-060-6001-6545-0552)
001-060-6001-6545-0551)
001-060-6001-6545-0615)
001-060-6001-6545-0614)
001-060-6001-6545-0615)
001-060-6001-6545-0801)
(001-060-6001-6546-0614)
(001-060-6001-6555-0585)
(001-060-6001-6555-0614)
(001-060-6001-6555-0615)
(001-060-6001-6666-0614)
(001-060-6001-6666-0809)
(0011060-6002-6662-0551)
1,699
8,070
119
124
10
55
554
6O
81
151
256
552
53
2,074
1,120
696
407
841
1,486
155
5,059
1,000
150,558
17,247
25
504) CONVENTIONS/
EDUCATION
505) PRINTING AND
BINDING SERVICES
506) OFFICE SUPPLIES
507) OTHER PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
508) OFFICE SUPPLIES
509) HEALTH INSURANCE
510) MEDICAL
EXAMINATIONS
511) OFFICE SUPPLIES
512) OFFICE SUPPLIES
515) OTHER PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
514) TESTING/EVALUATION
/DISSEMINATION
515) EDUCATIONAL AND
RECREATIONAL
SUPPLIES
5i6) MILEAGE
5i7) OFFICE SUPPLIES
518) REPLACEMENT-
SCHOOL BUSES
319) VEHICLE AND
EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES
520) OFFICE SUPPLIES
521) OFFICE SUPPLIES
522) OTHER PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES
525) ELECTRICAL SERVICE
524) HEATING SERVICE
525) JANITORIAL
SUPPLIES
526) REPAIR AND
MAINTENANCE
SUPPLIES
527) REPLACEMENT-
MACHINERY AND
EQUIPMENT
528) REPLACEMENT-
OTHER CAPITAL
OUTLAYS
529) REPAIR AND
MAINTENANCE
SUPPLIES
550) REPAIR AND
MAINTENANCE
PAYMENTS
551) MAINTENANCE
SERVICE CONTRACTS
552) REPAIR AND
MAINTENANCE
SUPPLIES
(001-060-6002-6662-0554)
(001-060-6002-6665-0551)
(001-060-6002-6665-0601)
(001-060-6002-6664-0515)
(001-060-6002-6665-0601)
(001-060-6002-6666-0204)
(001-060-6002-6666-0210)
(001-060-6002-6666-0601)
(001-060-6002-6669-0601)
(001-060-6002-6675-0515)
(001-060-6002-6674-0584)
(001-060-6002-6674-0614)
(001-060-6002-6675-0551)
(001-060-6002-6675-0601)
(001-060-6002-6676-0808)
(001-060-6002-6678-0610)
(001-060-6002-6680-0601)
(001-060-6002-6681-0601)
(001-060-6002-6681-0515)
(001-060-6002-6681-0511)
(001-060-6002-6681-0512)
(001-060-6002-6681-0606)
(001-060-6002-6681-0608)
(001-060-6002-6681-0801)
(001-060-6002-6681-0809)
(001-060-6002-6682-0608)
(001-060-6002-6685-0551)
(001-060-6002-6685-0552)
(001-060-6002-6685-0608)
$ 1,219
587
5,591
665
1,089
4,681
68
599
42
2,547
1,665
42
509
524
50,182
6,215
600
96,429
1,625
14,595
941
4,604
128,289
91
6,650
5,454
7,501
554
570
333) REPLACEMENT-
MACHINERY AND
EQUIPMENT
354) REPLACEMENT-
FURNITURE AND
FIXTURES
335) VEHICLE AND
EQUIPMENT
SUPPLIES
336) REPAIR AND
MAINTENANCE
SUPPLIES
337) POLICE SUPPLIES
338) MILEAGE
559) FOOD SERVICE
SUPPLIES
340) REPAIR AND
MAINTENANCE
SUPPLIES
541) REPLACEMENT-
MACHINERY AND
EQUIPMENT
542) ADDITIONAL-
FURNITURE AND
FIXTURES
543) ADDITIONAL-
MOTOR VEHICLES
AND EQUIPMENT
· 344) ADDITIONAL-
OTHER CAPITAL
OUTLAYS
345) FLOOD i992
346)
347)
(001-060-6002-6683-0801)
(001-060-6002-6685-0802
(00i-060-6002-6684-06i0)
(001-060-6002-6685-0608)
(00i-060-6002-6685-06ii)
(001-060-6005-6788-055i)
(001-060-6003-6788-0603)
(001-060-6003-6788-0608
(001-060-6003-6788-0801)
(001-060-6004-6683-0822)
(001-060-6004-6683-0824)
(001-060-6004-6896-0829)
(001-004-9140-2177)
TRANSFER TO NURSING
HOME FUND (001-004-9310-9536)
RESERVE FOR PRIOR
YEAR ENCUMBRANCES ¢001-3331)
$ 2,196
36,535
5,064
2,367
2,828
53
4,519
99
37,057
116,505
50,059
50,000
6,871
22,140
(3,625,061)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an
Ordinance shall De in effect from its passage.
emergency
existing,
ATTEST:
this
City Clerk
DEPARTMENT OF FINANC[
July 13, 1992
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Reappropriation of Outstanding Encumbrances as of June 30, 1992
At the close of fiscal year 1992, budget funds were obligated for
outstanding encumbrances. Purchase orders or contracts have been issued for the
goods and services as of the close of fiscal year 1992, but delivery of the goods, or
performance of the services have not been completed. Reappropriation of these funds
brings forward the unspent budget funds that were originally appropriated and
obligated contractually for the goods and services. The appropriation amounts are as
follows:
General Fund
Open Encumbrances ~ 3,625,061
Water Fund
Open Encumbrances $ 4Qf287
Sewage Fund
Open Encumbrances $ 535,757
Civic Center Fund
Open Encumbrances ~ 2~r011
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Page 2
July 13, 1992
Internal Service Fund
Open Encumbrances ~ 128.082
Transportation Fund
Open Encumbrances ~ 19f6:~7
Nursing Home Fund
Open Encumbrances $ 22,140
I recommend that Council adopt the attached budget ordinances to
reappropriate these funds into the current year budget in order that these
encumbrances may be properly liquidated.
JMS/kp
Attachments
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKLN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #162-18
Mr. Willard N. Claytor
Director of Real Estate Valuation
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Claytor:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31117-071392 amending Ordinance No. 31062-
061592 with respect to the annual salary of the Director of Real Estate Valuation, for
the fiscai year beginning July 1, 1992, establishing said salary at $56,000.00 until
modified by ordinance duly adopted by the Council. Ordinance No. 31117-071392 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
pc.'
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Development
Mr. Kenneth S. Cronin, Personnel Manager
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 13th day of July. 1992.
No. 31117-071392.
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No. 31062-061592 with respect
to the annual salary of the Director of Real Estate Valuation; and
providing for an emergency and a retroactive effective date.
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 31062-061592, adopted June 15, 1992,
established annual salaries of the Council-appointed officers and
such ordinance erroneously stated the annual salary of the Director
of Real Estate Valuation; and
WHEREAS, it is the intention of City Council to correct such
error on a retroactive basis;
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council
of the City of
Roanoke as follows:
1. For the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1992, until
modified by ordinance duly adopted by this Council, the annual
salary of the Director of Real Estate Valuation shall be $56,000.
2. Ordinance No. 31062-061592, adopted June 15, 1992, is
hereby amended as stated in this Ordinance with respect to the
annual salary of the Director of Real Estate Valuation.
3. 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 retroactive to July 1,
1992.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITYAT1X)RNEY
464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING
ROANOKE, ~RGINIA 24011-15~5
WILBURNC. DIBLING, JR. July 13, 1992
WILLIAM X PARSONS
MARK ALLAN WILLIAMS
STEVEN d. TALEVI
KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAU
ASSISTANT CFr( ATTORNEYS
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: Compensation of Director of Real
Estate Valuation
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
I regret to advise that an error was made in the Ordinance
adopted on June 15, 1992, establishing the annual salaries of
Council-appointed officers. See Ordinance No. 31062-061592, a copy
of which is attached. This ordinance establishes an annual salary
of $53,000 for the Director of Real Estate Valuation. Resolution
No. 30879-021092, adopted February 10, 1992, a copy of which is
also attached, however, established an annual salary of $56,000 for
the Director of Real Estate Valuation (the Resolution states the
salary on a bi-weekly basis of $2,153.84 which equates to an annual
salary of $56,000).
The Chairman of the Personnel Committee has confirmed to me
that it was the intent of the Committee that the Director of Real
Estate Valuation's annual salary should remain at $56,000, and I am
attaching an ordinance to correct the mistake on a retroactive
basis.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Wilburn C. Jr.
City Attorney
WCD:f
Attachments
cc: Willard N. Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 15th day of June, 1992.
No. 31062-061592.
AN ORDINANCE establishing compensation for the City Manager,
City Attorney, Director of Finance, Director of Real Estate
Valuation, Municipal Auditor and City Clerk for the fiscal year
beginning July 1, 1992; and providing for an emergency and an
effective date.
of the City of Roanoke as
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council
follows:
1, For the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1992, and ending
June 30, 1993, and for succeeding fiscal years unless modified by
ordinance duly adopted by this Council, the annual salaries of
Council-appointed officers shall be as follows:
City Manager -
City Attorney -
Director of Finance -
Director of Real Estate -
Valuation
Municipal Auditor -
City Clerk -
99,000
88,000
88,000
53,000
60,000
54,000
2. Paragraph 7 of Ordinance No. 31000-051192, adopted May
11, 1992, is hereby amended as follows to provide annual salary
increments payable on a bi-weekly basis for the hereinafter set out
job classifications which require the incumbent to privately own or
lease a motor vehicle routinely used
City business:
Position Title
City Attorney
City Clerk
Director of Finance
Director of Real Estate
Valuation
Municipal Auditor
in the course of conducting
Annual
Salary Increment
$ 2,000
$ 2,000
$ 2,000
$ 2,000
$ 2,000
If the requirement that any of the foregoing officers own or lease
a motor vehicle for routine use in the conduct of City business
should be eliminated, then the salary increment established by this
Ordinance shall be terminated as of the date of elimination of such
requirement.
3. Any increase in compensation due to any officer or
employee under this Ordinance shall be first paid with the paycheck
of July 15, 1992.
municipal
ordinance
1992.
In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this
shall be in full force and effect on and after July 1,
ATTEST:
City Clerk
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 10th Day of February, 1992.
No. 30879-021092.
A RESOLUTION electing and appointing Willard N. Claytor as
Director of Real Estate Valuation for the City of Roanoke effective
April 1, 1992, and establishing the terms and conditions of Mr.
Claytor's employment as Director of Real Estate Valuation.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to elect and appoint Willard
N. Claytor as Director of Real Estate Valuation pursuant to S32-36,
e__t seq., Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Claytor has agreed to accept election and
appointment as Director of Real Estate Valuation;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke as follows:
1. Willard N. Claytor is hereby elected and appointed as
Director of Real Estate Valuation for the City of Roanoke effective
April 1, 1992.
2. As Director of Real Estate Valuation, Mr. Claytor shall
be the assessor of real estate for taxation in this City and shall
have the powers and duties provided for such office by the Code of
the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and general law and special
act of the Commonwealth.
3. The terms and conditions of Mr. Claytor's election and
appointment as Director of Real Estate Valuation shall be as
hereinafter set forth:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
The base bi-weekly salary of Mr. Claytor as
Director of Real Estate Valuation shall be
$2,153.84, payable at the same time as other
employees of the City;
The City shall execute any necessary
agreements provided by the International City
Management Association-Retirement Corporation
(ICMA-RC) for Mr. Claytor's participation in
said ICMA-RC Retirement Plan, and in addition
to the salary set out in section 3(a) herein,
the City shall pay an amount equal to nine
percent (9%) of Mr. Claytor's gross salary
into ICMA-RC on his behalf, in equal
proportionate amounts each bi-weekly payday,
and the City shall transfer ownership to any
succeeding eligible employers upon Mr.
Claytor's resignation or discharge; provided
that the City's contribution on Mr. Claytor's
behalf to ICMA-RC during any tax year shall
not exceed the maximum amount permitted by IRS
regulations to be deferred from federal income
taxation during any tax year (currently,
$7,500.00 per year);
Recognizing that the Job requirements of the
Director of Real Estate Valuation routinely
require incurring of travel related expenses
in the course of City business, a bi-weekly
salary increment of $69.23 shall be provided
for use by Mr. Claytor of a privately-owned or
leased automobile in the conduct of official
City business;
The City shall put into force on Mr. Claytor's
behalf a disability insurance policy providing
income benefits equivalent to seventy percent
(70%) of Mr. Claytor's net salary for the
duration of any disability and make required
premium payments thereon; and
With respect to benefits and terms and
conditions of employment not enumerated in
this resolution, Mr. Claytor shall be accorded
such benefits and shall be subject to such
terms and conditions on the same basis as
other similarly situated employees of the
City.
4. Mr. Claytor shall make arrangements to qualify for office
by taking the required Oath of Office as soon as practicable.
5. So long as Mr. Claytor shall hold the office of Director
of Real Estate Valuation, this resolution shall be effective until
amended or repealed.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
CITY OF ROANOKE
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
July 6, 1992
Willard N. Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation
C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney ~
Wilburn
Annual Salary of Director of Real Estate Valuation and
automobile allowance for Deputy Director of Real Estate
Valuation
Wil, Mary Parker has referred your memos of June 24, 1992,
relating to the above-referenced subjects to me.
First, as to the annual salary of the Director of Real Estate
Valuation, this was my mistake, and I am attaching a report to
Council and ordinance to be placed on the agenda of July 13, 1992,
which will correct the mistake retroactively. I regret very much
that a mistake was made.
Second, as to provision of an annual salary increment for use
of a private automobile by the Deputy Director of Real Estate
Valuation, I have reviewed the pay plan ordinances adopted by City
Council in 1989 and 1990 (no ordinance was adopted in 1991 since
there were no adjustments to the pay plan), and neither of these
ordinances provides any salary increment for the Deputy Director of
Real Estate Valuation. Thus, the position was not omitted due to
any clerical or administrative error in this Office. This
position, of course, may be one for which a salary increment would
be appropriate, and, at the direction of City Council, I will be
pleased to prepare the appropriate measure to provide for this
benefit.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
WCD:f
cc: The~onorable Howard E. Musser, Chairman, Personnel Committee
W./Robert Herbert, City Manager
~ry F. Parker, City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF ~ CITYATI"O~
WI~URNC. DIBUNG, 3R. July 13, 1992
Wl~ X PARSONS
MARK ALLAN WILUAMS
STEV~N J. TALEVI
KATHI EER MARE KRONAU
The Honorable Mayo~ and~ ~embers
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: Compensation of Director of Real Estate Valuation
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
I regret to advise that an error was made in the Ordinance
adopted on June 15, 1992, establishing the annual salaries of
Council-appointed officers. See Ordinance No. 31062-061592, a copy
of which is attached. This ordinance establishes an annual salary
of $53,000 for the Director of Real Estate Valuation. Resolution
No. 30879-021092, adopted February 10, 1992, a copy of which is
also attached, however, established an annual salary of $56,000 for
the Director of Real Estate Valuation (the Resolution states the
salary on a bi-weekly basis of $2,153.84 which equates to an annual
salary of $56,000).
The Chairman of the Personnel Committee has confirmed to me
that it was the intent of the Committee that the Director of Real
Estate Valuatlon's annual salary should re~ain at $56,000, and I am
attaching an ordinance to correct the mistake on a retroactive
basis.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
WilburnC. Jr.
City Attorney
WCD:f
Attachments
cc: Willard N. Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 15th daf of June, 1992.
No. 31062-061592.
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE establishing compensation for the City Manager,
City Attorney, Director of Finance, Director of Real Estate
Valuation, Municipal Auditor and City Clerk for the fiscal year
beginning July 1, 11992~ 'and providing for an emergency and an
effective date.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of
follows=
1,
June 30,
ordinance duly adopted by this Council, the annual
Council-appointed officers shall be as follows=
the City of Roanoke as
For the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1992, and ending
1993, and for succeeding fiscal years unless modified by
salaries of
11,
City Manager - $ 99,000
City Attorney - $ 88,000
Director of Finance - $ 88,000
Director of Real Estate - $ 53,000
Valuation
Municipal Auditor - $ 60,000
City Cle=k - $.54,000
2. Paragraph 7 of Ordinance No. 31000-051192, adopted May
1992, is hereby amended as follows to provide annual salary
increments payable on a bi-weekly basis for the hereinafter set out
Job classifications which require the incumbent to privately own or
lease
City business:
Position Title
City Attorney
City Clerk
Director of Finance
Director of Real Estate
Valuation
Municipal'Auditor
a motor vehicle routinely used in the course of conducting
Annual Salary Increment
$ 2,000
$ 2,000
$ 2,000
$ 2,000
$ 2,000
If the requirement that any of the foregoing officers own or lease
a motor vehicle for routine use in the conduct of City business
should be eliminated, then the salary increment established by this
Ordinance shall be terminated as of the date of elimination of such
requirement.
3. Any increase in compensation due to any officer or
employee under this Ordinance shall be first paid with the paycheck
of July 15, 1992.
4. 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
1992.
effect on and after July l,
ATTEST:
City Clerk
IN THE cOUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 10th Day of February, 1992.
No. 30879-021092.
A RESOLUTION electing and appointing Willard N. Claytor as
Director of Real Estate Valuation for the City of Roanoke effective
April 1, 1992, an~ es~ak~lishing the terms and conditions of Mr.
Claytor's employment as Director of Real Estate Valuation.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to elect and appoint Willard
N. Claytor as Director of Real Estate Valuation pursuant to S32-36,
e_~t seq., Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Claytor has agreed to accept election and
appointment as Director of Real Estate Valuation;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke as follows:
1. Wlllard N. Claytor is hereby elected and appointed as
Director of Real Estate Valuation for the City of Roanoke effective
April 1, 1992.
2. As Director of Real Estate Valuation, Mr. Claytor shall
be the assessor of real estate for taxation in this City and shall
have the powers and duties provided for such office by the Code of
the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and general law and special
act of the Commonwealth.
3. The terms and conditions of Mr.
appointment as Director of Real Estate
hereinafter set forth:
Claytor'e election and
Valuation shall be as
(a)
The base bi-weekly salary of Mr. Claytor as
Director of Real Estate Valuation shall be
$2,153.84, payable at the same time as other
employees of the Clty~
(b) The City shall execute any necessary
agreements provided by the International City
Management Association-Retirement Corporation
(ICMA-RC) for Mr. Claytor's participation in
said ICMA-RC Retirement Plan, and in addition
to the salary set out in section 3(a) herein,
the City. shal~ pay an amount equal to nine
percent '(9%): of Mr. Claytor's gross salary
into ICMA-RC on his behalf, in equal
proportionate amounts each bi-weekly payday,
and the City shall transfer ownership to any
succeeding eligible employers upon Mr.
Claytor's resignation or discharge~ provided
that the City's contribution on Mr. Claytor's
behalf to ICMA-RC during any tax year shall
not exceed the maximum amount permitted by IRS
regulations to be deferred from federal income
taxation during any tax year (currently,
$7,500.00 per year)~
(c) Recognizing that the Job requirements of the
Director of Real Estate Valuation routinely
require incurring of travel related expenses
in the course of City business, a bi-weekly
salary increment of $69.23 shall be provided
for use by Mr. Clay~or of a privately-owned or
leased automobile in the conduct of official
City business~
(d) The City shall put into force on Mr. Clay~or's
behalf a disability insurance policy providing
income benefits equivalent to seventy percent
(70%) of Mr. Cla~tor's net salary for the
duration of any disability and make required
premium payments thereon~ and
(e) With respect to benefits and ~erms and
conditions of employmen% not enumerated in
this resolution, Mr. Clay~or shall be accorded
such benefits and shall be subject to such
terms and conditions on the sa~e basis as
other similarly situated employees of the
City.
4. Mr. Claytor shall make arrangements to qualify for office
taking the required Oath of Office as soon as practicable.
5. So long as Mr. Claytor shall hold the office of Director
of Real Estate Valuation, this resolution shall be effective until
amended or repealed.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
,d~ARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Ek~uty City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #123
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31119-071392 accepting the bid of Q. M.
Tomlinson, Inc., for construction of the Roanoke City Jail Infill on the Second Floor,
in the total amount of $405,317.00; and authorizing the proper City officials to
execute the requisite contract for said work. Ordinance No. 31119-071392 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Eric.
po:
The Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, City Sheriff
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Ms. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Mr. L. Bane Coburn, Civil Engineer
Ms. Dolores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community
Relations
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2~01 I
Telephone: (703) 981-2~41
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #123
Ms. Royce P. Foster
Executive Vice President
Q. M. Tomlinson, Inc.
P. O. Box 11724
Roanoke, Virginia 24022-1724
Dear Ms. Foster:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31119-071392 accepting the bid of Q. M.
Tomlinson, Inc., for construction of the Roanoke City Jail Infill on the Second Floor,
in the total amount of $405,317.00; and authorizing the proper City officials to
execute the requisite contract for said work. Ordinance No. 31119-071392 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #123
Mr. L. M. Compton
Vice President
Compton Excavating, Inc.
P. O. Box 1010
Princeton, West Virginia 24740
Dear Mr. Compton:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31119-071392 accepting the bid of Q. M.
Tomlinson, Inc., for construction of the Roanoke City Jail Infill on the Second Floor,
in the total amount of $405,317.00; and authorizing the proper City officials to
execute the requisite contract for said work. Ordinance No. 31119-071392 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express
appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed project.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Eno.
MARY F. PAI~KI~R
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #123
Mr. John E. Hammer, President
Martin Brothers Contractors, Inc.
P. O. Box 533
Roanoke, Virginia 24003-0533
Dear Mr. Hammer:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31119-071392 accepting the bid of Q. M.
TomHnson, Inc., for construction of the Roanoke City Jail Infill on the Second Floor,
in the total amount of $405,317.00; and authorizing the proper City officials to
execute the requisite contract for said work. Ordinance No. 31119-071392 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express
appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed project.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
D~put y City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #123
Mr. George H. Williams, Jr.
Vice President
Williams Painting and Remodeling, Inc.
2314 Ridgefield Street, N. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Dear Mr. Williams:
t am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31119-071392 accepting the bid of Q. M.
Tomlinson, Inc., for construction of the Roanoke City Jail Infill on the Second Floor,
in the total amount of $405,317.00; and authorizing the proper City officials to
execute the requisite contract for said work. Ordinance No. 31119-071392 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express
appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed project. Sincerely, ~a~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc ·
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S,W,, Room 456
Roanoke, Virsinia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #123
Mr. J. W. Christenbury, Jr., President
Acorn Construction, Ltd.
P. O. Box 625
Troutville, Virginia 24175
Dear Mr. Christenbury:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31119-071392 accepting the bid of Q. M.
Tomlinson, Inc., for construction of the Roanoke City Jail Infill on the Second Floor,
in the total amount of $405,317.00; and authorizing the proper City officials to
execute the requisite contract for said work. Ordinance No. 31119-071392 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would Hke to express
appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed project. Sincerely, ~. ~O.."~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2~41
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #123
Mr. Stanley C. Breakell, President
Breakell, Inc.
P. O. Box 6414
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Dear Mr. Breakell:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31119-071392 accepting the bid of Q. M.
Tomlinson, Inc., for construction of the Roanoke City Jail Infill on the Second Floor,
in the total amount of $405,317.00; and authorizing the proper City officials to
execute the requisite contract for said work. Ordinance No. 31119-071392 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express
appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed project.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Eno.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avgnue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Vir~nia 2~1011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #123
Mr. John P. Whittle, President
Thor, Inc.
P. O. Box 13127
Roanoke, Virginia 24031-3127
Dear Mr. Whittle:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31119-071392 accepting the bid of Q. M.
Tomlinson, Inc., for construction of the Roanoke City Jail Infill on the Second Floor,
in the total amount of $405,317.00; and authorizing the proper City officials to
execute the requisite contract for said work. Ordinance No. 31119-071392 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express
appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed project.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKLN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #123
Mr. Barry W. Baird
Executive Vice President
Avis Construction Company, Inc.
P. O. Box 11985
Roanoke, Virginia 24022
Dear Mr. Baird:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31119-071392 accepting the bid of Q. M.
Tomlinson, Inc., for construction of the Roanoke City Jail Infill on the Second Floor,
in the total amount of $405,317.00; and authorizing the proper City officials to
execute the requisite contract for said work. Ordinance No. 31119-071392 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express
appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed project.
Sincerely, ~..~ .~_
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Eno.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W. Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
I~puty City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #123
Mr. Samuel L. Lionberger, III
Vice President
Lionberger Construction Company
P. O. Box 20209
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Mr. Lionberger:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31119-071392 accepting the bid of Q. M.
Tomlinson, Inc., for construction of the Roanoke City Jail Infill on the Second Floor,
in the total amount of $405,317.00; and authorizing the proper City officials to
execute the requisite contract for said work. Ordinance No. 31119-071392 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regniar meeting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express
appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed project.
Sincerely, ~O~,J-~-t--
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
MARY F. PAI~A~-~
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #123
Mr. J. C. Harrison, IV, President
Branch and Associates, Inc.
P. O. Box 8158
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Harrison:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31119-071392 accepting the bid of Q. M.
Tomlinson, Inc., for construction of the Roanoke City Jail Infill on the Second Floor,
in the total amount of $405,317.00; and authorizing the proper City officials to
execute the requisite contract for said work. Ordinance No. 31119-071392 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular mee ting held on Monday,
July 13, 1992.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would Like to express
appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed project.
Sincerely, ~d~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
Eno.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31119-071392.
AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of Q. M. Tomlinson,
Incorporated, for construction of the Roanoke City Jail Infill on
the Second Floor, upon certain terms and conditions, and awarding
a contract therefor; authorizing the proper City officials to
execute the requisite contract for such work; rejecting all other
bids made to the City for the work; and providing for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The bid of Q. M. Tomlinson, Incorporated made to the City
in the total amount of $405,317.00 for construction of the Roanoke
City Jail Infill on the Second Floor, such bid being in full
compliance with the City's plans and specifications made therefor
and as provided in the contract documents offered said bidder,
which bid is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, be and is
hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the
City Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to execute
and attest, respectively, the requisite contract with the
successful bidder, based on its proposal made therefor and the
City's specifications made therefor, said contract to be in such
form as is approved by the City Attorney, and the cost of said work
to be paid for out of funds heretofore or simultaneously
appropriated by Council.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid
work are hereby REJECTED, and the City Clerk is directed to notify
each such bidder and to express to each the City's appreciation for
such bid.
4. 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
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2~O11
Telephone: ('/03) 981-2541
SANDRA H. ~
Deputy City Clerk
July 17, 1992
File #60-123
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31118-071392 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93. Capital Fund Appropriations, providing for the transfer of
$60,700.00, in connection with award of a contract to Q. M. Tomlinson, Inc., for
construction of the Roanoke City Jail Infili, Second Floor, in the total amount of
$405,317.00. Ordinance No. 31118-071392 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, July 13, 1992.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sw
F. nc.
pc-'
The Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, City Sheriff
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Ms. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Mr. L. Bane Coburn, Civil Engineer
Ms. Dolores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community
Relations
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINI~
The 13th day of July, 1992.
No. 31118-071392.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
1992-93 Capital
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 1992-93 Capital Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained
to read as follows, in part:
~mmroDriations
General Government $ 11,690,326
City Jail 2nd Floor Pod (1) ....................... 510,700
Campbell Avenue Historic Property (2) ............. 631,083
Capital Improvement Reserve 5,362,037
Buildings and Structures (3) ...................... 52
1) Approp. from
General Revenue (008-052-9681-9003) $ 60,700
2) Approp. from
General Revenue (008-002-9620-9003) (31,134)
3) Buildings (008-052-9575-9173) (29,566)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing,
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
this
city Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
July 13, 1992
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Bid Committee Report
Roanoke City Jail Infill
Second Floor
Roanoke, Virginia
I concur with the recommendation of the attached Bid
Committee Report.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/LBC/mm
Attachment: Bid Committee Report
cc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities & Operations
City Sheriff
Citizens' Request for Service
City Engineer
Construction Cost Technician
Roanoke, Virginia
July 13, 1992
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Bid Committee Report
Roanoke City Jail Infill
Second Floor
Roanoke, Virginia
I. Background:
II.
Bids, following proper advertisement, were
publicly opened and read aloud before City Council
on June 15, 1992 for the Roanoke City Jail Infill,
Second Floor.
Ten (10) bids were received with Q. M. Tomlinson,
Incorporated, of Roanoke, Virginia, submitting the
low bid in the amount of $405~317.00 and 200
consecutive calendar days.
Project consists of the completion of the Second
Floor Pod in the southwest corner of the building.
This is the last area in the building to be
completed and will provide capacity for 42
additional inmates.
Issues in order of importance are:
Compliance of the bidders with the requirements of
the contract documents.
B. Amount of the low bid.
C. Funding of the project.
D. Time of completion.
Page 2
III.
Alternatives are:
Award a lump sum contract to Q. M. Tomlinson,
Incorporated in the amount of $405~317.00 and 200
consecutive calendar days for construction of the
Roanoke City Jail Infill on the Second Floor in
accordance with the contract documents as prepared
by Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc.,
Architects, Engineers, Planners, of Roanoke,
Virginia.
Compliance of the bidders with the
requirements of the contract documents was
met.
2. Amount of the low bid is acceptable.
3. Funding is as follows:
a. Funding Requirements:
Contract Amount
Contract Contingency
$405,317.00
28~400.00
$433~717.00
Architects-Engineers
Fee
Additional Services
Reimbursable Expense
$55,000.00
3,200.00
2~500.00
$60~700.00
TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED
$494,417.00
City Council, at its April 6, 1992
meeting, authorized the following:
From U.S. Dept. of Justice
U.S. Marshal Service $250,000.00
City Jail's Recovered Cost 200f000.00
$450~000.00
The Architects/Engineers total fee
requirement was encumbered from this
appropriation.
Page 3
Funding to complete the total project
cost is available as follows:
Campbell Avenue Historic
Properties
Account 008-002-9620-9003
$31,134.00
Capital Improvement Reserve
Account 008-052-9575-9173
13,283.00
$44~417.00
IV.
Time of completion is quoted as 200
consecutive calendar days which is
acceptable.
Reject all bids and do not award a contract at
this time.
Compliance of the bidders with the
requirements of the contract documents would
not be an issue.
Amount of the low bid would probably increase
if re-bid at a later date.
3. Fundinq would not be encumbered at this time.
Time of completion would be extended. The
Sheriff is anxious to complete this project
as soon as possible.
Recommendation is that City Council take the following
action:
A. Concur with the implementation of Alternative 'A'.
Be
Authorize the City Manager to enter into a
contractual agreement, in form approved by the
City Attorney, with Q. M. Tomlinson, Incorporated
for the construction of the Roanoke City Jail
Infill on the Second Floor in accordance with the
contract documents as prepared by Hayes, Seay,
Mattern & Mattern, Inc., Architects, Engineers,
Planners, in the amount of $405,317.00 and 200
consecutive calendar days.
Page 4
Authorize the Director of Finance to transfer the
following funding into the City Jail-2nd Floor
Pod, Account 008-052-9681-9003 to complete the
project funding.
Campbell Avenue Historic Properties
008-052-9620-9003 $31,134.00
Capital Improvement Reserve
008-052-9575-9173
13~283.00
$44,417.00
TOTAL
Reject the other bids received.
Respectfully submitted,
William White, Sr.,/Chairman
W. Alvin Hudson, Sheriff
William F. Clark
Kit B. Kiser
WW/LBC/mm
Attachment: Tabulation of Bids
cc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities & Operations
City Sheriff
City Engineer
Citizens' Request for Service
Construction Cost Technician
TABULATION OF BIDS
Bids
ROANOKE CITY JAIL INFILL
SECOND FLOOR
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
opened before City Council on June 15, 1992 at 2:00 p.m.
Q. M. Tomlinson, incorporated $405,317.00 200 YES
Acorn Construction, Ltd. $409,600.00 180 YES
180 YES
Breakell, Inc. $410,000'00 ~_
4artin Bros. Contractors, Inc. $427,000.00 240 YES
165 YES
Branch & Associates, Inc. $432,000-00 ~_
Lionberger Construction Company $434,900.00 220 YES
Avis Construction Company, Inc. $435,000.00 195 YES
Thor, Incorporated $457,700.00 175 YES
Williams Painting &
Remodeling, Inc. $458,000.00 240 YES
· $489,000.00 270 YES
Compton Excavating, Inc. ~
Estimated Cost: $412,715.00
Wi-lliam White, Sr., Q~airman William F. Clark
W. Alvin Hudson, Sheriff
Kit B. Klser
Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern,
Architects, Engineers, Planners
Roanoke, Virginia
Office of City Engineer
Roanoke, Virginia
July 13, 1992
Inc.