HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 09-13-93BOWl ~FS
31673
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
September 13, 1993
7:30 p.m.
AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL
Call to Order -- Roll Call. Council Member Musser was
absent (Vice-Mayor Filzpatrick
arrived at 9:05 p.m.)
The Invocation was delivered by Mayor David A. Bowers.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
was led by Mayor Bowers.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public heating on the request of Robert L. Offutt and Alan L. Amos,
Inc., that all of Fairmont Place and two adjacent ten-foot alleys
bounded by lots described as Official Tax Nos. 3042141, 3042121 and
3042101 - 3042105, inclusive, 3042129 and 3042108 - 3042110,
inclusive, be permanently vacated, discontinued and closed. Daniel F.
Layman, Jr., Attorney.
Adopted Ordinance No. 31673 on first reading. (5-0, Vice-Mayor
Fitzpatrick and Council Member Musser were absent.)
Public heating on the request of Robert L. Offutt and Alan L. Amos,
Inc., that a 3.25 acre tract of land located at the southeast intersection
of Hollins Road and Pocahontas Avenue, N. E., described as Official
Tax Nos. 3042104 - 3042107, inclusive, and 3042121 - 3042129,
inclusive, and an unnumbered circular parcel surrounded by Fairmont
Place, be rezoned from RM-1, Residential Multi-family, Low Density
District, to LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain
conditions proffered by the petitioners. Daniel F. Layman, Jr.,
Attorney.
Adopted Ordinance No. 31674 on first reading. (5--0, Vice-Mayor
Fitzpatrick and Council Member Musser were absent.)
e
CONSENT AGENDA
(APPROVED 5-0, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and
Council Member Musser were absent.)
ALL MATTERS LISTF. D UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE
CONSIDERED TO BE RO~ BY THE MAYOR AND
MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTF~D BY
ONE MOTION IN THE FORM, OR FORMS, LISTED BF. LOW.
THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS.
IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THE ITEM WILL BE RF. MOVED
FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED
SEPARATELY.
C-1
C-2
Minutes of the regular meetings of Council held on Monday, June 7,
1993, June 14, 1993, and June 28, 1993.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispense with the reading thereof and
approve as recorded.
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.
2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Concur in request for Council to convene in
Executive Session to discuss vacancies on
various authorities, boards, commissions and
committees appointed by Council, pursuant
to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended.
A list of items pending from February 10, 1992, to August 23, 1993.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
A communication from JoAnne B. Justis tendering her resignation as
a member of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority, effective immediately.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file the communication and
accept the resignation with regret.
Qualification of Ronald O. Crawford as a member of the Board of
Commissioners of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority for a term of four years ending August 31, 1997.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
Qualification of Mason Powell for a term ending November 8, 1995,
and Martin D. Jeffrey for a term ending November 9, 1994, as members of
the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
Qualification of Mason Powell as a member of the Youth Services
Citizen Board for a term ending May 31, 1996.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
3
A report of the City Manager requesting that Council convene in Executive
Session to discuss a matter with regard to acquisition of real property for
public purpose, specifically consideration of a potential gift of real property,
pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
A request of Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick that Council convene in Executive
Session to discuss a personnel ma,er, being the appointment of a specific
public officer, puts-ant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended.
REGULAR AGENDA
3. HEARING OF CITIZF. NS UI~N PUBLIC MATrERS:
Request to address Council with regard to pet overpopulation in the
Roanoke Valley. Judy Pyska, Dottie Sink and Dawn Hale,
Spokespersons.
Referred to the Legislative Affairs Commi!lge, the City Manager and
the City Attorney for review and report to Council.
4. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
ao
A communication from Jacqueline L. Shuck, Executive Director,
Roanoke Regional Airport, recommending approval of a capital
expenditure by the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, in the
amount of approximately $270,000.00, for purchase of a lift device,
engineering services for airfield signage and an ARFF vehicle.
Adopted Resolution No. 31675-091393. (5-0, Vice-Mayor Fitztmtrick
and Council Member Musser were absent.)
5. REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
a. CITY MANAGER:
4
BRIEFINGS:
A report with regard to needed improvements to the City's joint
use sewage facilities and sewage collector system, as well as a
tentative method of financing and a public infox marion program.
Received and filed.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
A report recommending acquisition of computer equipment for
the Department of Social Services in connection with
implementation of the Commonwealth of Virginia's Application
Benefit Delivery Automation Project; and appropriation of funds
in connection therewith.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 31676-091393. (5-0, Vice-
Mayor Fitzpatrick and Council Member Musser wexe absent.)
A report recommending appointment of a City representative
and alternate representative to the Policy Board of the Fifth
District Employment and Training Consortium.
Adopted Resolution No. 31677--091393. (5-0, Vice-Mayor
Fitzpatrick and Council Member Musser were absent.)
A report recommending authorization for implementation of a
Police Homeowners Loan Program to serve as an incentive for
police officers to purchase homes in specific neighborhoods.
A report recommending acceptance and appropriation of funds
in order for the Office on Youth to operate a Job Training
Camp.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 31678--091393. (5-0, Vice-
Mayor Fitzpatrick and Council Member Musser were absent.)
5
A report recommending transfer of funds to meet anticipated
expenditures for highway project costs for fiscal year 1993-94.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 31679-091393. (5-0, Vice-
Mayor Fitzpatrick and Council Member Musser were absent.)
A report recommending award of a contract to Hayes, Seay,
Mattern and Mattern, Inc., in the amount of $152,586.00, for
consultant services for Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
for the Second Street/Gainsboro Road Project; and appropriation
of funds in connection therewith.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 31680-091393 and Resolution
No. 31681-091393. (5-0, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and Council
Member Musser were absent.)
A report recommending execution of Amendment No. 1 to the
engineering services agreement with Hayes, Seay, Mattern and
Mattern, Inc., for additional engineering services for the
Pedestrian Bridge and Atrium Project to connect between the
Hotel Roanoke/Conference Center area and the Historic Market
area; and appropriation of funds in connection therewith.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 31682-091393 and Resolution
No. 31683-091393. (5-0, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and Council
Member Musser were absent.)
A report recommending acquisition of an access easement in
connection with construction of the Statesman Industrial Park -
Stormwater Management Project.
Adopted Ordinance No. 31684-091393. (5-0, Vice-Mayor
Fiizpatrick and Council Member Musser were absent.)
6
10.
A report recommending execution of an engineering services
contract with Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern, Inc., in an
amount not to exceed $77,000.00, for construction related
services in support of the construction of the Hotel
Roanoke/Conference Center; and appropriation of funds in
connection therewith.
bo
11.
12.
CITY
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 31685--091393 and Resolution
No. 31686-091393. (5-0, Vice-Mayor Filzpatrick and Council
Member Musser were absent.)
A report recommending execution of a subrecipient agreement
with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority for
administration and implementation of various HOME funded
housing activities; and transfer of funds in connection therewith.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 31687-091393 and Resolution
No. 31688-091393. (5-0, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and Council
Member Musser were absent.)
A report recommending execution of a subrecipient agreement
with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority for
administration and implementation of various Community
Development Block Grant funded projects.
Adopted Resolution No. 31689-091393. (5-0, Vice-Mayor
Fitzpatrick and Council Member Musser were absent.)
ATTORNEY:
A report relative to various government reorganizational issues.
Refes~cd to the City Manager for review and report to Council.
7
A report recommending adoption of a measure authorizing the
City to reimburse itself from bond proceeds for expenditures
advanced from City funds in connection with certain bond
projects.
Adopted Resolution No. 31690--091393. (5-0, Vice-Mayor
Filzpatrick and Council Member Musser were absent.)
6. REPORTS OF COMMITI'E :
A report of the committee appointed to tabulate bids received for
construction of Phase II Improvements to the Carvins Cove Filter
Plant, Contract B-l, recommending award of a contract to H. Hamner
Gay & Co., Inc., in the amount of $2,924,017.00. Council Member
William White, Sr., Chairperson.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 31691--091393 and Ordinance No.
31692-091393. (5-0, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and Council Member
Musser were absent.)
A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending
advertisement of bids and execution of documentation providing for a
lease of air rights over South Jefferson Street to the successful bidder,
for encroachment of a pipe bridge. Council Member Elizabeth T.
Bowles, Chairperson.
Adopted Ordinance No. 31693-091393. (5-0, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick
and Council Member Musser were absent.)
Co
A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending execution
of an amendment to the lease between the City and Crystal Tower
Associates for office space for the Regional Drug Prosecutor's Office.
Council Member Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairperson.
Adopted Ordinance No. 31694-091393. (5-0, Vice-Mayor Fimpatrick
and Council Member Musser were absent.)
8
A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending an
exchange of properties between the City and James L. Trinkle relative
to properties located at 118 - 124 Campbell Avenue, S. W. Council
Member Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairperson.
Adopted Ordinance No. 31695 on first reading. (5-0, Vice-Mayor
Fitzpatrick and Council Member Musser were absent.)
At this point, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick entered the mceling.
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None.
8. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION
ORDINANCES AND RFSOLUTIONS:
OF
Ordinance No. 31648, on second reading, extending the franchise
between the City of Roanoke and Roanoke Gas Company, dated
August 27, 1973, for a term of one hundred eighty (180) days; and
providing for an effective date for this Ordinance.
Adopted Ordinance No. 31648-091393. (6-0, Council Member
Musser was absent.)
9. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City
Council.
Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees
appointed by Council.
10. OTHER HEARINGS OF CITIZI~.NS:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. (6-0), Council Member
Musser was absent.)
9
Adopted Resolution No. 31696-091393 waiving the requirement of City
residency for Jack Loeb, a Commissioner of the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority. (6-0, Council Member Musser was
absent.)
NOTICE OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH
THE AMF~RICANS WITH DISABll JTIES
ACT. Reasonable efforts will be made to
provide adaplalions or accommodations,
based on individual needs, for qualified
or service offered by the City Clerk's Office,
provided that reasonable advanced
notification has been received.
10
MINUTES CONSIDERED AT THIS COUNCIL MEETING
MAY BE REVIEWED ON LINE IN THE "OFFICIAL MINUTES" FOLDER,
OR AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
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
September 13, 1993
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,
boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-
344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Sincerely,
Mayor
DAB: se
Pending Items from February 10, 1992 through August 23, 1993
Referral Date
Referred To
Item
2/10/92
9/9/92
10/12/92
1/4/93
3/8/93
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Planning
Commission
City Manager
City Attorney
Legislative Affairs
Committee
Request to study the matter of
regulating the sale of "look-
alike" weapons.
Request to provide info.nation
with regard to the cost of
reducing the number of years to
become vested in the City's
pension plan from ten to five.
Remarks with regard to
the issue of demolition of
buildings as related to economic
development, as well as the
City's beautification efforts and
its impact on downtown
Roanoke and adjoining
neighborhoods.
Remarks of Mr. Walker Nelms
with regard to a proposed
animal control ordinance. (See
report of City Attorney under
date of January 11, 1993.)
Concems expressed by Council
with regard to more stringent
State law regarding bingo
regulations.
Pending Items from February 10, 1992 through August 23, 1993
Referral Date
Referred To
Item
3/22/93 City Manager
City Clerk
5/3/93
5/10/93
7/12/93
7/26/93
City Manager
Legislative Affairs
Committee
City Attorney
City Manager
William White, Sr.,
Chairperson
Kit B. Kiser
Steven L. Walker
Matter of certain enhancements
to the Council Chamber.
Matter of developing a railside
linear park along the main line
of the Norfolk Southern tracks.
Newspaper articles with regard
to the progress made by the City
of Charlotte, North Carolina,
compared to the City of
Richmond, Virginia, over the
last 25 years.
Request to contact other
jurisdictions in the Roanoke
Valley to determine if there is
an interest in establishing a
position of Regional Sports
Director.
Bids to remove, transport and
dispose of digested, lagooned
sludge from the Water Pollution
Control Plant, 1402 Bennington
Street, S. E.
Pending Items from February 10, 1992 through August 23, 1993
Referral Date
7/26/93
8/9/93
8/23/93
Referred To
City Manager
City Manager
Acting Director
of Finance
City Treasurer
Commissioner of
Revenue
City Manager
Item
Recommendations of the
Enterprise Foundation on
Affordable Housing in the
Roanoke Valley.
Matter of developing a procedure
whereby property owners may
pay their real estate taxes by
installments with more emphasis
on changing the April 5 due date
and consideration of quarterly
payments on real estate taxes.
Matter with regard to establish-
ment of a low-band travel radio
system for the Roanoke Valley,
particularly along Interstate 81
and the Blue Ridge Parkway.
3
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #15-110-178
Ms. JeAnne B. Justis
2358 Feather Road
Vinton, Virginia 24179
Dear Ms. Justis:
Your communication tendering your resignation as a member of tho Board of
Commissioners of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority,
effective immediately, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the communication was received and filed and
your resignation was accepted with regret.
The Members of City Council requested that I express their sincere appreciation for
the many services you have rendered to the City of Roanoke as a Commissioner of the
Housing Authority. Please find enclosed a Certificate of Appreciation issued by the
Mayor on behalf of the Members of the Roanoke City Council.
/"~x~.Sincerely'
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
gnc.
pc:
Robert,W. Glenn, Jr., Chairperson, City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority, 1878 Arlington Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015
H. Wesley White, Secretary, City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority, 2624 Salem Turnpike, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk
September 1, 1993
Mayor David A. Bowers &
City of Roanoke
Roanoke, VA 24011
City Council
Dear Mayor Bowers & City Council:
With mixed feelings, I hereby submit my resignation as a
member of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority effective immediately.
I have enjoyed my association with the Authority~s Board
Members and staff over the years. The Authority~s staff was
always especially helpful and cooperative, and I certainly will
miss my association with them.
Through my regular attendance at local meetings and also as
a representative at regional and national meetings, I feel that I
have gained much insight into the roll of the Authority and the
work that needs to be accomplished to fulfill the mission of the
Authority. I am grateful for having had an opportunity to be
involved in public housing programs and for being able to see
good results that come about when the Board of Commissioners work
together.
Sincerely yours,
JoAnne B. Justis
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia :14011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Depuly City Clerk
September 17, 1993
File #15-110-178
Robert W. Glenn, Jr., Chairperson
City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority
1878 Arlington Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear Mr. Glenn:
This is to advise you that Ronald O. Crawford has qualified as a member of the Board
of Commissioners of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority for
a term of four years ending August 31, 1997.
Sincerely, ~0.~.2~_~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
pc:
H. Wesley White, Secretary, City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority, 2624 Salem Turnpike, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk
0-2
Oath or Affirmation of Office
'9] /~tJl~ 20 P12:55
8t~te o] Vi~'ginia, Cit~/ o] Roanoke, t,o .~o~t:
I, Ronald O. Crawford ~ do solemnly swear (or .mrm) tlmt
I will support the Constitution of the United States. and the Constitution o[ the State of Virginia, and that
I will faithfully and impartially discharge and pedorm all the duties incumbent upon me as
a member of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority,
for a term of four years ending August 31, 1997.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this
~t~l'~-~71/~/J#/~t~2 , Deputy Clerk
, (~, -- ~ /
MARY F. P~qKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (?03) 981-25o, 1
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
September 17, 1993
File #15-110-488
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 Mason Powell has qualified for a term ending November 8,
1995, and Martin D. Jeffrey has qualified for a term ending November 9, 1994, as
members of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee.
Sincerely, ~. ~'~~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
pc: Stepharde F. Cicero, Neighborhood Partnership Coordinator
Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk
0-2
Oath or Affirmation of Off, ce
'93 ~tJ8 30 P12:20
St~t~ ot Virginia, Ci~ oI Roanoke, ~ .~:
I, Mason Powel~ , do ~lemnly sw~r (or ~) ~at
~ w~l sup~ ~e Constitution of the Unit~ ~tes, and ~e Constitution of ~e State of Virginia, and ~t
I w~l f~thgully and imperially discharge and ~rform all the duties incumbent u~n me ~
a member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee,
for a term ending November 8, 1995.
according to the best of my ability.
Subscribed and sworn to before ~ne, this
So help me God.
· Deputy Clerk
0-2
Oath or Affirmation of
Stat~ o] Vi~ginla, Oit~l o~ Roanoke, to .~olt:
I, Martin D. Jeffrev
'93 2U8 31 f~II :41
, do solemnly swear (or attlnn) tlmt
I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Virginia, and that
I will ~ithfuHy and impa~ially discharge and pe~orm aH the duties incumbent upon me as
as a member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee for a term
ending November 9, 1994.
according to the best of my ability. So help me God.
Subscribed and sworn to before ~ne, this 3/
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, $.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2~011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
September 17, 1993
File #15-110-304
Thomas H. Miller, Chairperson
Youth Services Citizen Board
3429 Windsor Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Mr. Miller:
This is to advise you that Mason Powell has qualified as a member of the Youth
Services Citizen Board for a term ending May 31, 1996.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
pc:
Marion V. Crenshaw, Youth Planner
Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk
0-2
Oa+h or Affirmation of Of~~
8tare ol Vi~'glnla, Cirri oI Roanol~e, to .~oit:
Mason Powell
I, ., 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 ss
member of the Youth Services Citizen Board, for a term ending May 31, 1996.
according to the best of my ability.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this
So help me God.
, Deputy Clerk
'93 SEP13 P2:54
September 13, 1993
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor and
Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Re: Reouest for Executive Session
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
This is to request that City Council convene in Executive Session to discuss
acquisition of real property for public purpose, specifically consideration of a potential
gift of real property, pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) (3), Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended.
WRH/dh
CC:
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Ms. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Mr. Brian Wishneff, Acting Director, Hotel Roanoke Conference Center
Commission
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #54-137
The Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Co-Chair, Legislative Affairs Committee
The Honorable William White, Sr., Co-Chair, Legislative Affairs Committee
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Gentlemen:
I am attaching copy of the remarks of Judy Pyska and Dawn Hale with regard to pet
overpopulation in the Roanoke Vailey, which remarks were before the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the matter was referred to you for review
and report to Council.
Sincerely, ~~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eric.
pc:
Ms. Dawn Hale, 418 Chestnut Street, Vinton, Virginia 24179
Ms. Judy Pyska, 214 Spring Grove Drive, Vinton, Virginia 24179
Remarks of Dawn Hale
presented at the Council Meeting
on Monday, September 13, 1993
Thank you for allowing us to come before you tonight to speak on a problem of
paramount importanee -- that of pet overpopulation. Eachyear, theUnited States,
euthanizes approximately 20 million cats and dogs. For the 450 humans born each
hour, there are 3,000 puppies and kittens. The ratio is such that we know that
these animals can never have a home. Until now, the means to stop this has been
euthanization. Localities throughout the United States are now passing breeding
ordinances to end the mass slaughter of these innocent lives, whose only crime is
being born. They are saying enough. Delegate Cranweli realizes the contribution
that Virginia is making to this national problem. He has agreed to work with us in
this matter, but we must provide him with support that will help him build his case
for the General Assembly. If twenty million eats and dogs were dying of a clinical
disease, there would be no stopping until we had found the cause and it was
terminated. This is not a clinical disease, this is a social disease and it is a disease
that was created by irresponsible people and is making a nightmare for earing,
compassionate people -- a nightmare from which we never awaken. The time is right
to place the responsibility for this tragedy back on the people who created it. We
have the technology and surgical procedure, and we have the vehicle to demand this
legislation. In 1989, the SPCA, alone, took in 7,001 animals, 897 found homes; in
1990, 6,477 were taken in, 765 were placed; in 1991, 5,445 were received, 400 were
placed; and in 1992, 4,618 were taken in, 80 were placed. These do not deal with the
numbers picked-up by the animal control agencies in the Valley. This is an
abomination to humane people. Euthanization is not an option in today's climate.
Restrictive breeding producing fewer lives and is the only means we must accept as
an answer to the population crisis with animals. The estimated costs of euthanizing
an animal is $35.00 or more, depending upon the size of the animal, how long it is
kept, and other faetore that are added in. This country spends yearly $250 million
to kill eats and dogs. The operational budget for Roanoke City is $215,499.00,
Roanoke County is $173,000.00, Salem is $185,780.00, and Vinton is $27,580.00.
With the prolific birth rate of eats and dogs, these figures will rise. In six years,
one dog can produce 67,000 dogs and one eat in seven years can produce 420,000
offsprings. To decrease the surplus, we must have less births. Localities in
California, Washington, New Mexico, Maryland and Illinois have resolved to do this.
We come tonight to ask you to adopt a resolution requesting Delegate Cranwell to
introduce a restrictive breeding bill that may be adopted by those localities who
desire to control their pet population through spaying and neutering. I borrow from
Mr. Edmond Burke, who said "the only thing that is necessary for the triumph of
evil is for good men to do nothing." Allowing animals to be born only to be killed is
evil. Please gentle people, do something! Thank you.
Remarks of Judy Pyska
presented at the City Council Meeting
on Monday, September 13, 1993
My name is Judith Pyska, and I reside at 214 Spring Grove Drive, Vinton, Virginia.
I have before you a poster to present representing the beautiful kittens that are
born all over the country. Their fate end up in this bag and they are on their way
to the landfill, which only makes room at pounds and shelters for this action to be
repeated -- these loving and playful animals who play and play and do not have a
care in the world, and are born through no fault of their own. There is a crisis all
over the country with pet overpopulation and mandatory spaying and neutering is
a must to stop this. We need to kill the crisis, not the animal. In the August issue
of The Fund for Animals, many communities over the country have passed ordinances
for breeding control. For example, Denver, Colorado, passed an ordinance with
only one dissenting vote and had overwhelming support from breed rescue groups,
humane societies and veterinarians. There was very little opposition, but it took
neariy two years of negotiations and revisions to finaliy pass the law. The Director
of Denver's animal shelter, Mr. Curtis Bradley, stated that he wanted people to
understand the magnitude of the problem and how it was to work in the shelters that
have to euthanize animals everyday. Mr. Bradley stated that approximately 21,000
dogs and cats are euthanized in the City of Denver each year. In this article,
imagine that many of the breeders are slowly coming on board recognizing the need
to begin requiring people to sterilize their animals, and on April 5, 1993, the
ordinance was finally passed. In June of this year, the Governor of New Hampshire
signed a bili establishing a statewide, low-cost, spay/neutered program to be funded
by a $2.00 surcharge on dog license fees. King County, Washington, Lake County,
Colorado, McKiniey County, New Mexico, Montgomery County, Maryland, Rock
Island, Illinois, San Marco County, California, and Tacoma[Pierce County,
Washington have passed these ordinances because they recognize that this is a
crisis. In our own area, thousands of animals are being euthanized each year. If
you recali the article of April 12, 1992, "A Place to Die", in the Roanoke Times and
Worid-News, you will remember reading that more than 6,000 were brought to the
SPCA and 80 per cent were put to death. These figures were then telLing us that we
have a crisis and that we need to stop the killing now. But still animals keep coming
to the pounds and shelters in ali localities, and the people leave believing that cute
puppy, kitten or dog that they brought in will be adopted into loving home --
WRONG! Believe it -- the crisis is getting worse. Our locality desperately needs an
ordinance for mandatory spaying and neutering. Briefly, I want to say some words
about the Roanoke VaLiey Animal Foundation which I established last year. After the
reading about the Amanda Foundation in Los Angeles, CaLifornia, who rescues
animals from shelters due to be euthanized, I wanted to have something similar here
in the Valley. After much thought and heartsearch, I contacted Julian Lane, the
founder of the Amanda Foundation, and was given information. The more I talked
to Julian, I knew that I wanted to do something like their foundation, if not exactly
as they do. Our animals come to us from people who have to give up their pets for
one reason or another, or strays or abandonment, which are mostly cats who have
kittens, and would have been discarded. They deserve that second chance to a good
life. So far the Foundation has placed 48 dogs, cats and kittens and they have been
adopted into good homes and we have them spayed or neutered before placement if
they are old enough. The Foundation follows up on pets that were too young to be
spayed or neutered to make sure this has been done. The Pets Assistance League
Pals, a low-cost spaying and neutering program in our area has provided this
service to the Foundation and to others in the Valley who are concerned with the
overpopulation. In summary, I care deeply about the animals and their lives. We
need this ordinance in the Roanoke Valley to end the overpopulation and killing of
all these animals. We need everyone, from the pet owners, to the breeders, to
support this endeavor. I thank you.
Populat±on Facts at a Glance
Number of Dogs and Cats There were approximately 57 million owned
cats and 52.5 million owned dogs living in households in the United
States in 1991. (Source: American Veterinary Medical Association
Center for Information Management.)
Who Pet Dogs and Cats Live With Cats are in 29.2 million
households, nearly half of these homes with two or more cats. 35.4
million households have dogs. (Source: AVMA)
Pure-Breds The American Kennel Club, the largest breeder
registration program, registered 1,379,544 new individial dogs in
1991, an increase of 121,844 dogs over the previous year. This was
a 10% increase. The total number of litters was 567,763, an
increase of 10,526 over the previous year. This marked the sixth
consecutive year a new record for litter registrations was set.
(Source: American Kennel Club Gazette, January 1992)
Approximate # of Shelter Facilities in the USA: 3,000 - 3,500
Average Cost of Handling an Animal in a Shelter: $100
Range of Costs to:
Sterilize a Male Cat:
Sterilize a Male Dog:
$10 to $110 Female Cat: $20 - $180.
$10 - $200 Female Dog: $20 $200
Percentage of Animals Euthanized by Shelters: on the average, half
of all the animals brought into a shelter are euthanized
Percentage of Animals Adopted Out by a Shelter: on the average -
25% to 35%
average # of litters a fertile cat can produce: 3 a yr.
average # of litters a fertile dog can produce: 2 a yr.
average # of animals in an average canine litter: 6-10
average # of animals in an average feline litter: 7-10
# of dogs in six years one female dog and her offspring can
produce: 67,000 dogs
# of cats in seven years one female cat and offspring can produce:
420,000
Average age when a fertile cat has first litter: 10 months,
puberty at 4-12 months
Average age when a fertile dog has first litter: Puberty occurs at
5 - 18 months, some large breeds later.
Gestation period for dogs: 58-70 days
Gestation period for cats: 58-65 days
The Humane Society of the United States
2100 L Street, ~'/~, Wash/ngton, DC 20037
T:{E TRUTH WORKS!
cats and kittens
Intakes
1990 1991
May 4~5 368
June 601 600
July 568 56~
August 602 529
September 504
October 378
November 221 205
December 154 139
Total B~73 3098
do~s and puppies
Intakes
1990 1991
May 178 169
June 280 178
July 250 1~
August 226 177
September 1~3 169
October 184 138
November 162 125
December 1~5 111
Total 1608 1211
WE ARE GOOD!
1991
BROUGHT IN RECLAIMED OR ADOPTED
RV-SPCA 5480 1111
Roanoke City 1869 ~08
Roanoke County aa3 ~1
Vinton 67 28
Total 7859 1588
Percentage reclaimed or adooted 20.2~
(PiKure is exactly the same for
total or for RV-SPCA alone.)
SPAY/NEUTER
DENVER, COLORADO'S
ORDINANCE PASSES!
In the April 1993
· issue of
Spay/Neuter
Legislation Bulletin
we reported on the
proposed breeding_
control legislation
introduced~oy
Denver Animal
Control. We are
thrilled to report that
all their hard work
paid off -- their ordinance passed with
only one dissenting vote. They had
overwhelming support from breed rescue
groups, humane societies, and
veterinarians. And, they had very little
opposition.
The success of Denver Animal Control
demonstrates how breeders, who have
historically opposed breeding control
legislation, are slowly coming on board
and .re.cognizing the need to begin
requmng people to sterilize their animals.
Those leading the way, such as Denver
Animal Control, deserve our thanks. Each
community that
succeeds in passing
mandatory
spay/neuter
legislation helps to
pave the road --
making it an easier
task for the next city.
In a few years,
breeding regula~ons
will be commonplace.
Congratulations to
Animal Control Director Curtis Bradley and
Chief Veterinarian Eugene Pei.
In This Issue
Denver Passes Ordinance ................
A Look at San Mateo County ............. 3
Update on the Feline Fix Legislation ...... 3
HSUS Proposes B~eeding Moratorium .... 5
Now Available - New Revised
Edition of Killing the CriSis - Pg. 7
NEW HAMPSHIRE PASSES
SPAY/NEUTER SUBSIDY LAW
On June 9, 1993, the governor of New Hampshire
signed SB 151, a spay/neuter subsidy bill. SB 151
establishes a statewide low-cost spay/neuter program to
be funded by a $2 surcharge on dog license fees. Senior
citizens will be exempt from the surcharge for the first
dog licensed.
Guardians of dogs and cats
who receive public assistance
will be able to have their
animals sterilized and
provided with all pre-surgical
vaccinations for $10. People
who adopt cats and dogs from
public or private shelters will
be able to t~ave the adopted
animals spayed or neutered
for $25. Participating
veterinarians who perform the
sterilizations will be paid 80%
of their usual fees.
According to Peter Marsh with
the Humane Legislative
Council, they modeled their
bill after the New Jersey
program. One of the main
differences, however, between
the New Jersey program and
New Hampshire's is that New
Jersey has a $3 surcharge
added only to the unaltered
dog license fee. Restricting the
surcharge to unaltered animals
makes more sense. However, a
spay/neuter subsidy bill
funded by a $7.50 surcharge on unaltered dog licenses
was killed last year in New hampshire. Extending the
surcharge to all licenses made it possible to reduce the
surcharge to $2 and still generate the same amount of
money as a $6 surcharge on unaltered dog licenses. And
levying the surcharge on all licenses avoids the problem
of declining revenue which the new Jersey program
suffered as more licensed dogs were altered.
For more information on SB 151, contact Peter Marsh,
Humane Legislative Council, 24 Montgomery St.,
Concord, NH, 03301, 603/224-1877.
UPDATE ON ORDINANCES THAT HAVE PASSED
The following communities have passed breeding control legislation: -- ~
Denver, Colorado Rock Island ..... ~'-~--- [/~
King County, Washington Ruidoso, N; ~l~Ie°'x~co ~
Lake Count, Colorado San Mateo County, California (unincorporated/~area)
McKinley County, New Mexico Santa Barbara, California
Montgomery County, Maryland Santa Rosa, Cfilifornia
Pacific Grove, California Tacoma/Pierce Count, Washington
If you know of other communities which have succeeded in passing breeding control legislation, please let us know. If
you wish to receive copies of the following ordinances, please see the order form on page 7.
ONE YEAR LATER- A LOOK AT
SAN MATEO COUNTY'S ORDINANCE
It has been one year since the San Mateo County
breeding control ordinance went into effect. Is it
working? We don't know yet -~ it is simply too early to
tell - but so far, the results are positive and encouragir~g.
Sinc~ the introduction of the ordinance, Peninsula
Humane Society (PHS) has seen a reduction in
impounds, surrenders, and euthanasias. From 1990 to
1992, during the period of controversy and media
attention, prior to implementing the ordinance, PHS'
intake of dogs and cats decreased by 5.6 percent, and the
euthanasia rate decreased by 3.2 percent.
Since the new law went into effect March 1, 1992, the
numbers continue to go down. During the first 15
months of implementation, the number of animals
received by PHS has decreased by 1,131 and the number
of animals euthanized has decreased by 654. One month
short of completion of fiscal year (FY) 93, the number of
cats both received and euthanized has shown a marked
decline, in spite of the fact that the ordinance impacts
only the unincorporated areas of the county, or less than
10 percent of the total area served by the PHS.
Dogs Resolved Dogs Eutkanlzod Cite Rooolvod Cats EUtkIIIzod
FY 92 5,221 1,332 9,704 7,417
FY 93 4,655 1,174 7,243 5,427
(first 1I months)
In addition, 749 "No Intent to Breed" permits, 1,032 Cat
Licenses, 36 Breeder Per,mits, and 13 Fancier Permits
have been purchased.
It will be several years before we are able to fully
evaluate the effectiveness of ,San Mateo County's
ordinance and other recently passed breeding control
laws. And, when we do critique their effectiveness, we
will need to consider a number of variables. For
example, what trends are revealed in the animal
statistics pre and post-ordinance? Additionally, what
are the trends of the human population growth? Has
the funding level of the local animal control program
changed? Are there other preventive programs which
may have also had an impact on the increase or
reduction of animal impounds or euthanasias? For
example, was a spay/neuter clinic recently opened? .
Were education programs implemented?. Further, is
the law being responsibly enforced by the animal
control agency?
CALIFORNIA'S FELINE FIX BILL UPDATE
In the April 1993 Spay/Neuter Legislation Bulletin we
informed you of AB 302, The Feline Fix bill, which
would require that all outdoor cats over the age of six
months be sterilized. Failure to comply would result in
an infraction, with citation fees waived if the person
sterilizes the cat within 30 days after receiving a citation.
AB 302 is endorsed by 118 animal and wildlife protection
o~ganizations and dozens of veterinarians. Considering
the large degree of support AB 302 has generated from a
variety of animal organizations, it was believed the bill
would see a speedy passage.
In fact, there appeared to be no opposition to the bill
when it was first introduced. However, opposition
eventually surfaced from a few vocal individuals who
believe they are protecting the interest~ of feral cat
caretakers. Many feral cat caretakers, however, strongly
support AB 302 and realize it will help reduce the
companion cat population, as well as the feral cat
population. In fact, the national feral cat group, Alley
Cat Allies, is a co-sponsor of the bill.
The few feral cat supporters who are actively opposing
the bill cite the following reasons for their opposition (a
response is provided for each):
Why Some Individuals Oppose AB 302
Opposition: It will discourage people from feeding cats,
resulting in many cats starving to death.
Response: Feeding feral cats and not sterilizing them
contributes to the overpopulation problem because
well-fed cats are just that much more prolific. If feral cat
caretakers have the best interests of the cats in mind,
they will sterilize them.
Opposition: Feral cat caregivers "will be forced to
abandon the trapping and sterilizing of the cats or face
being cited."
Response: Th~ bill clearly states that anyone cited for
having an unsterilized cat outside has the option of
altering their cat within 30 days after being cited, or
paying a fine. In other words, it's a fix-it ticket. AB 302
forces no one to "abandon" their cats.
Opposition: People who feed cats will abandon their
efforts because they cannot afford to sterilize them.
Response: The Fund for Animals has identified almost
300 low-fee spay/neuter clinics in California. Further,
the complementary program of a statewide 1-800
spay/neuter hotline was proposed to address that
Opposition: The law will encourage animal control
agencies to round up and kill outdoor unsterilized cats.
Response: There is nothing to prevent animal control
agencies from picking up feral cats now. However,
understanding the different levels of trust each
community has for their animal control agency, AB 302
co-sponsors agreed to the proposed amendment stating
that animal control agencies would not be able to
impound cats under this law.
Opposition: Feral cat caregivers should be exempt
from the law.
Response: It doesn't make sense to require the guardian
of a companion cat to sterilize their outdoor cat, and not
someone who is feeding a colony of feral cats. Further,
defining a "feral cat" is a technical nightmare. The
definition of "feral" is a domestic animal who has
reverted back to a wild state. However, we know there
are many grades of feral cats. If someone can handle a
particular cat, does that mean he/she isn't feral?
Further, how is animal control expected to seriously
enforce this law when anvone can state that the cat is not
officially theirs, but instead feral, and, therefore, exempt
from the law?
Opposition: It is "a 'cat killer' bill that criminalizes
humane individuals who are feeding strays."
Response: AB 302 will save lives. The fine for violating
AB 302 is an infraction, similar to a leash law violation.
This is the lowest violation one can attach to a law.
Further, it is not a "humane act" to feed strays and not
also take responsibility for sterilizing them.
None of us likes to be regulated. We can appreciate that
feral cat feeders don't want to have to prove that the cats
in their care are sterilized. But, for the betterment of all
cats, they should enthusiastically support AB 302.
Further, if guardians of companion cats must abide by
the proposed la'a; why shouldn't those who are feeding
feral cats?
We must not shy away from legislation which regulates
our behavior. Those of us in the animal protection field
have a history of supporting legislation that regulates
zither groups such as farmers, hunters and vivisectors.
Doesn't it make sense, then, that we, too, should subject
ourselves to reasonable regulation for the benefit of the
animals in our care?
Current Status of AB 302
With regret, we have made AB 302 a two-year bill. This
will allow us sufficient time to consider various
amendments as well as generate additional support.
Consequently, the bill will not be heard until January
1994. We will keep you posted.
CAT PACKETS AVAILABLE
If you are considering an ordinance in your community
modeled after the California Feline Fix bill, which
requires all outdoor cats to be sterilized, you may want
to order a copy of the Feline Fix education packet. The
packet covers all the pertinent information needed to
argue a case for an ordinance requiring free-roaming
felines to be spayed or neutered. The packet includes
information on the following:
· question/answer on what the legislation does and
doesn't do and how it will reduce the cat
overpopulation problem;
· whatis a cat spay/neuter operation;
· medical and behavioral benefits to spaying/neutering
your cat;
· early-age spaying/neutering for cats;
· endorsing organizations;
· low-fee spay/neuter clinics in California;
· feline statistics; and
· press release announcing the bill's introduction.
You are free to duplicate and modify the educational
material for your own use, as long as .credit is given to
The Fund for Animals. When undertaking breeding
control legislation, it's important to maximize its
educational benefit. The Feline Fix educational packet
provides a model for those considering similar
legislation. See ordering information on page 7.
AN INTERVIEW WITH GINNY BISCHEL, DVM
AVAR member, Dr Ginay
Bischel, has developed a
spay/castration program in San
Diego to address the increasing
population qfjkral cats. Her
progrom has been so successful
that other San Diego veterinarians
have adopted it and now keep tz
going on a regular basis. Tire AVAR
interviewed Dr: Bixchel xo that
others interested itt developing a
similar program to addresslkral
cats ia their area could benefit from
her experience.
AVAR: Dr Bischel when and how
did your sterilization program for
feral cats get started?
Bischel: I work for the Department
of Animal Control on a part-time
basis and see a lot of dumping of
animals. It's very upsetting.
Because last November was
'SpayfNeuter Month.' I wanted to
use our veterinary clinic to help
alleviate the overpopulation
problem. We have a lot of clients
who trap and take care of feral cat
colonies, so we devised a program
to sterilize these animals.
AVAR: How does the program
work?
Bisehel: We worked with local cat
rescue groups to coordinate the
program and they referred their
volunteers to work at the clinic to
handle the paperwork. My clinic
was used each Sunday throughout
November. and my staff and 1
volunteered our time. During that
month, we sterilized 167 cats.
Since November. we have sterilized
more than 1.000 cats. Now. the
program has expanded to include
six or seven other veterinarians
who routinely sterilize feral cats. In
fact. one of these other clinics
sterilized 100 cats in one day!
There is a routine which needs to
be followed to avoid confusion. All
cats must be dropped off between 9
a.m. and noon and must be picked
up by 1:30 p.m. that day Whoever
is responsible for the sterilized
cattsl must contain them for 24
hours from the time they are picked
uF to ensure their safety.
We assign duties in the office.
Because most of the cats are
brought to the.clinic in traps, our
front office volunteers take names
of the people bringing them in and
then they label each trap with
masking rape. We have two
technicians for anesthetizafion
which is done in a separate room.
in case the cat manages to escape.
Two technicians clip and prep the
cats. one gives an antibiotic
injecuon, and one technician is in
charge of placing cats on the
surgery table and putting them back
into the appropriate trap.
AVAR: Do you screcn fi~r
diseases?
Bischel: We give rabies vaccine
and an antibiotic injection to all the
cats, and provide some other
vaccinations. We do not test for
leukemia because of the expense
However. if a cat is obviousl? sick,
we test. treat, or euthanatize her or
him. At leasl these cats aren't
having kittens and passing along
diseases. It's not the whole answer.
but it should help. We also tag all
the cats with ear tags for
identificanon.
AVAR: ls this type of program
costly?
Bischel: Well. we do it free.
regardless. However, you have to
use a special suture material on the
skin so that it dissolves and that is
more expensive than other suture
materials. Some of the local cat
rescue groups are providing money
for the materials to other
veterinarians involved in the
program
AVAR: Have you had arty
complaints from other
veterinarians about providing free
sen,ices ?
Bischel: The majority of local
veterinarians haven't been very
supportive of the program.
although they aren't coming out
against it. These cats will never be
regular patients for any of these
veterinarians yet. by allowing them
to continue to breed, more cats will
have to die as a result. Practicing
veterinarians and veterinary
medical students should take a trip
through an animal control shelter
and see the killing and the need for
these services.
Dr.'s Bische, & Stadtmore stedlizing feral cats
For more ir~formation, contact:
Dr. Ginny Bischel. Otay Lake~
Veterinary Clinic, 736 O{ay Lakes
Road, Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 482-2000.
CALIFORNIA FELINE FIX
BILL OPPOSED BY CAT
ENTHUSIASTS
Who would suspect that a bill to
mandate sterilization of all outdoor
cats over the age of four months
would be strongly and aggressively '
opposed by cat caretakers? This is the
current status of California legislation,
AB 302 fHorcher}, the Feline Fix Bill.
of which the AVAR is a co-sponsor.
Because of the strong opposition to
the bill. mostly from a few. but vocal.
feral cat caretakers, the bill has been
made into a two-year bill.
Currently, the bill has the support of
almost 200 nonhuman animal
protecuon organ~zauons, including
local and national ones. However. the
San Francisco SPCA has locked arms
with several groups and influential
mdtviduals, in their opposaion to the
bill claiming that it would force feral
cat caretakers to be regulated which.
in turn. would Cause them to stop
feeding the cats. They also claim that
it is too much of a hardship for feral
cat caretakers to have to.sterilize their
colony of cats within a cer/mn period
of time. They do not appear to
understand that feeding these cats.
without also sterilizine them.
continues and compounds the problem
of overpopulation]
The AVAR's veterinary members have
strongly supported this legislation, as
has the California Veterinary Medical
Association. We believe it ts one of
the best pieces of legislation to be
introduced on nonhuman animal
protection matters, because it will
impact literall) millions of cats in
California. We will keep you posted.
CALIFORNIA DOWNED
ANIMAL PROTECTION
ACT GETS AMENDED
The California Downed Animal
Protection Act (SB 692), which was
written to regulate the handling of
nonambulator) animals at SlOckyards
and slaughterhouses has been
amended
Originally. the bill. which is bmng
co-sponsored by the AVAR. would not
allow the stockyards or slaughterhouses
to receive, handle, or sell
nonambulatory animals, and reqmred
that these animals would be
immediately euthanatizet, if they
amved or became nonambulatory at
these premises.
Although this bill has a wide range if
support from local and national
nonhuman animal protection
organizations and numerous
individuals, the opposition from the
dair) and other animal agricultural
industries has fomed the AVAR and
other do-sponsors to amend the bill to
allow these animals to be moved one
time,
The bill still stipulates that these
nonambulator) animals cannot be
dragged at any time, but does allow
them to be moved via a sling, on a
stoneboat, or on other sled-like or
wheeled conveyances. There are also
and handling these animals still
included in the bill.
The bill faces an uphill battle.
especially in the Assembly, where there
is a move to place bklls, such as SB
692. which are written for the Penal
Code. into the Agriculture Code.
instead. Such placement has the effect
of weakening a bill because
enforcement is almost non-existent ir
this category.
AVAR APPROACHES
NATIONAL BREED
CLUBS
As pan of the AVAR's campaign to
stop ear cropping and tail docking
procedures, it is circulating surveys
to national breed clubs regarding
their tail docking and ear cropping
policies. Each breed club has
received a copy of the AVAR's
brochure on cosmetic surgeries, as
well.
The AVAR's vetennary members
have been very responsive to the new
campaign, and many of them have
ordered large quantities of the
brochure to distribute to their clients
Il' you would like to help with the
campaign to stop ear cropping and
tail docking procedures on dogs,
please write to the AVAR. P.O. Box
1526% Vacaville. CA 95696. and we
will provide some suggestions on
how you can help. The AVAR's
brochure. Cosmetic Surgertes. A Cut
Above Cruelty? is available for [0
cents each.
COSMETIC
SURI;ERIES...
CUT
ABOVE
CRUELTY?
5
WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING
WHAT THE AMERICAN KENNEL CLUB HAS SAID:
In a survey of dog breeders published in the January, 1992 Gazette:
* Over 96% of the respondents think that canine overpopulation is a problem. 55.9% were
active breeders at the time.
* Over 84% said that they were willing to limit their breeding; 54% would limit their
bitches to only 1 litter per year.
* Over 64% support restrictive breeding measures.
"Survey respondents show support for the control of breeding, which mirrors their concern
about the overpopulation problem and commercial production of pure-bred dogs. Of even
greater significance, though, is the demonstrated willingness on the part of the respondents
to accept restrictive registration measures and pay for their implementation."
The Top 3 Problems affecting the sport of purebred dogs. (Listed in order of importance:)
1. Puppy Mills 2. Overpopulation in Dogs 3. Hereditary Defects in Dogs
From the 1991 Registration Statistics Published in the Gazette:
"The increas~ in individual registrations in a single year was far and away the largest one-
year jump in AKC history." 1,379,544 new indhridual dogs were registered.
"The AKC has for many years registered about half the dogs actually eligible for
registration."
"Litters also totaled a new single year record in 1991...and marked the 6th consecutive year
a new record for litter registrations was met." 567,763 litters were registered.
WHAT BREEDERS HAVE SAID:
From the AKC Gazette, Breeders Forum:
"America might be the land of the free, but it's also become the land of To6 Many
Unwanted Animals. We can't blame communities for wanting to solve the situation. We've
got to come up with our own solutions, or suffer the consequences." Chris Walkowicz
Again, from the Gazette, Breeders Forum, where a breeder blames puppy mills for the
problem:
"We must become so squeaky-clean in our ethics that no one can point a finger at
us. We can accomplish this through genetic testing and researching the lines of our own
breeding animals. Puppy mills don't do this...Faneiers don't want pet shops to go out of
business--we just want them to stop selling puppies." Chris Walkowicz
From PSM Ma~azine, Readers Respond, where a pet store owner says that pet stores
SHOULDN~F sell puppies:
"We do not sell puppies in our pet shop. We advise all clients not to buy puppies
in a pet store...No matter how caring and concerned the staff, all the things that should be
done with a young puppy are impossible in a pet shop environment...Pet shops who buy
from puppy mills and dog brokers are merely perpetuating these wretched places. I'm sure
some are clean and well-mn, but_the majority are not...Can you read the statistics of how
many dogs die in shelters and still keep on providing grist for this mill?" Carole Krajeski
Again, from PSM~ Readers Respond, where a pet store owner takes on Carole
Kr. ajeski's letter, above:
"It seems to me that the best way to improve our industry and the health and care
of the puppies/kittens we sell is to work within the industry. Join and support PIJAC and
help their efforts to educate us, promote responsible and sensible legislation relating to sale
and care of animals and to help identify and weed out irresponsible
breeders/retailers/hobbyists...We can and will weed out the puppy mills..." Charles Martin-
Vegue
From PSM Magazine, Readers Respond, where a breeder talks about the recession and the
work of the Humane Society of the United States:
"My segment of the industry, the puppy/kitten producers and suppliers, may be the
hardest hit of all...The Humane Society and the news media have attacked us with a
vengeance. In the 31 years I've been in the business, I've never seen such a well-planned
attack on a national scale...The HSUS goal is being met. The price of puppies is falling
drastically, due to a lack of demand. The kennels are going out of business...I see some
positive points in the fact that, for the first time since I've been in the business, people in
the large chains of retail pet stores are more concerned about image than they are about
price...Who knows...when this is ali over, maybe the entire pet industry will be upgraded as
puppy mills cease to exist. We may even adopt a national pet industry anthem that starts.
"God bless the Humane Society," for they may force us to do what we wouldn't do before.;~
Jim Hughes
From the AKC Gazette, Mailbag:
"The problem, however, is much greater than just breeder versus pet shop...the
supply of puppies has to be greatly reduced, and eliminating puppy mills and breeding farms
would certainly do that. But in order to have a more perfect world, we need mass
education and to keep dogs out of the hands of people who should not have them." Jean
Trentini
WHAT CAT BREEDERS HAVE SAID:
From CATS Magazine:
'~Ve must never lose sight of the fact that we are completely responsible for each and
every kitten that we bring into this world."
WHAT THE AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION HAS SAID:
From JAVMA, in theft AVMA News:
"Veterinary medicine needs to get on the right side of this issue. Veterinarians
sl~ould stop encouraging people to breed their animals. Few animals are of a quality that
would contribute to the gene pool. We can be part of the solution if we'll simply give
clients some honest advice." Dr. John Hamil
From a Press Release from the AVMA:
"..Millions of pets continue to be killed annually in the US because permanent homes
are unavailable...Pet overpopulation continues because of two major factors: too many
births and too many animals relinquished or abandoned...It is absolutely time for all people
who care for animals to work together to solve the pet overpopulation problem. Currently,
millions of dogs and cats in the U.S. are endangered as species, not because there are too
few, but too many. According to Dr. (Patricia) Olson, "veterinarians can be instrumental
in encouraging their clients to neuter pets before puberty, or before the risk of pregnancy
occurs. Just one litter of kittens or puppies allows this horrible problem to continue."
WHAT VETERINARIANS HAVE SAID:
In JAVMA:
"There is only one way to decrease the surplus. That is to have less births." L.R.
Plumb
"Only a few of the excess pet animals will find a home, and the closest to welfare we
can provide the vast majority is a humane death. The kindest thing we can do is to collect
and euthanatize them. This is hardly adequate welfare. Not allowing the excess to develop
is the only effective way to address their weffare...Veterinarians have largely ignored the
problem and often indicated that it really doesn't exist, that it is the result of ineffective
adoption programs. Generally, we also tend to believe that if there is a problem, subsidized
spaying and neutering is not a solution. Even more importantly, we have not actively
educated our clientele about the responsibilities of pet ownership...and the importance of
spaying and neutering. Although we have the expertise and the respect that would qualify
us to have a major role in combatting overpopulation, we have elected not to do so...We
must all be humane educators and advocates for responsible pet ownership, including
spaying and neutering...The excess of pet animals is a serious problem. Not allowing the
excess to occur is the only effective way to speak to the animals' weffare. The necessary
elements to overcome it exist. It can happen only with cooperative efforts, and veterinarians
must have a major role." Gus Thornton, DVM
"How would the veterinary community respond to a disease that resulted in annual
deaths of between 10 and 25% of all dogs and cats? The veterinary community certainly
would unite to control such a horrible disease...Why then, does our profession continue to
accept the fact that between 1/10 and 1/4 of all dogs and cats in this country are killed
annually because they do not have homes?" Patrieia Olson, DVM
"Our profession, in its entirety, must stress to the public the need to spay and neuter
every dog and cat, and to explain to owners the benefits of neutering to the animal itseff as
we'll as to the pet population in general. In my experience, many clients who have
purchased "AKC-Registered" pups want to breed their female or have their male stand at
stud simply because their pet is purebred and is a "fine specimen." Even though many of
these animals may not be fine specimens, the people feel that because they paid a high price
for their pet, it must be special. Some expect to recoup some of their expenses by breeding,
as well. Nevertheless, I know of veterinarians who encourage people to breed such pets.
We are not ensuring future business by encouraging breeding or by not
recommending spaying and neutering. We are simply contributing to the problem of pet
overpopulation. Responsible pet ownership begins with the first trip to the veterinarian.
Most pet owners trust and abide by veterinarians' recommendations. We do a disservice
to pet owners and the pet by not making the right ones." Donald K. Allen, MS,DVM
"We should do more, as a group and as individuals, to educate and inform the public
on choosing the right pet and dealing with pet overpopulation through responsible pet
ownership." Howard D. Martin, DVM
WHAT THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF MAYORS HAS SAID:
"The United States Conference of Mayors encourages legislation that restricts
indiscriminate breeding through permit systems, licenses, breeding moratoriums, fines and/or
low cost-spay and neuter programs." (From a resolution passed by the U.S. Conference of
Mayors in 1992)
Assertions that shelter workers cannot recognize
purebred animals reek of sophistry. A cynic might
suspect that these arguments are designed to draw
attention away from the supply-side responsibility
that breeders incur by producing litters. The same
suspicions apply to the argument, advanced by
Washington state dog breeder Faye Strauss in a
re~cnt letter to the Seatde Times, that "it is an
industry practice to spay and neuter pets."
An industry practice? For sure, many breeders
require anyone buying a puppy or kitten to sign
a spay-neuter contract, but how many of those
contracts are cnfnrced? Shelters, who often have
the weight of local ordinance on their side, do well
to achieve a spay-neuter compliance rate of 80
percent. Can breeders demonstrate that they do
any better?
Guy R. Hodge, director of data and informa-
tion services for HSUS, believes that "breeders
have not been willing to accept their own culpa-
bility in the pet overpopulation problem. There
are a finite number of good homes for companion
animals. If you produce animals that usurp any of
those homes, you are part of the pet-overpopula-
tion problem."
Breeders reply that virtually all the animals they
produce are bought by people who would not
acquire an animal were it not purebred. Moreover,
breeders do not feel that the surplus of dogs and
cats constitutes a moral imperative vis-a-~/~s the
dcliberate production of additional companion
animals. But it is reasonable to assume that some
of the animals they produce bump shelter animals
away from the food bowl.
Let us assume that one out of three pedigreed
animals sold commandeers a home that would
have other~;~se gone to a shelter animal. Then let
us consider that AKC registered 1.38 million new
dogs in 1991, while the Cat Fanciers' Association
(CFA) registered 75,525 new cats. If, as AKC and
CFA estimate, little more than half the purebred
puppies and kittens born ever get registered, say
55 percent for purposes of discussion, then there
were 2.51 million dogs and 137,000 cats pro-
duced by animal fanciers in 1991. If one third of
those animals took homes from shelter animals,
then shelters had to euthanize roughly 873,510
animals that would have been adopted: 828,300
dogs and 45,210 cats.
The cost ofeuthanizing those animals is consid-
erable, roughly $35 per six-pound cat and $46 per
twenty-pound dog after all expenses are factored
in, says Car~er Luke, vice president for the humane
services division o fthe Massachusetts SPCA. Thus,
the 45,210 cats and the 828,300 dogs that would
have been adopted if not for the activities of animal
breeders in 1991 cost $39.7 million to euthanize.
Add to this the cost of euthanizing the 660,000
purebred dogs and the 80,000 purebred cats
brought into shelters currently (or the cost of
euthanizing the animals that do not get adopted
from shelters because some of these surrendered
purebreds are adopted instead), and the breeders'
tab grows to $72.9 million annually. Or $28 for
every purebred animal born each year.
No other argoment is needed to justify charging
higher licensing fees to those who keep unaltered
animals or reqniring ndditionaI fees from people
who breed animals-"setious" and backyard breed-
ers alike. "When shelters are killing millions of
animals a year, it's poindess to make a distinction
between the off:spring of so-called good breeders
and the happenstanceof~pringofbackyard breed-
ers and people who let their animals loose," says
Marc Paulhus, director of sheltering and compan-
ion animals at HSUS. "Every litter contributes to
the pet overpopulation problem."
Ch. Saizen's Java (Seal Lynx Point Javanese).
AcdionLine: Winter 1993 11
Paulhus believes that ~ifbreeders loved dogs and
cats as they so desperately daim, pet overpopula-
tion would be in the forefront of their concerns,
but it has not been."
Indeed, adds Mitchell Fox, animal-issues direc-
tor for the Progressive Animal Welfare Society
(PAWS) in Lynwood, Washington, "Breeders
would sooner tolerate the status quo regarding
~ inal overpopulation than accept any limita-
tions or regulations on their activities."
The typical, we-didi~'t-start-the-fire argument
was raised in the March/April 1992 issue of
ANIMALS magazine byThomas H. Dent, execu-
tive director of the Cat Fanciers' Association. Dent
told ANIMALS that breeding-control legislation
is ill aimed because "ir sweeps up into thc net the
people we feel are not the most heavy contributors
to the (pet overpopulation) problem."
One would expect the executive director of an
association to be better acquainted with its statis-
tics. In I991, 19,405 people registered a total of
52,654 litters of kittens with CFA. Sixty-nine
percent of those people registered only one or two
litters. Yet this 69-percent cohort produced only
33 percent ofalllitters registered. The most fecund
cat breeders - the 800 animallovers who registered
ten litters or more in 1991 - produced 11,076
litters. Thus, the most fertile four percent of all cat
breeders produced 21 percent of the total litters
registered for the year. Contrary to Dent's claim,
this cohott does comprise the cat fancy's "most
heavy contributors" to the pet-overpopulation
problem.
(Though AKC refuses to provide so detailed a
picture of its constituents' activities, Cavanaugh
reports that 90 percent of the people who rel~mtered
litters with AKC in 1991 produced only one litter,
8.5 percent produced between two and ten liners,
and 1.5 percent produced more than ten litters.)
If registries were serious about helping to de-
crease pet overpopulation, they would refuse to
register more than three litters a year for any
breeder. By raising litter-registration costs slightly,
from $7 to $11 per litter, they could do so without
loss of revenue.
O fall the rhetorical smoke bombs huded against
pet-limitation and breeding-restrictive ordinances,
the most bizarre is the charge that people who
sponsor "coercive legislation (are) the same radical
groups that deface property, destroy equipment in
university laboratories, steal re. sea~h documents,
and create general mayhem to serve their anarchist
(sic) purposes."
This news bulletin appeared in the September
issue of CATS magazine in an article fatuously
entitled "We're the Good Guys," written by a
CFA breeder-judge. Perhaps someone should tell
her that it is the Animal Liberation Front (referred
to as the Annual Liberation Front in a Dog News
diatribe) that interacts with researchers' equip-
ment, not the Peninsula Humane Society, the
Progressive Animal Welfare Society, HSUS,
Friends of Animals, and other groups that have
sponsored or endorsed pet-limitation and breed-
lng-restrictive ordinances.
Another farcical declaration appeared in a broad-
side distributed by a group called We're Account-
able Guardians (WAG): "Friday the 13th is Com-
ing! And one by one they will all disappear!" Those
wags at WAG - fiercely opposed to the recently
passed King County Ordinance, which requires
the owner of an unaltered animal to pay a $55
liceme fee -dedared that the King County
Ordinance was "The First Step in the Animal
Activist's Agenda - Elimination of all Companion
Animals."
These tongue-waggers would have people be-
lieve that every animal protection group that
sponsors pet-limitation or breeding-restrictive leg-
islation is a branch of People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA). Although PETA
believes that breeding should bc illegal, says PETA
spokesperson Amy Bertsch, "we don't, as an or-
ganizarion, draft: legislation." Nor does PETA
advocate confiscating co mpanlon animals, as WAG
and others contend.
WAG does contend, however, that"animals are
homeless because society has allowed itself to
become disposable."
Makes you wonder how breeders have managed
to exert so much sway with local legislators when-
ever pet-limitation or breeding-restrictive omi-
nances have been proposed. (To date, no ordi-
nance limits the number of litters a breeder may
produce.) But most of all, it makes you want to
remind legislation advocates that some of the
breeders who behave obnoxiously at county-council
hearings may be in violation of existing pet-
limitation ordinances as well as the canons of
good taste.
12 News:Wimer 1993
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #9-70-217-472
Bob L. Johnson, Chairperson
Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Johnson:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31675-091393 approving a proposed capital
expenditure of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, in the amount of
$270,000.00, for the purpose of acquiring or rehabilitating a 1500 gallon aircraft
rescue and fire fighting vehicle, upon certain terms and conditions. Resolution No.
31675-091393 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting
held on Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Enc.
pc:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board, Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors, p. O. Box 29800, Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Jacqueline L. Shuck, Airport Executive Director
Catherine S. Pendleton, Secretary, Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31675-091393.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION approving the Roanoke Regional Airport
Commission,s proposed capital expenditure upon certain terms and
conditions.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that in
accordance with the requirements of the Roanoke Regional Airport
Commission Act and the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission Contract
dated January 28, 1987, the City of Roanoke hereby approves the
Airport Commission,s proposed capital expenditure, in the amount of
$270,000.00 for the purpose of acquiring or rehabilitating a 1500
gallon aircraft rescue and fire fighting vehicle, upon certain
terms and conditions, as more particularly set forth in
correspondence from the Commission to this Council dated August 31,
1993.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Airport Commission
Bob'L,,,Johnson, Chairman
Kit B. Kiser, Vice Chairman
W. Robert Herbert
H, Odell Minnix
Jacqueline L. Shuck, Executive Director
CIT'~
5202 Aviation Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24012-1148
R ~-7~) ,~-1999
,FAX (703) 563~4838
Honorable Mayor and Members
Roanoke City Council
August 31, 1993
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: Roanoke Regional Airport Purchase of Lift
Device, Engineering Services for Airfield
Signage and ARFF Vehicle
As you are aware, Section 17(b) of the contract between the City of Roanoke, Roanoke
County, and the Airport Commission requires any capital expenditure over $100,000 be approved by
the Council of the City of Roanoke and the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County.
This letter is to respectfully request that Roanoke City Council adopt a resolution approving
the capital expenditure by the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission of approximately $270,000
necessary to acquire one 1500 gallon aircraft rescue and fire fighting CARFF") vehicle to replace a
similar vehicle which has reached the end of its useful life, or to rehabilitate the old truck, if such
rehabilitation is feasible and would be in the best interests of the Commission. A federal grant is
expected in September which would reimburse the Commission for 90% of the cost of either the
acquisition or the rehabilitation, the State will reimburse the Commission for 5% of said cost, and the
Commission has funds available for the remaining cost. Therefore, the City will not be responsible
for any part of the purchase price.
If you require any further information, I would be happy to supply it.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Respectfully submitted, .
Executive Director
JLS:csp
cc: Commission Members
City Attorney
City Clerk
Commission Treasurer
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
(703) 772-2004
P.O. BOX 29800
ROANOKE, VIRGINIa 24018-0798
September 15, 1993
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
~E B. EDDy, VIC~-CHAIRMAN
(703) 772-2~
Ms. Jacqueline L. Shuck
Executive Director
Roanoke Regional Airport
5202 Aviation Drive
Roanoke, VA 24012-1148
Dear Ms. Shuck:
Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 91493-6 approving a specific
capital expenditure for the acquisition by the Roanoke Regional
Airport Commission of an aircraft rescue and fire fighting vehicle.
This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their
meeting on Tuesday, September 15, 1993.
If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely,
bjh
Attachment
cc: Diane D. Hyatt,
Paul M.
Mary F.
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Director, Finance
Mahoney, County Attorney
Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council
· ~D AT ~ ROANo]~ COUNty ADH/; UHTy_
ON TUEBDAY~ SBPTEMBER 3.4, 19~j%IBTRAToR CE~ER
RESOLUTION 91493-6 APPROVING A SPEC
EXPENDITURE FOR THE ~'~'~ ......... IFIC CAPITAL
· ~,-wv~a'~-~um BY THE ROANOKE REGIONAL
WHEREAs, Section 17.(b) of the contract between Roanoke
County, the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Regional Airport
Commission provides that the Commission shall prepare and submit
for approval any proposed capital expenditure exceeding $100,000.00
to benefit five or more future accounting periods; and
WHEREAS, by report dated August 31, 1993, a copy of which is
on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board, the Roanoke
Regional Airport Commission has submitted a request that the County
approve a certain capital expenditure by the Commission for the
purchase or rehabilitation of an aircraft rescue and fire fighting
vehicle in the total amount of $270,000.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia that this Board hereby approves the
caDital expenditure by the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission of
$270,000 in Connection with the purchase or rehabilitation of an
aircraft rescue and fire fighting vehicle, and the County
Administrator and Clerk to the Board are authorized to execute and
attest, respectively, on behalf of the County, any additional
documentation, in form approved by the County Attorney, necessary
to evidence said approval, as more particularly set forth in the
report to this Board on this subject from the Roanoke Regional
Airport Commission dated August 31, 1993, a copy of which is on
file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to
carried by the following recorded Vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Kohinke,
NAYS: None
adopt the resolution,
Eddy, Nickens, Minnix
and
A COPY TESTE:
cc:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
File Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Diane D. Hyatt, Director, Finance
Jacqueline L. Shuck, Executive Dir, Roanoke Regional Ai~ort
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Mary F. Parker, Clerk, Roanoke City Council
'93 SEP-8 A8:33
Roanoke, Virginia
September 13, 1993
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Sewage Facilities Improvements - Briefing
Please reserve space on your agenda for a briefing regarding
needed improvements to our joint use sewage facilities, sewage
collector system, a tentative method of financing, and planned
public information program.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:KBK:afm
cc:
City Clerk
City Attorney
Acting Director of Finance
'93 SEP-9 8:52
Director of Utilities 6 Operations
September 14, 1993
Letter sent to Large Water Users
Ladies & Gentlemen:
The City of Roanoke is planning, in conjunction with the other Valley
governments, to renovate and expand our joint use sewage facilities and to
increase our maintenance efforts on other sewage pipelines.
We feel this is important to you for the following reasons:
1. We need to comply with State regulations and not exceed our State
permitted discharge of flow quantity from the Sewage Plant to the
Roanoke River.
2o
We will need to increase our sewage treatment fees.
We need to eliminate sewer line overflows.
We need to provide capacity for new commercial, industrial, and
residential growth.
Enclosed is a brochure and an outline of a briefing submitted to City
Council describing in some detail this planned work and method of financing.
You are one of our largest customers. This is to invite you or your
representatives to a meeting to further discuss this project at 7:00 p.m.,
Thursday, September 23, 1993, in City Council Chambers.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
KBK:afm
Enclosure
cc: ~'ty Clerk
Kit B. Kiser, Director
Utilities & Operations
Room 354 Municipa~ Building 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2602
FACILITIES I~pR~,~lme~TB
Co-9~il Briefing
sep~cember 13, 1993
Joint Use Facilities
A. Define
Capacity Capacity
Now Needed
1. Sewage Treatment Plant 35 MGD 42* to
72** MGD
2. Roanoke River Interceptor 35 70.4 MGD
3. Tinker Creek Interceptor 25 34.5 MGD
* - Base Flow
** - Wet Weather Flow
Need - Refer to attached bar chart of total flows and City of
Roanoke flows over past four (4) years
Improvement Costs (Estimated in 1993 dollars)
1. Plant Renovation $ 2,000,000
2. Plant Expansion $17,063,000
3. Roanoke River Interceptor Repl. $17,800,000
4. Tinker Creek Interceptor Repl. $ 4~620~000
$41,483,000
City of Roanoke Capacity & Cost Share of Joint Use Facilities
1. Capacities=
Current Proposed
15.83 MGD 19.20 MGD Ease Flow
32.83 MGD Wet Weather Plow
2. Cost= 38% x Estimated Cost of $41,483,000 - $15,763,540
+ Add 8% to Mid Point of Construction 1~261r083
$17,024,623
Annualized Capital Cost=
$17,024,623 @ 7% over 30 years
$1,372,014/yr.
Page 2
Aging
· ~u£p~ent a~ Pipes (O & M Costs)
Portions of the Sewage Treatment Plant have different ages, in the
20 - 40 year range. Also, parts of the plant have been under
water (flooded) four (4) times in the past 25 years. These facts
point out that the plant has an increasing need of m~intenance.
An additional *350,000/year is needed for increased m~lntenance
and labor costs.
A review of the attached bar chart shows how susceptible the flow
to the plant from the City collector pipes Il durl~p~riods of
sustained or heavy rainfall. This is indicative of the fact that
our sewer pipes are old, that they are prone to r~iving
infiltration and inflow (I/I). we ne~d to continue our efforts of
sewer shed monitoring and I/I reduction. Our current three (3)
year program of ,1,000,000 per year will, when added to increasing
plant maintenance cost indicated above, expend all retained
earnings in the sewer fund. This program should continue,
however, on a somewhat reduced scale in the *650,000/year range.
Total A~ditiomel Coet Antioipeted
Joint Use Facilities Expansion & Replacement
Plant Labor and Maintenance
Infiltration and Inflow Containment
$i,372,014/yr.
350,O00/yr.
650FOOO/zr.
$2,372,014/yr.
Current
$0.97
Proposed (% Inorease}
Effective Jan. 1~ 1994 Jan. 1, 1995
,1.13 (16%) ,1.29 (14%)
~an. 1~ i996
,1.47 (14%)
cost Per 5~000 Gallons per Month (% Increase}
1992 State-
~ide Avg. 1993 Cit~ Proposed 1994 Proposed 1995
*15.73 $6.47 $7.54 (16%) $8.60 (14%)
Proposed 1996
$9.80 (14%)
Publ£c Information Progrm
A. Public briefing of City Council - September 13, 1993
B. Set up and train Speakers Bureau
C. Prepare Visual Aids (Video & Poster Boards) for Speakers' use
D. Develop handout brochure
E. Seek speaking engagements with=
Civic Leagues & Service Org&nisstions
Business Groups
Home Builders & Board of Realtors
Neighborhood Organizations
Feature on October City Manager's Report TV show on Cox cable,
Ch. 3
Send letters to largest users, explain overall issue ~nd invite
th~n to a meeting
Discuss bi-monthly or budget billing
Hake f£nal report of reco~nendation to Council with final contract
documents - November or December, 1993
Fo
G.
H.
I.
I---
<~
0
./
o~
0
0
II.
III.
SEWagE FEES
Current & Tentatively Proposed
Standard Treatment Charge Fees:
Current
Jan. 1, Jan. 1, Jan. 1,
1994 1995 1996
$0.97/100 $1.13/100 $1.29/100
cu. ft. cu. ft. cu. ft.
$1.47/100
cu. ft.
Septic Tank Disposal Fees=
Current Proposed
Jan. 1, Jan. 1,
1994 1995
1996
Up to 1,500 gal./
truck - $20.00
Over 1,500 gal./
truck - $30.00
$23.20 $26.45 $30.15
$34.80 $39.67 $45.22
Industrial Cost Recovery (Applies to users requiring treatment of 30,000
gallons or more per day):
Proposed
Jan. 1, Jan. 1, Jan. 1,
Usage Current 1994 1995 1996
Per 1,000 gallons $ 1.06 $ 1.23 $ 1.40 $ 1.60
BOD, Per 1,000 ibm. $ 45.64 $ 52.94 $ 60.35 $ 68.80
SS, Per 1,000 lbs.~ $ 36.23 $ 42.03 $ 47.91 $ 54.62
P, Per 1,000 lbs. $329.99 $382.79 $436.38 $497.47
TKN, Per 1,000 lbs. $388.37 $450.51 $513.58 $585.48
IV. SMr Connection F~B:
proposed
Jan. 1, Jan. 1, Ja~. 1,
Current 1994 1995 1996
4-inch or 6-inch $ 300.00 $ 348.00 $ 396.72 $ 452.26
8-inch $ 750.00 $ 870.00 $ 991.80 $1,130.65
10-inch $1,500.00 $1,740.00 $1,983.60 $2,261.30
MARy F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #60-72-472
James D. Grisso
Acting Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Orisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31676-091393 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1993-94 General Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation
of $41,165.00, to provide funds for acquisition of computer equipment for the
Department of Social Services in connection with implementation of the Commonwealth
of Virginia's Application Benefit Delivery Automation Project. Ordinance No. 31676-
091393 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. ~arker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
F, nc.
pc:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director, Human Development
Corinne B. Gott, Manager, Social Services
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN TH~. COUNCIL OF THE CITy OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31676-091393.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1993-94 General Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
emergency.
WHEREAs, for the Usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1993-94 General Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained
to read as follows, in part:
Health and Welfare
Income Maintenance
(1-3)
Revenue
$ 17,031,833
3,945,428
Grants-in-Aid Com/nonw~=~w~
Welfare (4) . - .... ~
1) Telephone
2) Expendable
Equipment
3) Other
Equipment
4) General
Administration
(001-054-5313-2020) $ 11,025
(001-054-5313-2035) 24,700
(001-054-5313-9015) 5,440
(001-020-1234-0676) 41,165
$ 28,362,789
11,740,459
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
September 13, 1993
The Honorable Mayor and
Me~bers of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Mayor andMembersofCouncil:
II.
~ne State Deoartment of Social Servi~ is dev~l~inq a system,
Droiect ~ (ADDlication Benefit Delivery Bl~r~tion Project)
which will mrovide an automated k~owl~.~-~ s~t~ to
the many facets of eliqibility determ~n~tlon and provide the most
benefits to workers by expediting the application process and
the delivery of benefits to our ~s.
Roanoke Cit~ Department of Social Servlr~_~ will receive 2R
personal c~,~uters from the State in Se~f~mhar, 1993, to prepare
for the imple~-~tation of syst~ changes with project ADAPT.
This equipment will be maintained under State maintenance
contract.
~ S~'iUATION
A.
The State Department of Social Servic~ T~nical ~..r~t Un/t
has encouraqed the local aqency to chanqe the present cabl~
the State's Host C~L~uters and other necessary hardware for this
c~:~uter syste~ conversion.
The State Departmentof Social Services has~d~ av~ilmhl~
fundinqfor wirinqand installation of our co~uter equipment at
100% reimbursement.
Az~%lisition of this equirm~nt would el,:,tm,-ease o'm~?rter down tim~,
allow for easier relocation of te~rN-~l~ ~ S~ mainfsn~ce.
III. ISSUES
B. Need for eoui~nent.
city Council approve this r~?~t and appropriate State revemuo
of $41.165 to provide for cost of equipment.
1. Fundinq is 100% reimbursed by the State Department of Social
Services.
Page Two
2. Ne~4 for ~ to update our c~m'~nication lines to
newer technology.
Do not au~oriate revenue of $41.165 to provide for cost of
1. Fundin~ - Not an issue.
Need for ~ - Would lose a one-time-only opportunity
for necessary equipment at no cost to locality.
Citv C~,n~H] concur in the i~ol~mentationofAltmrnativeA,
increase~=venueestimatesof funds receivedfr(anthe State
~ of Social Services in A~count ~001-020-1234-0676 and
increase the following Expenditure Accounts:
#001-054-5313-2020
#001-054-5313-2035
#001-054-5313-9015
Telephone $11,025
Expe~ahle~ip~ 24,700
Other ~quipment 5,440
$41,165
Respectfully su~tted,
city Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, city Attorney
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finar~
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Manage~nent a]ld Budget
Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director of Human Devel~t~L~--nt
Corinne B. Gott, Superintendent of Social Services
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2a011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
September 17, 1993
File #72-110-236-246
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31677-091393 appointing the Director of Human
Resources as the City of Roanoke's representative on the Fifth District Employment
and Training Consortium Board, effective September 15, 1993; and appointing the
Assistant City Manager as alternate representative of the City of Roanoke on the
Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium Policy Board, effective
September 15, 1993. Resolution No. 31677-091393 was adopted by the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely, ~x~..._~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Enc.
pc;
James D. Ritchie, Assistant City Manager
Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director, Human Development
Vickie L. Price, Administrator, Fifth District Employment and
Training Consortium
Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31677-091393.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION appointing a representative and an
representative of the City of Roanoke to the Fifth
Employment and Training Consortium Policy Board.
alternate
District
BE
follows:
1.
IT RESOLVED by the Council
That effective September 15,
Development be and is hereby appointed
representative on the Fifth District
Consortium Policy Board.
2. That effective September 15,
of the City of Roanoke as
1993, the Director of Human
as the City of Roanoke's
Employment and Training
1993, the Assistant City
Manager be and is hereby appointed as the alternate representative
of the City of Roanoke on the Fifth District Employment and
Training Consortium Policy Board.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
~EC~ ,~
[.;ITY Ct r ,
'93 SEP-2 P2:49
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Roanoke, Virginia
September 13, 1993
Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Appointment of A Representative and Alternate to the Policy Board of the
Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium (FDETC)
I. BACKGROUND
The Ci~ is one of 8 localities represented on the Policy Board, the
governing body, of the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium
(FDETC).
Members of the Policy Board include representatives from: Alleghany County,
Botetourt, Clifton Forge, Covington, Craig, Roanoke City, Roanoke County and
Salem.
A cooperative A~reement si~ned in 1979, and amended in 1983, established that
the City of Roanoke would be responsible for the overall management of the
FDETC and would serve as the grant recipient for FDETC funding. The
Agreement further provided that the City representative will serve as Chairperson.
II.
CURRENT SITUATION
City Council aD~ointed James D. Ritchie, former Director of Human
Development, as the City's representative to the FDETC Policy Board. (Mr.
Ritchie has served as Chairperson of the Policy Board since 1979).
In February 1993, James Ritchie was named the Assistant City Manager for the
City of Roanoke.
As Council's appointee, James Ritchie ha~ continued to serve as Chair of the
FDETC Policy Board.
A new Director of Human Development. Glenn D. Radcliffe, began work on
July 12, 1993.
E. Since 1979 regular and continuing supervision of FDETC operations, has bee,,
assigned to the Directorate of Human Development.
Fo
Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director of Human Development bas not been officially
appointed to the FDETC Policy Board.
III.
ISSUES
Program Operations
Compliance with Existing Cooperative Agreements
Timing
IV.
ALTERNATIVES
Appoint the Director of Human Development as the City's representative to the
FDETC Policy Board, and m)~oint the Assistant CRv Manaeer as alternatt,
representative to the Policy Board, effective September 15, 1993.
Pro ram O erations will be positively enhanced since the person
responsible for regular supervision of the FDETC will also serve as
Chairperson of the agency's Policy Board.
Compliance with Existing Cooperative Agreemente is assured with the
new designation of a Policy Board representative(s).
Timing is important to ensure the smooth transition of Policy Board
leadership.
Do not aPPoint the Director of Human Development as representative to and
Chairman of the FDETC Policy Board.
~ will be negatively impacted since the person
responsible for overall supervision of the FDETC will not be involved
with the decisions made by the Policy Board.
Compliance with Existing Cooperative Agreements would be partially met
since James Ritchie is officially designated as the City's representative to
the Policy Board. However, as Assistant City Manager, Mr. Ritchie does
not have sufficient time to serve as Policy Board Chairperson and maintain
meaningful contact with FDETC staff and agency operations.
3. Timing would not be an issue.
V. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council concur with Alternative A:
Appoint the Director of Human Development as the City's representative to the FDETC
Policy Board, and appoint the Assistant City Manager as alternate representative to the
Policy Board, effective September 15, 1993.
Respectively submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/VLP/kdh
CC:
Wilbum C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director of Human Development
Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator
Vickie L. Price, FDETC Administrator
Roanoke, Virginia
September 13, 1993
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor,
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Police Homeowners Loan Program
I. BACKGROUND:
In the sprinq of 1992, several departments studied the
feasibility of a Police Homeowners Loan Program as part
of the development of a Diversified Housing Strategy
for the City of Roanoke.
Almost three years agog Columbia~ South Carolina~
instituted a Police Homeowners Loan Proqram designed to
revitalize city housing, promote home ownership, and
reduce crime within various neighborhoods in their
community. In the fall of 1992, several members of
Roanoke City government, including members of the
Police Department, traveled to Columbia to review their
program and to see what aspects could be utilized with
modifications to fit conditions in Roanoke.
Local program has been examined for the past several
months by the Police Department and several other city
agencies to provide homeowner opportunities for police
officers within declining neighborhoods.
Columbia Police Homeowners Proqram demonstrated that
the greatest advantage to having police officers buying
homes in targeted areas was that their presence had a
direct impact on the "peace of mind" of the community.
The feeling that this is now a safe and decent place to
live indirectly creates an environment where properties
are structurally improved, vacant properties begin
selling and a "sense of pride" returns and spreads
through neighborhood areas.
II. CURRENT SITUATION:
Roanoke City faces housing Droblems very similar to
many metropolitan areas. Because affordable housing is
not available to a large segment of our population,
home ownership has declined over the past twenty (20)
years and renter-occupied housing has increased
significantly. This has led to a slowly erosive effect
The Honorable David A. Bowers,
and Members of City Council
Page 2
September 13, 1993
Mayor,
in some of our neighborhoods. One of the principal
elements contributing to neighborhood decline is the
erosion in confidence and "peace of mind" in a
neighborhood as a stable, safe, decent environment.
Our goal is to strengthen the pride of home ownership
while dealing with physical decay, increasing crime
rates and other related social problems in the targeted
neighborhoods.
Lack of financial opportunities, as well as a concern
about reprisals against their family, has caused many
officers to choose to live outside the city limits.
City administrative staff has designed a progr~..
modeled after Columbia, but with modifications to fit
conditions of Roanoke (Attachment "B").
The "key elements" are already in place:
1. An alliance of neighborhood groups (Roanoke
Neighborhood Partnership) through which the City
could "sell" and facilitate the program concept.
2. Planninqt Housing Development, Economic
Development~ Building InsDections~ and Grant~
Compliance~ in con]unction with the Policn
Department, have been working to create and "fine-
tune" such a program.
Lending institutions willing to participate in
"home ownership programs.,,
"Top Driority" commitment from City
Administration.
Se
Intent of this program is to have officers purchase
homes in relatively stable neighborhoods adjacent to
low/moderate income neighborhoods. Providing
incentives to police officers to purchase homes in
these areas could help stabilize the neighborhoods and
deter expansion of decay and criminal activity.
Current proDosed financing through federal Community
Development Block Grant funds would be to specific
areas in the City, such as Gainsboro, Belmont, Highland
Park, Hurt Park, Gilmer, Loudon, Melrose, Harrison,
Morningside, Kenwood, and Fallon Park. (See Map,
Attachment "A")
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor,
and Members of City Council
Page 3
September 13, 1993
III. ISSUES:
Provide an additional method to stabilize and preserve
older residential neighborhoods.
B. Provide affordable housing for police officers.
C. Legal issues.
D. Cost.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
City Council authorize implementation of a home
financing mechanism to serve as a positive incentive
for police officers to buy homes in specific
neighborhoods and authorize the City Manager, City
Attorney and Director of Finance to execute individual
deeds of trust and any other necessary contracts with
individual officers. (See Attachment "B" - Draft
Program Design)
Providing a method of recovery for blighted
neighborhoods would be established through the
personal ownership of homes by police officers.
Providing affordable housing for police officers
encourages them to not only participate in this
program but to ultimately establish "roots" in the
neighborhoods they patrol. The mechanism to
provide affordable housing for officers will be to
offer second mortgages on attractive terms to
supplement housing or rehabilitation costs.
Legal issues. The program will utilize federal
funds only; therefore, limitations on use of city
funds will not be an issue. Officers will execute
deeds of trust, notes, and contracts to secure
federal funds and assure compliance with program
requirements.
Cost of implementation of this project has been
addressed in that City Council has already
appropriated $45~735.00 in CDBG funds which will
be used to make second mortgage loans to officers
in the current year. All administrative costs
would be handled with existing staff, including
the Police Department, Office of Billings and
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor,
and Members of City Council
Page 4
September 13, 1993
Collections, Department of Finance, and Housing
Development Office.
City Council not authorize implementation of this
proqram.
An oDDortunity for Drovidinq a method of recovery
for blighted neighborhoods would not be utilized.
Affordable housinq for police officers would still
be beyond the reach of many of the young officers.
Legal issues would not be a factor.
4. Cost would not be a factor.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
City Council adopt Alternative "A" and authorize Police
Homeowners Loan Program concept as described in this
report and
City Council authorize the City Manager to execute
contracts and other required documents, to be approved
as to form by the City Attorney, and authorize the City
Attorney and the Director of Finance to serve as
trustees on deeds of trust.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/RDS/hw
Attachment "A" - Map
Attachment "B" - Draft Program Design
Attachment "C" - Article from Fall/Winter 1992
Footprints
ATTAC~II~ENT "A"
Z
n"
Z
0
I'-
LU
Z
0
LU
(D
0
Fr'
ATTACHMENT "B"
COMMUNITY POLICE OFFICER/HOMEOWNER INITIATIVE
PROGRAM DESIGN -- JULY, 1993
OBJECTIVES
Primary:
Personal police presence as integral part of the
"community" in neighborhoods at some risk of general
deterioration, including physical decay, crime, social
ills, etc.
Secondary:
STRATEGY
1. Economic and personal benefit to individual
officers, especially of limited income, through
home investment;
8. Physical improvement or development of housing in
strategic residential areas.
Provide a home financing mechanism to serve as a positive incentive
for police officers to buy homes in jeopardized neighborhoods.
MECHANISM
Amount:
The City will provide second mortgages for purchase of
homes by police officers in specific eligible areas.
-- 0% interest, repayable over 15 years
-- Up to 100% of final appraised value
-- B% cash payment required of buying officer, unless
a higher amount is required by primary financing
-- Closing costs and prepaid items may be financed in
City's second mortgage, beyond I00~ of value
-- Maximum housing expense: income and debt: income
ratios of approximately 35~ and 48% respectively.
Primary financing may require lower ratios.
Greater of:
1. 25~ of the total cost of the property, or
8. total rehabilitation cost (including documented cost
of newly renovated property).
No maximum loan or cost or value of property, up to fund-
ing availability.
Eligible Types of Houses:
Any house meeting Building Code standards before
occupancy. Includes newly constructed, existing house in
good condition, or rehabilitated house.
Eligible Areas:
All Conservation Areas and Rehabilitation Districts.
Eligible Buyers/Borrowers:
Special
-- Accessible to all sworn nonprobationary police
officers.
-- No maximum income limits if house is substandard and is
to be rehabilitated prior to occupancy;
-- 80% of median income as defined by HUD per family size
for any other category of house;
-- Not limited to first-time homebuyers.
Pro¥i$io~s:
1. Buying/Borrowing officer may select own eligible house;
2. Officer must attend specially designed Homebuyer's course
regarding homeownership generally and as related to this
initiative;
3. Officer must occupy house during life of City's mortgage.
Annual affidavits will be required, with some supporting
documentation;
A. City's mortgage is due on sale or termination of officer,s
occupancy. However, officer may buy another qualifying
property and re-participate fully in the program.
5. Automatic payments required, by either bi-weekly payroll
deductions (preferred) or monthly bank debits;
6. Improvements financed by the City's mortgage must be
installed or achieved with licensed qualified contractors.
Sweat equity is not allowed.
?. Deed of Trust and Note may specify that interest rate will
escalate if officer leaves employment as City police officer
(e.g. to 4~ if remains an employee of the City, 8~ if leaves
City employment altogether).
Financing:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Estimated at $12,000 to $20,000 per property
SAMPLE SCENARIOS (Simplified)
Assume conventional financing at ? 1/2~ for 30-year term
1. House bought for $30,000; $20,000 of rehabilitation
Conventional first mortgage for $30,000
Program 2nd mortgage for $20,000 (rehab>
Property taxes (value of improvements abated
for five (5) years)
Insurance
Ex.isting home in good condition bought for $50,000
Conventional first mortgage for $37~500 -_
Program 2nd mortgage for $18,500 (25%) -_
Property Taxes <$50,000 assessment)
$210
111
31
25
$377
$262
69
52
25
$408 PITI
(policpro)
COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA:
G.*ficers ' throuah
Police Home Loan Program "
by T~na N~d.:anUs' ' * ~ ' ~
Editor's Note: Among the most
controversial issues in policing a~
residence requirements for o~cer~.
This article details a novel vol.
unta~ app~ach that offe~ police
o~c~,~ the carnet of low-c~t home
otvnersh/p instead of the stick of
roles and ~Julatlor~.
Imagine the aftermath of a massive
earthquake in Sarr Francisco. Other than
the obvious chaos of the fires and mass
destruction, one sociologist realized that
an even larger problem was that--most
of the firemen and policemen reside out-
side the citg limits. In San Francisco. that
means that theg most likelg live across
the bridge from where theg would 1~
needed most in a catastrophe such as a
major earthquake.
Il isn't just the lower cost of housing
that attracts middle-income public serv-
~ce Workers to the suburbs and outskirts
of citias in which theg work. Often-
times, the suburbs reflect the values of
the workera, wher~ the chaos and
Page 10
"ATTACHMENT C"
crime of the inner-city do not. People
think of suburbs as safer for their kids--
which in and of itself, speaks L'olumes
about the threat that crime poses. Fhe
tax and business dollars flow where the
moneu is st~nt--more moneg is
bu those workers at the local malls and
groceru stores than in the citg where
theg work--so business flourishes in the
suburbs, rather than the citg, u:herejobs
and moneg are desperatetg needed bg
the low-income citg dwellers. As well.
those people with the resources and
talent to solve the problents of the inner
citg often do not live there and there-
fo~ have no sense of ownership of those
problems.
Fall/Winter 1992
POlice Home Loanprogram provides police offlcerSa chance to buy. a
home with a Iow-interest, fixed-rate mortgage and no down payment,
as a means of bringing stability to troubled neighborhoods.
Columbia, a city of 105,000 located in
the center of South Carolina, isn't in the
center any major earthquake activity,
but they do have their share of crime and
deteriorating homes to shake up their
inner-city neighborhoods. The Columbia
Potice Department realized that it was
important for their officers to have a
sense of ownership in the communities
that they serve, and they have developed
incentives to keep their officers living in
the place where they work.
The Police Home Loan Program takes
abandoned or condemned houses or
seized crack houses and offers them to
police officers at a iow-interest and Iow-
mortgage rate. The program is bart of the
overall concept of Community-Oriented
Policing in Columbia, designed to pro-
mote better neighborhoods and to
fight crime; The city had already had a
program to create homeownership by
providing Iow-interest, Iow-mortgage
rate loans for city residents to purchase
homes, and giving this opportunity to
police officers seemed a logical exten-
sion of the Community-Oriented Polic-
ing idea--a way to put problem-solvers
back in the neighborhoods.
Chie~ Charles Austin says that there
are other reasons other than crime
prevention to encourage police officers
to reside in the city. The Police Home
Loan Program is bringing a ser~e of
stability and credibility to those areas
that had been stereotyped aa being
high-crime, it also makes the officem
more accessible in ways other than law
enforcement--as fellow citizens and
neighbors. Due to their work, police of-
ricers are more likely to see signs of trou-
ble in a community before a problem
occurs. "When someone within the com-
munity structure has a problem;' says
Austin, "if it's identified early on, the
likelihood is that alternative solutions
can be developed to keep it from grow-
ing into an even bigger problem."
A home purchased by a Columbia police
Terms and requirements
The operation of the program is sim-
ilar to a mortgage bank, and in fact, the
City of Columbia has a loan officer to
handle the loans in their Community De-
velopment Department. In order for a
police officer to obtain a home, he or
she must qualify by having a Iow- to
moderate-income level for the house-
hold and agree to live on the premises for
as long as the loan is active. Once the
police officer selects the home, he or she
is responsible for negotiatiog the pur-
chase price with the seller. The Commu-
nity Development staff assists the police
officer in obtaining cost estimates for the
reh~bilito~n work and a contractor is
selected. The Community Development
loan officer submits the loan to a com-
mittee for approval and. if approved, the
loan closing takes place. PEter the re-
habilitation work is completed, which
ia covered in the cost of the loan, the
officer moves in and the payments be-
gin. Loans are given out with the fol-
lowing terms:
· 4% rate of interest
· fixed rat~
· 20-yeer term
· $0 down payment
· all closiog costs financed
officer under the plan.
· S65,0(X) maximum loan amount (can
be waived by the loan committe~)
The program is currently funded en-
tirely by a Community Development
Block Grant; however, program income
will be added in the future with bank
participation.
Giving officers a stake
Chief Charles Austin states that the
police officers are happy with the pro-
gram. So far, seven officers have
qualified for the program, and five are
. currently living in their homes. They
cannot keep up with the supply for the
demand--at this time, 12 officers are on
a waiting list to qualify for homes.
"Young police officers otherwise
would have to wait years on end before
they could afford their own homes," says
Austin. "This way, they get an early start
on a first home. Secondly, I look at it
like someone who buys stock in a major
corporation. That is, if you're a vested
parl~er in the community structure, then
the level of interest that you'll take
beyond that which is required as part of
your daily duties is going to be much
more significant:'
The sense of ownership that police
officers living in the city feet toward their
work and turf is evident, and the City:of
Fall/Winter 1992 Foot~int~ Page 11
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #60-236-304
James D. Grisso
Acting Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31678-091393 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1993-94 Grant Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of
$20,000.00, in connection with acceptance of a g~ant from Project FOCUS to be used
by the Office on Youth to operate a job training camp. Ordinance No. 31678-091393
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely, ~c_
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Enc.
pc:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director, Human Development
Marion V. Crenshaw, Youth Planner
Charies A. Harlow, Acting Grants Monitoring Administrator
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31678-091393.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1993-94 Grant Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1993-94 Grant Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained
to read as follows, in part:
Health and Welfare
Jobs Training Camp FY94
$ 1,834,275
20,000
Health and Welfare
Jobs Training Camp FY94
(2) ...................... $ 1,834,275
20,000
1) Special Projects
Youth
Services (035-054-8840-2034) $ 20,000
2) Project FOCUS
Revenue (035-035-1234-7140) 20,000
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
'93 S£P-9
Roanoke, Virginia
September 13, 1993
The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Funds for the Office on Youth
To Operate Jobs Training Camp
II.
III.
Office on Youth received funds from Project FOCUS
Grant to operate a job training camp program for
youth (teens) ages 12 - 17 years old.
The need for the proqram was expressed during the
Teen Summit meetings of 1992 because teens felt
that there was "nothing to do" and the majority of
them were too young to get jobs.
The traininq camp provided opportunities for the
teens to learn about the world of work through
classroom training which included but was not
limited to: role plays, speakers, career
exploration, and goal setting, etc.
Fundinq, in the amount of $20,000, was transferred
in June, 1993 from the Project FOCUS grant to the
Office on Youth for the implementation of the
training camp program.
Current Situation:
Funds were transferred from the Project FOCUS grant
for the implementation of the job training /
internship camp program which began in June, 1993.
Office on Youth operated the program which has been
providing job related training opportunities.
Appropriation of funds into a special account for
reimbursement of program costs will be coordinated
by the Office on Youth.
~ssues:
A. Funds
Job related opportunities for ¥outh~
Proqram coordination
Page 2
IV.
Ve
Alternatives:
ae
~ $20.000.00 to an account to be
established by the Acting Director of Finance for
use by the Office on Youth to operate a job
training camp.
Fund____~s in the amount of $20,000 are available
in revenue account 035-035-1234-7140.
2. Job related opportunities for youth will be
continued.
3. Pro~ram services and coordination will be
implemented.
Do not aDDroDriat~ $20,000.00 for the operation of
the job training camp.
Funds will go unspent and cost will be assumed
by the Office on Youth.
Job related opportunities for youth will not
be continued.
Pro~rams services and coordination will not be
reimbursed or continued.
Recommendation: City Council adopt Alternative "A" to
appropriate $20,000.00, with a corresponding revenue
estimate, to accounts to be established by the Acting
Director of Finance.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH I MV C l mm
cc:
City Attorney
Acting Director of Finance
Management & Budget
Director of Human Development
Youth Planner
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Vh'~inla 24011
Telephone: (?03) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
September 17, 1993
File #60-77-183-217
James D. Grisso
Acting Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31679-091393 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1993-94 Capital Fund Appropriations, providing for the transfer of
$72,000.00, in order to meet anticipated expenditures for highway project costs for
fiscal year 1993-94. Ordinance No. 31679-091393 was adopted by the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Ene.
pc:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
William L. Stuart, Manager, Streets and Traffic
Robert K. Bengtson, Traffic Engineer
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31679-091393.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1993-94 Capital Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1993-94 Capital Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained
to read as follows, in part:
A ro riations
Streets & Bridges $ 8,225,846
Peters Creek Road Extension (1) ................... 126,000
Brandon Avenue Widening (2) . 36,000
Wells Avenue (3) ........... [~[[.[[[[[[~[[[1[[[[[ 5,189,468
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Unappropriated (4) ...................
1) Appropriation
from General
Revenue $ 42,000
2) Appropriation
from General
Revenue 10,000
3) Appropriation
from General
Revenue 20,000
4) Fund Balance
Unappropriated (008-3325) ( 72,000)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing,
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
(008-052-9595-9003)
(008-052-9604-9003)
(008-052-9547-9003)
2,141,601
this
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
'93 $EP-2 P2:50
Roanoke, Virginia
Septemb.er 13, 1993
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Highway Projects - Transfer of Funds
to Meet Anticipated Expenditures
I. Background:
Virginia DeDartment of Transportation (VDOT) continuously
develops various phases of the City Council approved
highway projects. These phases include such items as
preliminary engineering, right of way acquisition and
project construction.
Billings to the City from VDOT are done on a monthly
basis. These billings represent our share of the
expenditures to date. The City share is generally 5% for
plan development phases authorized prior to July 1, 1989,
and 2% for phases authorized after that date.
Capital Fund Accounts are established for each project in
the amount of the estimated billings that are anticipated
for the year. This provides for payments of interim
bills. However, there may be instances when additional
requests to City Council for transfers are needed to
cover interim bills.
II. Current Situation:
Capital ImDrovement Proqram recommended for fiscal years
1992-1995 includes $454~550 to provide for the City's
share of anticipated highway project costs over a three
(3) year period.
ADDropriate $72~000 from the Capital Fund Undesignated
Fund Balance to project accounts as needed to cover
anticipated billings.
Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council
Page 2
Individual projects are funded from their respective
highway accounts and utility accounts depending upon the
extent of water and sewer relocation needed on each
project.
Three (3) of the seven (7) hiqhway construction projects
for which funds are currently allocated in the VDOT's
Six-Year Improvement Program require continued funding in
order to meet the costs anticipated on these projects for
fiscal year 1993-94. Transfers needed for these projects
are listed in Attachment No. 1. The other projects
already have sufficient allocations from previous years
to meet anticipated billings.
III. Issues:
A. Payments to Virginia Department of Transportation
B. Relationship with Virginia Department of Transportation
C. Continued progress on projects
IV. Alternatives:
City Council appropriate $72,000.00 from Capital Fund
Undesignated Fund Balance to the project accounts as
listed in Attachment No. 1 (in their respective amounts).
Payments to Virqinia Department of Transportation
from each project account are made possible at the
funding levels needed.
2. Relationship with Virginia
Transportation is maintained
excellent level.
Department of
at its current
3. Continued proqress on projects would be ensured.
B. City Council not appropriate $72~000.00 from Capital Fund
Undesignated Fund Balance to the individual projects.
Payments to Virginia Department of Transportation
for each project cannot be made at the funding
levels needed.
Relationship with Virqinia Department of
Transportation will be jeopardized and future
construction efforts may be hurt.
Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council
Page 3
Ve
3. Continued proqress on projects may be jeopardized.
Recommendation is that City Council approve Alternative "A"
and appropriate $72~000 from Capital Fund Undesignated Fund
Balance to the individual project accounts as listed on
Attachment No. 1 (in their respective amounts).
WRH:RKB:jrm
Attachment
copy:
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities & Operations
City Engineer
Office of Management and Budget
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Project
1. Peters Creek Road Extension
(008-052-9595-9003)
2. Brandon Avenue Widening
(008-052-9604-9003)
3. Wells Avenue
(008-052-9547-9003)
Current
Status
Right-of-way
Acquisition
Preliminary
Engineering
Right-of-way
Acquisition
Transfer
Needed to
Accommodate
Anticipated
Billinqs
$42,000
$10,000
$20,000
The following projects are sufficiently funded for fiscal year
1993-94:
4. Fifth St. Bridge Replacement
5. Second Street/Gainsboro Road
6. Tenth Street Widening
7. Pedestrian Bridge & Atrium
(new account to be established)
Construction
Right-of-way
Acquisition
(by City)
Preliminary
Engineering
Preliminary
Engineering
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AA~
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
September 17, 1993
File #2-77-200-247-258-514
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31681-091393 authorizing execution of an
agreement with Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern, Inc., in the amount of
$152,586.00, to provide engineering services, specifically Phase II Environmental
Site Assessments in connection with the Second Street/Gainsboro Road Project.
Resolution No. 31681-091393 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely, ~~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Ene.
pc:
David C. Hammond, Vice-President, Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern, Inc.,
1315 Franklin Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Wliburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Philip C. Schirmer, Civil Engineer
Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technieian
William L. Stuart, Manager, Streets and Traffic
Robert K. Bengtson, Traffic Engineer
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31681-091393.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of an agreement with
Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. to provide certain engineering
services, specifically Phase II Environmental Site Assessments in
connection with the Second Street/Gainsboro Road Project.
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, for and on behalf of the City, to
execute and attest, respectively, an agreement with Hayes, Seay,
Mattern & Mattern, Inc. for the provision by such firm of
engineering services, specifically, Phase II Environmental Site
Assessments in connection with the Second Street/Gainsboro Road
Project, as more particularly set forth in the September 13, 1993,
report of the City Manager to this Council.
2. The contract amount authorized by this resolution shall be
in the amount of $152,586.00.
3. The form of the contract with such firm shall be approved
by the City Attorney.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
Deputy City Clerk
September 17, 1993
File #60-2-77-200-247-258-514
James D. Grisso
Acting Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31680-091393 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1993-94 Capital Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of
$152,586.00, in connection with consultant services for Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment for the Second Street/Gainsboro Road Project. Ordinance No. 31680-
091393 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely, ~~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eno.
pc:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
William L. Stuart, Manager, Streets and Traffic
Robert K. Bengtson, Traffic Engineer
Charies M. Huffine, City Engineer
Philip C. Schirmer, Civil Engineer
Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RO/~NOKEt VIRGINIA
The 13th day of September, I993.
No. 31680-091393.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1993-94 Capital Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1993-94 Capital Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained
to read as follows, in part:
Streets, & Bridges $ 21,017,242
2nd Street / Gainsboro Rd / Wells Ave (1-2) ........ 5,325,106
Capital Improvement Reserve 4,958,345
Public Improvement Bonds - Series 1992A (3) ........ 4,707,390
Revenue
Due from State - VDOT 2nd St (4)
3,269,770
1) Appropriated
from General
Revenue
2) Appropriated
from State
3) Streets &
Bridges
4) Due from VDOT
(008-052-9547-9003) $ 3,052
(008-052-9547-9007) 152,586
(008-052-9700-9181) ( 3,052)
(008-1233) 152,586
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
'93 -'9 ,q o '"'
Roanoke, Virginia
September 13, 1993
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
SUBJECT:
Back,round:
Second Street/Gainsboro Road Project
Phase II Environmental Site Assessments
Ce
Acquisition of proDerty riqhts (fee simple, easements
and/or right-of-way) is the City of Roanoke's
responsibility (financial and manpower) for the Second
Street/Gainsboro Road Project by virtue of the agreement
between the City and the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) dated August 20, 1987. This
responsibility includes obtaining independent property
valuations, making offers, preparing deeds, recording
executed deeds and acquiring the property interests,
through condemnation if necessary.
Federal environmental leqislation and regulation~ impose
significant potential liability upon purchasers of real
property rights. To provide protection against
environmental liability, City Council adopted a City land
acquisition policy on July 26, 1993 that requires some
form of environmental site assessment evaluation for all
property interest purchases.
Phase I Environmental Assessments for this project were
previously determined by VDOT to be a project cost
element.
A study was previously done by Dewberry and Davis in the
amount of ~14t900 for a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment.' This included detailed record searches and
field nvestlgatlons. The Phase I contract anticipated
the possibility of Phase II Environmental Site
Assessments based on the information compiled including
suspect conditions that would warrant more detailed study
and testing.
Members of City Council
Page 2
II. Current Situation:
Be
Additional research is needed which consists of Phase II-
A and II-B reviews, for which Engineering Services
Qualification Proposals were publicly advertised and
received from:
1. Dewberry & Davis
2. Earth Reach Environmental Consultants,
3. Froehling & Robertson
4. Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc.
5. HDH
6. Olver Incorporated
7. RETTEW Associates, Inc.
8. SEC Donohue
9. Trigon Engineering Consultants
Inc.
Selection of the firm for consideration was based on the
following criteria:
1. Specialized experience and technical competence.
2. Capacity and specialized equipment.
3. Stability and continuity.
4. Capacity of firm to sustain loss of key personnel.
5. Flexibility, accessibility, and availability of
staff.
6. Familiarity with project conditions.
7. Past experience, if any, with respect to the firm's
performance.
8. Demonstrated ability to develop complete, economical
engineering designs and solutions.
9. Design quality control practices and techniques.
10. Firm's past performance on similar projects.
Interviews were held with all firms that
proposals as they were all deemed qualified.
included Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer;
Bengtson, Traffic Engineer; and Phillip C.
Civil Engineer.
submitted
Staff team
Robert K.
Schirmer,
Neqotiations were conducted with that engineering firm
felt to be most qualified (Hayes, Seay, Mattern &
Mattern, Inc.) for the project requirements.
VDOT fundinq provides for project costs to be shared on
a 98% State and 2% Local basis.
Members of City Council
Page 3
Phase II-A Environmental Site Assessments will determine
the presence of hazardous substance, materials or waste
(HSMW) and where possible the degree and extent of
contamination. This effort has an estimated cost of
$65,083.00.
Phase II-B Environmental Site AssessmeDt~ will determine
the degree, amount of HSMW, and the exact impact of such
materials on the area proposed to be acquired. This
effort is estimated to have a maximum cost of $87,503.00.
Since much of this information may be determined during
Phase II-A, it is not anticipated that the full cost of
the Phase II-B will match the estimate. Therefore, the
total for Phase II-A and II-B shall not exceed
$152~586.00.
III. Issues:
A. Legal
B. Timinq
C. Cost
D. Fundinq
IV. Alternatives:
Award an aqreement for consultant services to Hayes,
Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. in the amount of
$152~586.00 for Phase II Environmental Site Assessments.
1. Legal requirements of the City's acquisition policy
will be addressed.
Timinq for completion of the Environmental Site
Assessments will be five months after notice to
proceed. The Second Street/Gainsboro Road Project
would be scheduled to go to construction in 1994.
Cost would be controlled by unit prices outlined in
the Contract and approvals of individual site "work
plans" by the City.
Members of City Council
Page 4
Funding for the City's share needs to be
appropriated from the Streets and Bridges category
of the 1992A Bond Series to account number
008-052-9547-9007. City share is $3t051.72 (which
is 2% of the $152,586.00). The billing procedures
between Hayes, Seay Mattern & Mattern, Inc., VDOT,
and the City require that $155,637.72 be
appropriated and that the receivable account be
increased by $152~586.00, for reimbursement by VDOT
(subject to VDOT approval).
Do not award an agreement for consultant services to
Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. for Phase II
Environmental Assessments, then negotiate with another
Consultant to perform Phase II Environmental Site
Assessments.
1. Legal requirements of City's land acquisition policy
would need to be ultimately addressed.
Timing for start-up and completion of the
Environmental Assessments would be delayed by at
least three (3) additional months.
Cost of the Environmental Site Assessments would be
controlled by unit prices and review of individual
site "work plans".
4. Funding would be handled at such time as another
consultant is recommended.
Do not award an agreement for consultant services for
Phase II Environmental Site Assessments.
1. Legal requirements of City's land acquisition policy
would not be addressed.
2. Timing for beginning construction would be mid-1994.
3. Cost of Phase II Environmental Site Assessments
would not be an issue.
4. Funding would not be an issue.
Members of City Council
Page 5
V. Recommendation if that City Council:
Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement for
consultant services, in a form approved by the City
Attorney, for Phase II Environmental Site Assessments
with Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. in the amount
of $152,586.00.
Appropriate $155,637.72 to account number
008-052-9547-9007, $3,051.72 of which is to be
transferred from the Streets and Bridges category of
1992A Bond Series, and $152,586.00 to be reimbursed by
the Virginia Department of Transportation, subject to
their approval.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:RKB:Jrm
copy: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Utilities and Operations
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
Traffic Engineer
Construction Cost Technician
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #2-27-28-207-468
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31684-091393 providing for acquisition of
additional real estate needed by the City for construction of Statesman Industrial
Park Stormwater Management Project; authorizing the City Manager to establish
within limits set by City Council, the consideration to be offered by the City for any
such parcel; providing for the City's acquisition of such real estate by
condemnation, under certain circumstances; authorizing the City to make motion for
award of a right of entry on any parcel for the purpose of commencing the project;
and directing the mailing of said ordinance to certain property owners. Ordinance
No. 31684-091393 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Enc.
pc:
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #2-27-28-207-468
Mr. and Mrs. Wallace A. Reed
2842 Orange Avenue, N. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Reed:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31684-091393 providing for acquisition of
additional real estate needed by the City for construction of Statesman Industriai
Park Stormwater Management Project; authorizing the City Manager to establish
within limits set by City Council, the consideration to be offered by the City for any
such parcel; providing for the City's acquisition of such real estate by
condemnation, under certain circumstances; authorizing the City to make motion for
award of a right of entry on any parcel for the purpose of commencing the project;
and directing the mailing of said ordinance to certain property owners. Ordinance
No. 31684-091393 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely, ~5L~c~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eric.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31684-091393.
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE providing for the acquisition of additional real
estate needed by the City for the construction of the Statesman
Industrial Park Stormwater Management Project; authorizing the City
Manager to fix, within limits established by City Council, the
consideration to be offered by the City for any such parcel;
providing for the City's acquisition of such real estate by
condemnation, under certain circumstances; authorizing the City to
make motion for the award of a right of entry on any parcel for the
purpose of commencing the project; directing the mailing of this
ordinance to each property owner; and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, in September 1991, by Ordinance No. 30715-92391, City
Council authorized the acquisition of certain parcels for the
Statesman Industrial Park Stormwater Management Project; and
WHEREAS, design changes necessitated by engineering and
environmental concerns required acquisition of some different
easements and property configurations than anticipated in September
of 1991, and by Ordinance No. 31421-041993, adopted April 19, 1993,
this Council authorized the acquisition of additional real
property; and
WHEREAS, design changes necessitated by engineering and legal
concerns now require acquisition of an access easement in a
different area than anticipated in April, 1993;
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that:
1. For the construction of the Statesman Industrial Park
Stormwater Management Project, the City wants and needs, in
addition to and along with the parcels identified in Ordinance Nos.
30715-92391, and 31421-041993, an access easement, as more
particularly described in the report of the City Manager on this
subject, dated September 13, 1993, on file in the Office of the
City Clerk. The proper City officials are authorized to acquire
for the City from the respective owners the necessary real estate
with appropriate ancillary rights with respect to the easement
property, for such consideration as the City Manager may deem
appropriate, subject to the limitations set out below and subject
to the applicable statutory guidelines.
2. The City Manager is directed to offer on behalf of the
City to the owners of the aforesaid real property such
consideration as he deems appropriate; provided, however, the total
consideration offered or expended for all parcels to be acquired in
connection with this project, including those identified herein and
those identified in Ordinance Nos. 30715-92391 and 31421-041993,
shall not exceed $150,000.00 without further authorization of
Council. Upon the acceptance of any offer and upon delivery to the
City of a deed, approved as to form and execution by the City
Attorney, the Director of Finance is directed to pay the respective
considerations to the owners of the interest conveyed, certified by
the City Attorney to be entitled to the same.
3. Should the City be unable to agree with the owner of any
real estate to be acquired or should any owner be a person under a
disability and lacking capacity to convey real estate or should the
whereabouts of the owner be unknown, the City Attorney is
authorized and directed to institute condemnation or legal
proceedings to acquire for the City the appropriate real estate.
4. In instituting or conducting any condemnation proceeding,
the City Attorney is authorized to make motion on behalf of the
City for entry of an order, pursuant to S25-46.8, Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, granting to the City a right of entry for the
purpose of commencing the project. The Director of Finance, upon
request of the City Attorney, shall be authorized and directed to
draw and pay into court the sums offered to. the respective owners.
5. The City Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this
ordinance to each affected property owner.
6. 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.
'93 :rp =8 f,
Roanoke, Virginia
September 13, 1993
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of City Council:
SUBJECT: STATESMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT
I. Background:
City Council, at its regular meeting of September 23,
1991, authorized the acquisition of necessary property
and easements by providing for the expenditure of funds
for those parcels which must be purchased.
Design changes necessitated by engineering and environ-
mental concerns required acquisition of some different
easements and property configurations than anticipated.
City Council, at its regular meeting of April 19, 1993,
authorized the acquisition of the necessary property,
access easement, and temporary construction easements
by providing for the expenditure of funds for those
parcels which must be purchased.
II.
Current Situation:
Design changes necessitated by engineering and legal
concerns require acquisition of an access easement in
a different area than anticipated in April, 1993.
B. Easement must be acquired to permit completion of the
project and future maintenance.
III.
Issues in Order of Importance:
A. Project schedule
B. Funding
IV.
Alternatives:
Authorize the acquisition of the necessary access
easement by providing for the expenditure of funds for
that parcel which must be purchased at the negotiated
value, and provide the City Attorney with the authority
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
STATESMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Page 2
September 13, 1993
to institute condemnation proceedings as necessary for
the subject property (See Attachment "A").
1. Project schedule will be maintained.
2. Funding is available in account number 008-052-
9656, Statesman Industrial Park Storm Drain.
Deny authority to acquire necessary easement to permit
the project to proceed on its present schedule.
1. Project schedule will be further delayed.
2. Fundinq will not be expended at this time.
Recommendation is that Alternative "A" be implemented as
follows:
City Council aDDrove the proper measure, in a form
approved by the City Attorney, authorizing:
Access easement acquisition for the revised
configuration for one (1) parcel identified in
Attachment "A". Total compensation for the
project shall not exceed the amount established
previously, without further authorization by
Council.
Institution of condemnation and right of entry
proceedinqs, as necessary, by the City Attorney in
the event of refusal of property owners to accept
settlement in order that undue delay may be
avoided for the project.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/CMH/kp
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
STATESMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Page 3
September 13, 1993
cc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities and Operations
Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations
City Engineer
Construction Cost Technician
Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets
ATTACHMENT A
STATESMAN INDUSTRIAL PARK
REVISED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT LAND NEEDS
Wallace A. and Jacqueline B. Reed
(Access Easement)
7130113
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #247-258-405
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31686-091393 authorizing execution of an
agreement with Hayes, SeaM, Mattern and Mattern, Inc., to provide certain
engineering services, specifically, various professional services in support of
construction of the Hotel Roanoke Conference Center, in an amount not to exceed
$77,000.00. Resolution No. 31686-091393 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely, ~P.~/a~a.~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eno.
pc:
David C. Hammond, Vice-President, Hayes, SeaM, Mattern and Mattern, Inc.,
1315 Franklin Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Brian J. Wishneff, Acting Director, Hotel Roanoke Conference Center, 111
Franklin Plaza, Suite 230, Roanoke, Virginia 24011
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
L. Bane Coburn, Civil Engineer II
Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
William L. Stuart, Manager, Streets and Traffic
Robert K. Bengtson, Traffic Engineer
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
W. Robert Herbert
September 17, 1993
Page 2
pc: Wilburn C. Dit)ling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31686-091393.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of an agreement with
Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. to provide certain engineering
services, specifically various professional services in support of
the construction of the Hotel Roanoke Conference Center.
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, for and on behalf of the City, to
execute and attest, respectively, an agreement with Hayes, Seay,
Mattern & Mattern, Inc. for the provision by such firm of
engineering services, specifically, various professional services
in support of the construction of the Hotel Roanoke C-~ e~f~i-ence
Center, as more particularly set forth in the September 13, 1993,
report of the City Manager to this Council.
2. The contract amount authorized by this resolution shall
not exceed $77,000.00 without further Council authorization.
3. The form of the contract with such firm shall be approved
by the City Attorney.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #60-247-258-405
James D. Grisso
Acting Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31685-091393 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1993-94 Capital Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of
$79,250.00, in connection with various professional services in support of
construction of the Hotel Roanoke Conference Center. Ordinance No. 31685-091393
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely, ~,~a..~.~
Mary r CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
gnc.
pc:
Brian J. Wishneff, Acting Director, Hotel Roanoke Conference Center, 111
Franklin Plaza, Suite 230, Roanoke, Virginia 24011
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
L. Bane Coburn, Civil Engineer II
Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
William L. Stuart, Manager, Streets and Traffic
Robert K. Bengtson, Traffic Engineer
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31685-091393.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1993-94 Capital
emergency.
WHEREAS,
Government of the
exist.
Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1993-94 Capital Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained
to read as follows,
in part:
A ro~ons
General Government
Conference Center Engineering Consultation (1) ....
l)
Appropriated
from General
Revenue
(008-052-9674-9003) $ 79,250
$ 20,892,543
79,250
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
city Clerk.
'93 SEP-8 PI :29
Roanoke, Virginia
September 13, 1993
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of City Council:
SUBJECT:
CONSULTANT CONTRACT AWARD FOR
CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES FOR
CONFERENCE CENTER COORDINATOR
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Background:
A. Conference
Center Commission recommended that
consultant services are needed to assist in ensuring
successful completion of the Conference Center and to
ensure coordination in the relationship between the
Conference Center and a restored Hotel Roanoke.
Request For Proposals was properly advertised on
May 23, 1993.
C. Six (6) proposals were received on June 4, 1993. Those
submitting proposals included:
1. Jones and Jones, Associates, Architects
2. John H. Parrott & Associates
3. Mr. Ellis Hall, Architect
4. Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc.
5. The Holcomb Group
6. Mr. Robin Dearing, Architect
Four (4) submittals were determined
qualified and were invited for personal
the Selection Committee consisting of:
to be most
interviews by
1. Beverly James, Special Projects Coordinator
2. Alvin Nash, Contracting Coordinator
3. L. Bane Coburn, Civil Engineer II
4. Charles M. Huffine, P.E., City Engineer
Selection committee chose Hayes, Seay, Mattern &
Mattern, Inc. as most qualified to provide the services
requested.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
CONSULTANT CONTRACT AWARD FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES
FOR CONFERENCE CENTER COORDINATOR
Page 2
September 13, 1993
II.
Current Situation:
A. Services are needed to ensure that City's best
interests are protected during the conduct of the
construction of the Conference Center.
Neqotiations with the selected firm have resulted in a
proposed contract to provide the following professional
services:
1. Proportion electrical and mechanical systems
construction, operation, and maintenance between
the new Conference Center and restored Hotel
Roanoke and comment on all utilities including the
telephone system.
2. Provide construction observation services during
construction of the Conference Center.
Provide construction observation services for
substantial and final inspection of the new
Conference Center.
III.
Issues:
A. Services offered are adequate to satisfy need.
B. Reasonableness of fees.
C. Available funding.
IV.
Alternatives:
Authorize the City Manaqer to enter into an enqineerinq
services contract with compensation based upon actual
costs incurred by the consultant up to the amount of
$77,000 with Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. to
provide various professional services in support of the
construction of the Conference Center.
1. Services offered are adequate to satisfy need as
negotiated.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
CONSULTANT CONTRACT AWARD FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES
FOR CONFERENCE CENTER COORDINATOR
Page 3
September 13, 1993
2. Reasonableness of fees at the level of $77,000 has
been established through negotiations.
Available funding is found in account number 001-
004-9310-9508, Transfers to the Capital Projects
Fund. These funds were designated for support of
the Conference Center.
Refuse authority for the City Manager to enter into a
contract with Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Inc. tu
provide needed professional services.
1. Services offered would not be adequate to satisfy
need.
2. Reasonableness of fees would not be an issue.
3. Available funding would not be encumbered at this
time.
Recommendation is that Alternative "A" be implemented as
follows:
Authorize City Manager to enter into a professional
services contract with Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern,
Inc. in a form approved by the City Attorney.
Appropriate funding to an account to be established in
the Capital Projects Fund entitled "Conference Center
Engineering Consultation".
Contract Amount
Contingency (advertisements, etc.)
$77,000.00
2t250.00
Total Amount $79,250.00
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
CONSULTANT CONTRACT AWARD FOR CONSTRUCTION RELATED SERVICES
FOR CONFERENCE CENTER COORDINATOR
Page 4
September 13, 1993
WRH/CMH/kp
cc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public works
Director of utilities and Operations
Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations
City Engineer
Construction Cost Technician
Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets
Acting Conference Center Director
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #2-27-28-207-468
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31684-091393 providing for acquisition of
additional reai estate needed by the City for construction of Statesman Industrial
Park Stormwater Management Project; authorizing the City Manager to establish
within limits set by City Council, the consideration to be offered by the City for any
such parcel; providing for the City's acquisition of such zeal estate by
condemnation, under certain circumstances; authorizing the City to make motion for
award of a right of entry on any parcel for the purpose of commencing the project;
and directing the mailing of said ordinance to certain property owners. Ordinance
No. 31684-091393 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a zegular
meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eno.
pc:
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #2-27-28-207-468
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31684-091393 providing for acquisition of
additional real estate needed by the City for construction of Statesman Industrial
Park Stormwater Management Project; authorizing the City Manager to establish
within limits set by City Council, the consideration to be offered by the City for any
such parcel; providing for the City's acquisition of such ~eai estate by
condemnation, under certain circumstances; authorizing the City to make motion for
award of a right of entry on any parcel for the purpose of commencing the project;
and directing the mailing of said ordinance to certain property owners. Ordinance
No. 31684-091393 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely, ~a~_~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eno.
pc:
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #2-27-28-207-468
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31684-091393 providing for acquisition of
additional veal estate needed by the City for construction of Statesman Industrial
Park Stormwater Management Project; authorizing the City Manager to establish
within limits set by City Council, the consideration to be offered by the City for any
such parcel; providing for the City's acquisition of such real estate by
condemnation, under certain circumstances; authorizing the City to make motion for
award of a right of entry on any parcel for the purpose of commencing the project;
and directing the mailing of said ordinance to certain property owners. Ordinance
No. 31684-091393 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely, ~1~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Enc.
pc:
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #178-236
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31688-091393 authorizing execution of a written
agreement with the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority relating
to performance of certain Home Investment Partnership Grant program activities to
be undertaken by the City during Program Year 1993-1994. Resolution No. 31688-
091393 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely, ~dl.~-a.~C~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
F, nc.
pc:
Neva H. Smith, Executive Director, City of Roanoke Redevelopment
and Housing Authority, 2624 Salem Turnpike, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24017
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director, Human Development
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner
H. Daniel Pollock, Jr., Housing Development Coordinator
John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning
Phillip F. Sparks, Acting Chief, Economic Development
Charles A. Harlow, Acting Grants Monitoring Administrator
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31688-091393.
A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of a written agreement
with the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
relating to the performance of certain Home Investment Partnership
Grant program activities to be undertaken by the City during
Program Year 1993-1994.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager is hereby
authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City, a written
agreement, more particularly described in the report of the City
Manager dated September 13, 1993, and providing for the provision
of certain administrative services under the City's Home Investment
Partnership Grant for the 1993-1994 Program Year, between the City
of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority and the City of
Roanoke, and providing for the services to be rendered by said
Authority to the City in implementing certain program activities
identified in the City's application and budget for the aforesaid
Grant, along with certain terms and conditions described in the
aforesaid report, including the compensation to be paid to the
Authority.
2. The form of the contract between the City and the
Authority shall be approved by the City Attorney.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #60-178-236
James D. Grisso
Acting Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31687-091393 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1993-94 Grant Fund Appropriations, providing for the transfer of
$150,000.00 from Assistance to Home Buyers to Downpayment and Closing Cost
Assistance, in connection with performance of certain Home Investment
Partnership Grant program activities to be undertaken by the City during Program
Year 1993-1994. Ordinance No. 31687-091393 was adopted by the Council of the City
of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
gnc.
pc;
Neva H. Smith, Executive Director, City of Roanoke Redevelopment
and Housing Authority, 2624 Salem Turnpike, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24017
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director, Human Development
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner
H. Daniel Pollock, Jr., Housing Development Coordinator
John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning
Phillip F. Sparks, Acting Chief, Economic Development
Charles A. Harlow, Acting Grants Monitoring Administrator
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31687-091393.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1993-94 Grant Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the city of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1993-94 Grant Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained
to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Community Development
Home Investment Partnership 1992
(1-2) ...........
$ 1,281,850
756,000
1) Downpalrment
and Closing
Cost
Assistance
2) Assistance to
Home Buyers
(035-052-5300-5240)
(035-052-5300-5237)
$ 150,000
(150,000)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
~ .... ~Roanoke, Virginia
CIT¥i7 '::' September 13, 1993
'93 SEP-9 AR:17
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Subrecipient Agreement with the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority for HOME
projects
I. Background:
HOME Investment Partnership program (HOME) is a housing
block grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) to the City of Roanoke.
City Council approved the 1992 HOME Droqram on June 22,
1992 by Resolution No 31070-062292, and appropriated
HOME funds by Ordinance No. 31069-062292 in the amount
of $756,000.
City Council amended and reordained certain
sections of the 1993-94 Grant Fund Appropriations
on July 12, 1993 by Resolution No. 31574-071293
providing for a transfer of $756,000 to certain
accounts for specific programs.
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA)
historically has administered certain portions of
community development programs for the City, including
housing rehabilitation.
II. Current Situation:
Project funds to be administered by RRHA, and covered by
this contractr total $529~975 in HOME funds.
Funds budgeted from the 1992 Home allotment for an
activity titled Assistance to Homebuyers will not
be included in this contract.
Funds budgeted from the later 1993 HOME allocation
to the City included $150t000 for Down Payment and
Closing Cost Assistance to First-Time Homebuyers.
However, federal regulatory issues regarding use of
the 1993 HOME allocation need additional
clarification.
Ee
Members of City Council
Page 2
Public demand for the Down Payment Program continues
high, such that administration of that program
should not be delayed while clarifications are made.
A technical transfer of HOME funds within 1992 year
accounts (from 035-052-5300-5237 to 035-052-5300-
5240) will allow for continued administration of the
Down Payment Program, without hindering
administration of other activities.
Funds budgeted for RRHA's services in FY 93-94 total
$75,600 for administration and support of three HOME-
funded programs.
Administrative Agreement between the City and the RRHA is
necessary before the RRHA can perform and receive payment
for administrative activities regarding HOME-funded or
assisted programs.
III. Issues:
A. Cost to the City
B. Funding
C. Administrative CaDability
D. Timing
IV. Alternatives:
Authorize the City Manager to execute the attached
Agreement with the RRHA for the administration and
implementation of various HOME-funded housing
activities and authorize the Director of Finance to
transfer $150,000 of 1992 HOME funds from "Assistance to
Homebuyers" (035-052-5300-5237) to "Down Payment and
Closing Cost Assistance" (035-052-5300-5240).
Cost to the City for implementation and
administration of designated projects will be
$75,600 in HOME funds. No other City funds will be
expended.
Funding is available in HOME accounts listed in
Attachment D of the attached Agreement.
Administrative capability to perform the services
specified is possessed by the RRHA. The RRHA is
experienced in and knowledgeable of the programs
specified, having performed similar responsibili-
ties previously.
Timing is important since previous contract expired
on June 30, 1993 and several programs are ongoing
and should be continued.
Members of City Council
Page 3
B. Do not authorize the execution of the attached Agreement
with the RRHA for the administration of various HOME-
funded housing activities.
Cost to the City would depend on the cost of
performing the activities directly with existing
and additional City staff, or of contracting for
services from private agents.
e
Funding for administration and projects would be
available in HOME accounts shown in Appendix 1.
Administrative capability to perform the various
activities is available in some cases with existing
City staff. However, other capability would have
to be obtained by hiring additional CDBG-funded or
HOME-funded staff and/or contracting with private
agencies.
Timing would delay the implementation of many
program activities, until necessary staff could be
hired and trained or until other arrangements could
be made.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council concur in Alternative A
and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached
Agreement with the RRHA for the performance of various HOME-
funded housing activities.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Attachments
WRH:MTP
CC:
Assistant City Manager
City Attorney
Acting Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Chief of Community Planning
Housing DeveloPment Coordinator
Acting Grants Monitoring Administrator
Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment & Housing Authority
ML:RRHAHOME.RPT
This Agreement is made and entered into this day of __
, 1993, by and between the following parties:
The Grantee -
City of Roanoke, Virginia
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
and Subgrantee -
City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority
2624 Salem Turnpike, N.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
WI TNES SETH:
WHEREAS, the Roanoke City Council approved by Resolution No.
31070-062292 the 1992 HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) program and by
Ordinance No. 31069-062292 appropriated funds therefor; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke City Council approved by Resolution No.
31540-062893 the 1993 HOME program and by Ordinance No. 31539-062893
appropriated funds therefor; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke City Council on , 1993, reviewed and
approved by Resolution No. , the execution of a subgrant
agreement between the City of Roanoke ("the Grantee") and the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority ("the SubHrantee"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
Board of Commissioners reviewed and approved by Resolution No.
the execution of this subHrant agreement between the City of Roanoke
and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority is
experienced in providing services to and on behalf of citizens of low
and moderate income;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
1. USE OF HOME FU~-DS:
Owner-occupied Rehab - The Subgrantee shall administer an
Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation grant program. Such Program
makes grants for qualified rehabilitation of low and moderate
income owner-occupied houses not meetinH Building Maintenance
Code and Housing Quality Standards. The Program shall be
administered in accordance with the guidelines in Attachment
A. The total of all such grants to be made in Fiscal Year
1993-94 shall not exceed $200,000, of which $112,041 had been
set up or committed as of June 30, 1993.
b. Rental Rehabilitation - The Subgrantee shall administer a
HOME Agreement
Page 2
Rental Rehabilitation program as developed by the Grantee and
Subgrantee, and detailed in Attachment B. Such program shall
consist of rehabilitation subsidies loaned by the Subgrantee
to rental property owners, from HOME funds allocated to the
program. The Subgrantee shall oversee the rehabilitation,
hold any deeds of trust, and monitor the projects after
rehabilitation in accordance with the requirements of 24 CFR
92.504(e)(1). The total of all such grants to be made in
Fiscal Year 1993-94 shall not exceed $179,975, of which
$55,599 had been set up or committed as of June 30, 1993.
Downpayment and Closing Cost Assistance program - The
Subgrantee shall administer the Downpayment and Closing Cost
Assistance program on behalf of the Grantee, in accordance
with Attachment C. This program consists of grants, of up to
$3,500 each, to low and moderate income buyers of their first
homes. Grant funds may be used to pay for up to one-half of
the required downpayment, all closing costs, and all pre-paid
expenses, including buy-downs of interest rates. Grants may
apply to purchase of any single-family home throughout the
City whose appraised value does not exceed $103,100. The
Subgrantee will do the total administration and
implementation of the program including the marketing and
outreach. The Subgrantee will process applications, determine
eligibility, and make grants as required for closing of home
purchases, secured by a grant agreement with each assisted
homebuyer, recorded with the deed. The total for all such
grants from HOME funds shall not exceed $150,000.
Schedule - The Grantee and Subgrantee shall jointly implement
the programs described above as soon as practicable after
July 1, 1993, and shall set up individual projects utilizing
all the HOME funds referenced below by June 30, 1994.
Budget - HOME Investment Partnership funds, (HOME), as
detailed in Attachment D shall be made available to the
Subgrantee for program activities. Payments to the
Subgrantee may be made from any active HOME project and
general administration accounts up to the amount designated
by Roanoke City Council; however, the total payments, from
all sources, to the Subgrantee for general administration of
the identified program activities shall not exceed $75,600
for the FY 1993-94 program year, unless increased by
amendment to this Agreement.
AFFORDABILITY:
The Subgrantee shall assure that all rental units assisted
through any program under this Agreement with HOME funds will
qualify as affordable housing under the requirements of 24
CFR 92.252; and the Subgrantee will monitor all HOME-assisted
rental properties to assure their affordability for the
minimum period of affordability. The monitoring procedures
utilized by the Subgrantee must be satisfactory to the
HOME Agreement
Page 3
e
Be
Se
Grantee. The Subgrantee shall require repayment of the HOME
funds if the housing does not meet the affordability
requirements for the specified time period.
be
The Subgrantee shall assure that all properties assisted with
HOME funds under the Downpayment and Closing Cost Assistance
program shall be affordable, by HUD's definition, when
purchased and remain affordable for the minimum period of
affordability as defined in 24 CFR 92.254. The Subgrantee
shall require repayment of the HOME funds if the housing does
not meet the affordability requirements for the specified
time period.
For the Owner-occupied Rehabilitation Loan program, the
Subgrantee shall assure that the after-rehabilitation value
of all assisted properties shall be affordable, as defined in
24 CFR 92.254(b)(1), and that the property is the principal
residence of a low-income family at the time HOME funds are
committed to the housing.
REPAYMENTS:
Ail repayments, interest and other return on the investment of
HOME funds shall be returned to the Grantee within 15 days of
receipt by the Subgrantee.
UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUII~4ENTS:
The Subgrantee agrees to abide by the HUD conditions for HOME
programs as set forth in 24 CFR part 92, the requirements of OMB
Circular No. A-87 and the following requirements of 24 CFR part
85: 85.6, 85.12, 85.20, 85.22, 85.26, 85.35, 85.36, 85.44, 85.51,
and 85.52.
PROJECT REQUIREMENTS:
The Subgrantee shall comply with project requirements detailed in
Subpart F of 24 CFR part 92 as applicable in accordance with the
type of project assisted.
HOUSING QUALITY STANDARD:
The Subgrantee shall include in all agreements with owners of
rental housing assisted under this Agreement, the provision that
such units shall be maintained in compliance with the applicable
Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, Volume II Building
Maintenance Code for the duration of the affordability term. This
is, in general, a higher standard than Housing Quality Standards
(HQS). In the event of a conflict between the Volume II Building
Maintenance Code and the HQS, the higher standard will be required
to be met. The form of such Agreements between the Subgrantee and
property owners shall be subject to approval by the Grantee. The
Subgrantee shall conduct on-site inspections to monitor
compliance. For multifamily housing of five or more units, such
HOME Agreement
Page 4
reviews must be conducted not less than annually; for rental
housing containing one- to four-dwelling units, on-site reviews
must be made once within each two-year period. The Subgrantee
shall report the results of each review to the Grantee.
OTHER PROGRANI~UIRENENT$:
The Subgrantee shall carry out each activity in compliance with
all federal laws and regulations described in subpart H of 24 CFR
92, except that the Subgrantee does not assume the Grantee's
responsibilities for environmental review in 24 CFR 92.352 or the
intergovernmental review process in 24 CFR 92.359.
Ail proposals for HOME-assisted rehabilitation in the City shall
be submitted to the Grantee's Grants Monitoring Administrator for
determination of the structure's eligibility for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places. If property is historically
eligible, all project plans and specifications will be submitted
to the Grantee's Grants Monitoring Administrator for review as to
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act.
AFFII~4ATIVE MARKETING:
The Subgrantee shall include in all agreements with owners of
rental housing assisted under this Agreement, the provision that
owners of HOME-assisted rental housing containing 5 or more units
shall comply with the Grantee's Affirmative Marketing Procedures,
more particularly detailed in Attachment E. The Subgrantee shall
maintain all records to document compliance with the Affirmative
Marketing Procedures. Violations will be handled as specified in
Attachment E, paragraph F.
CONDITIONS FOR ~RLIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS:
The Subgrantee shall not grant or loan any HOME funds to primarily
religious organizations for any activity including secular
activities. In addition, HOME funds may not be used to
rehabilitate or construct housing owned by primarily religious
organizations or to assist primarily religious organizations in
acquiring housing. In particular, there shall be no religious or
membership criteria for tenants of any HOME-assisted properties.
10. REQUESTS FOR DISBURSEMENTS OF FUNDS:
The Subgrantee shall file the necessary papers, including HOME
Payment Certification Form and invoice for work completed, with
the Grantee's Director of Finance after the expenditures have been
incurred. These funds will be disbursed within ten (10) working
days of receipt from Subgrantee. Cash advances of HOME funds will
not be approved. The funds must be requested on a project
reimbursement basis. Administrative costs will be reimbursed on a
bi-monthly basis. The Subgrantee will submit an invoice to the
Office of Grants Compliance detailing the expenditures to be
HOME Agreement
Page 5
reimbursed. Payment will be made to the Subgrantee within ten
(10) days from date of receipt. The Subgrantee may not request
disbursement of funds under this Agreement until the funds are
needed for payment of eligible cost.
11. REVERSION OF ASSETS:
Upon expiration of this Agreement, the Subgrantee must transfer to
the Grantee any HOME funds on hand at the time of expiration and
any accounts receivable attributable to the use of HOME funds.
12. RECORDS AND REPORTS:
a. Project records to be maintained:
The Subgrantee shall maintain the following documents and
records at a minimum, for each project assisted with HOME
funds under this Agreement:
Records that demonstrate that each project meets the
property standards in 24 CFR 92.251.
Records that demonstrate that each rental housing
project meets the requirements of 24 CFR 92.252 for the
required period of affordability. Records must be kept
for each family assisted.
Records that demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of 24 CFR 92.253 for tenant and participant
protections.
Records that demonstrate compliance with the
requirements in 24 CFR 92.254 for affordable housing:
homeownership, including the initial purchase price and
appraised value (after rehabilitation, if required) of
the property. Records must be kept for each family
assisted.
(5)
Records that indicate whether the project is mixed-
income, mixed-use, or both, in accordance with 24 CFR
92.255 or 24 CFR 92.256.
(6)
Records evidencing the guidelines adopted by the
participating jurisdiction and supporting the
certification for each housing project that the
combination of federal assistance to the project
any more than is necessary to provide affordable
housing, as required by 24 CFR 92.150(c)(1).
is not
b. Period of record retention.
(1)
Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2), (b)(3), or
(b)(4) of this section, records must be retained for
three years after closeout of the funds.
HOME Agreement
Page 6
(2)
If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit, or other
action has been started before the expiration of the
regular period specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, the records must be retained until completion
of the action and resolution of all issues which arise
from it, or until the end of the regular period,
whichever is later.
(3)
Records regarding project requirements (subpart F) and
subpart H requirements that apply for the duration of
the period of affordability (24 CFR 92.350, 92.351, and
92.358) as well as the written agreement and inspection
and monitoring reports must be retained for three years
after the required period of affordability specified in
24 CFR 92.252 or 24 CFR 92.254, as applicable.
(4)
Records covering displacements and acquisition must be
retained for at least three years after the date by
which all persons displaced from the property and all
persons whose property is acquired for the project have
received the final payment to which they are entitled in
accordance with 24 CFR 92.353.
c. Access to records.
(1)
The Subgrantee must provide citizens, public agencies,
and other interested parties with reasonable access to
records, consistent with applicable state and local laws
regarding privacy and obligations of confidentiality.
(2)
The Grantee, HUD and the Comptroller General of the
United States, or any of their representatives, have the
right of access to any pertinent books, documents,
papers and other records of the Subgrantee in order to
make audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts.
13. ENFORCEMENT OF '£-~. AGI~MENT:
The affordability provisions referenced in paragraph 2 of this
Agreement shall be enforced by written covenant between the
Subgrantee and all rental property owners or homebuyers as a
condition of sale or participation in the HOME program. Said
covenant shall be recorded with the property deed and deed of
trust. Such covenant shall be subject to approval as to form by
the City. If affordability provisions are not met, the HOME
subsidy shall be repaid to the City in accordance with paragraph 3
of this Agreement.
In accordance with 24 CFR 85.43, the Grantee may suspend or
terminate of this Agreement if the Subgrantee materially fails
comply with any term of the Agreement.
to
HOME Agreement
Page 7
14. DURATION OF THE AGP. E~ME~T:
This Agreement shall be in effect until June 30, 2009, or the term
of any federally-insured mortgage on subject properties, whichever
is later, to provide for monitoring affordability and other
compliance issues affecting the Downpayment and Closing Cost
Assistance program, provided, however, that should Grantee fail to
provide administrative funding for such monitoring pursuant to
this or any other contract with Subgrantee, the monitoring and
record keeping requirements of this Agreement shall revert to
Grantee. In the event of such reversion, Subgrantee shall
promptly provide to Grantee all records and documents necessary to
effect such monitoring.
15. MONITORING:
Not less than annually, the Subgrantee shall review the activities
of owners of rental housing assisted with HOME funds to assess
compliance with the requirements of 24 CFR part 92, as set forth
in this Agreement. For multifamily housing, of five or more
units, each review must include on-site inspection to determine
compliance with housing codes, occupancy requirements, and rent
levels. For rental housing containing one- to four-dwelling
units, an on-site review must be made once within each two-year
period. The results of each review shall be submitted to the
Grantee's Office of Grants Compliance in quarterly reports.
16. ANNUAL AUDIT/MONITORING:
The Subgrantee shall provide for an independent audit of all HOME
expenditures in accordance with Circular A-128 for fiscal year
1993-1994. Two copies of said audit report shall be furnished to
the Grantee within 30 days after completion of the audit. In
addition, it is the intention of the Grantee to perform quarterly
monitoring visits to verify the Subgrantee's performance from a
financial and compliance auditing perspective during the contract
period covered by this Agreement.
17. THIRD-PARTY COBT~ACTS:
The Grantee shall not be obligated or liable hereunder to any
party other than the Subgrantee.
18. INDEMNITY:
The Subgrantee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims,
liability, causes of actions, suits of any nature, costs,
expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees resulting from or
arising out of the Subgrantee's intentional or negligent acts or
omissions in providing the services under this Agreement including
without limitation, fines and penalties, violation of federal,
state or local laws, or regulations promulgated thereunder,
personal injury, wrongful death or property damage claims.
HOME Agreement
Page 8
19. CONFLICT OF
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 HOME
activities, may obtain a personal or financial interest in or
benefit from any of the activities, or have an interest in any
contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or in the
proceeds thereunder, either for themselves, their family or
business associates, during their tenure or for one (1) year
thereafter.
20. SUCCESSORS:
This Agreement shall be binding upon each of the parties, and
their assigns, purchasers, trustees, and successors.
21. 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 implementation of the HOME
program. In such event or events, such changes which are mutually
agreed upon by and between the Subgrantee and the City shall be
incorporated in written amendment to this Agreement.
22. 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 the day and year hereinabove written:
ATTEST:
CITY OF ROANOKE
By By
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
ATTEST:
SUBGRANTEE
By
Witness
By
Neva J. Smith
Executive Director
City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority
APPROVED AS TO CDBG ELIGIBILITY
APPROVED AS TO FORM
HOME Agreement
Page 9
Grants Monitoring Administrator Assistant City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AVAILABLE
Assistant City Attorney
Director of Finance
Account No.
ML:RRHAHOME.CON
HOME Agreement
Page 10
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT E
Owner-occupied Rehab program guidelines
Rental Rehabilitation program guidelines
Downpayment and Closing Cost Assistance program
guidelines
RRHA HOME Project Accounts FY'1994
Affirmative Marketing Procedures
ML:RRHAHOME.CON
Attachment A
Page 1
-Q~ ~ LOANS
1993-94 PROGRAM GUIDELINES
I. ~Packa~e
The Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Program (Program) is
administered by the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority (RRHA) using federal HOME funds allocated to the
Program by the City. Ail Program activities will be
administered to be eligible as owner-occupied rehabilitation
activities under the federal HOME regulations.
Assistance through the Program will be made available by
the RRHA consistent with the guidelines for the Indoor
Plumbing/Rehabilitation Program of the Virginia Department of
Housing and Community Development (DHCD), for which the RRMA
is an applicant. The Program assistance will be in the form
of grants or forgiveable deferred payment loans, as
determined by DHCD for its program. In this way the terms of
the DHCD program and the locally-funded Program are
consistent. However, where DHCD holds the deeds of trust or
grant agreements for projects funded by it, the RRHA will
hold any deeds of trust or grant agreements for local HOME-
funded projects.
Homeowners participating in the Program must have income
not exceeding 60% of the area median income established by
HUD, in accordance with DHCD guidelines. Houses must be
occupied by the owner and must be in substandard condition,
according to the Uniform Statewide Building Code. Assistance
will be sought first for those houses in greatest need of
repair.
The RRHA will adhere to the requirements of the federal
HOME funding an~ R~WA procurement policies for bidding of
rehabilitation work.
The RRKA will perform the funding packaging and
eligibility determination, including requesting verifications
of income, title reports, etc., as required by DHCD for its
program and by federal HOME regulations.
The RRHA will set up a project account for local HOME
funds for each house assisted under the Program. In
accordance with agreements set with the rehabilitation
contractor and the homeowner, and as allowed by the HOME
process, a series of draws from the project account will be
Attachment A
Page 2
authorized as the homeowner, contractor and RRHA
Rehabilitation Specialist jointly determine that specific
stages of completion are reached.
Because the City is the grantee for HOME funds, the RRHA
will request and receive draws through the City's Department
of Finance.
Ail grant or loan agreements will be held by the RRHA.
The RRHA will provide individual counseling with Program
recipients concerning operations of new equipment and on-
going and preventive maintenance and repair. As an
acceptable alternative, the RRHAmay refer recipients to
training courses provided by other agencies, concentrating on
on-going and preventive home maintenance and repair.
Attachment B
Page 1
Rental Rehabilitation Prom~ma
HOME - funded, FY 1993-94
General
This documem describes the 1993-94 Rental Rehabilitation Program (Program), for the poses
of the HOME contract for services between the City and the RRHA. The Program is funded
from allocations of federal HOME funds made to the Program by the City.
Other than in exceptional cases as determined by the City, the Rental Rehabilitation Program
will only support the rehabilitation of existing multi-family buildings for rental use. It is
agaimt the general policy and priorities of the City to encourage rental of single-family houses
and the conversion of existing single-f~ily buildings to mnlti-family use.
A. Fornl of Rehabilitafon Subsidy
The Rental Rehabilitation Program will offer grants equal to one-half of the
rehabilitation expense, up to a maximum of $14.999 per housing unit. The owner will
be required to provide the other half from other sources, including but not limited to
fhnd~ from the Virginia Department of Housing a~l Community Development
(DHCD).
The grant of Program subsidy will be secured by a deed of trust agaim~t the property.
This deed of trust may be subordinate to o~her debts on the property, including other
loans talr~n for rehabilitation, up to a total loan-to-ath~'-tehab-value ratio of 98%.
Each unit subsidized must be locked in an ama designated as eligible for the
Program (see atgaghed map).
Each unit subsidized under the Program must be subaiaadard according to the
VUgim Uniform ~ atnlaing CUde COSEC).
Each unit subsidized under the Program must be renovated to at least USBC
standa s and qusiify for a Certifica of Occupency from tbe city Building
De~mne~ ~ completion of repaim. As part of the rehabilitation,
' ~nn~ov~m of the exterior appearance of the buildin.o, will be considered a
pr ity.
The final loan-to-value ratio, including the Program subsidy, may not exceed
98%.
The projected after-rehabilitation proportion of aH debt service payments to
gross rental income may not exceed 80%.
6. Any unit rehabilitated under the Program must receive work costing at least
Attachment B
Page 2
No unit rehabilitated under the Program may receive more than $14.999 of
HOME funds.
10.
Each unit must be maintained at least to Certificate of Occupancy standards
for five years.
Each property owner must agree to comply with applicable requirements for
nondiscrimination and "affirmm-ive marketing" of units rehabilitated under the
Program for five years.
Each property owner must agree to abide by occupancy and rent limitations of
the federal HOME Program, as supplemented by local Program requiremems,
for five years.
The Rental Rehabilitation Program will be offered in the areas shown on the attached
map, including the following neighborhoods:
Gainsboro Conservation Area
Gilmer Avenue Conservation Area
Harrison Avenue Conservation Area
Hurt Park Conservation Area
Belmont Conservation Area
Highland Park Conservation Area
Loudon Avenue Rehabilitation Dis~ict
Melrose Rehabilitation District
Fallon Park Rehabilitation District
Morni%~ide Rehabilitation District
Kenwood Rehabilitation District
Washington Park Neighborhood
AdminigWafive Or~anl,ation and Procedm'es
I~,e~'_m~ and Initial Sgrennin~ of preliminary _Proposals: Basic proposals from
polo,rial investors will be submittal to the RRHA, which will review each upon its
receipt to determine completeness and basic eligibility.
project Set-Up and Fund Disbursemem: The RRHA will coordinat~ closely with
ity staff to arrang~ for project set-up from HUD's HOME funds
accouma, and to malr~ required construction draws from the HUD Cash
M:magemem System. T'ne RRHA will also submit necessary information to the
set up projects in the system, but because all HOME 6,nd~ will come through the
2
Attachment B
Page 3
City, it will be necessary for the RRHA to notify the City Finance Depadment
when a disbursement from a project account is needed.
C. ~ Arrangement for rehabilitation work to be performed will
rimarily be the responsibility of the applicant property owner.
Periodic in-progress inspections will be held by the RRHA
Rehabilitation Inspector, relative to compliance with the work
write-up and worlananship standards, and by the City Building
Inspector(s), to assure compliance with USBC requirements.
Final inspections will be performed to verify compliance with
the USBC and to confirm Certificate of Occupancy quality.
D. Post-Rehahilitation Monitoring_: For the 5-year life of the Program deed of trust,
property owners will be required to submit brief periodic reports to the RRHA
concerning the status of each project, especially concerning rents and tenants.
Blank report forms will be sent by the RRHA to the owner for completion and
return. In addition, on an annual or biennial basis, as required by HOME
guidelines, the RRHA will perform an on-site inspection to verify that each unit is
mabatained in accordance with the terms of the deed of trust. The RRHA will be
respomible for monitoring occupancy and rent of each project to verify its
compliance with federal HOME regulations.
3
Attachment C
Page 1
1993-94 HOME-Funded
ACTIVITY
Direct Assistance to Homebuyers
PROIECT
Downpayment and Closing Cost Assistance
PURPOSE
Downpayment and Closing Cost Assistance will be provided to facilitate meeting the housing
needs, strategies, priorities and objectives identified in Roanoke City's Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy.
OVERVIEW
In order to reduce the cash requirements to purchase a home and increase home-ownership
opportunities to lowmoderate income first-time homebuyers, Downpayment and Closing Cost
Assistance will be provided in conjunction with any public source of mortgage f'mancing
accepting such assistance on the purchase of an affordable single-family home to be occupied
by the low-moderate income first time homebuyer.
Downpayment and Closing Cost Assistance will be provided through a grant of HOME funds
as follows:
Downpaymem and Closing Cost Assistance shall not exceed a total of $3,500.
Funds can be used to pay up to one-half of the required downpayment, plus
normnl closing costs and prepaid items.
Homelmyer's total household income must not exceed 80% of the area median
income, adjusted for household size, as determined by the U. S. Depa~hnent of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Homebuyer's liquid assets must not exceed $10,000.
Homebuyers must not transfer the property during the period of affordability
(mlnimlim 15 years).
If homebuyers do transfer the property, the funds must be repaid.
1
Attachment C
Page 2
Repayment of the funds may be waived if the property is soM to a subsequent
low-moderate income homebuyer that will occupy the property.
LOW-MODERATE INCOME FIRST-TIME HOMEBUYER
Low-moderate income first-time homebuyer is defined as a househoM which has total
household income not exceoding 80% of the area median household income, adjusted for
household size, as established by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), and has not owned a home within the past 3 years.
A property is considered to be affordable to a low-moderate income first time homebuyer if
they are able to obtain a mortgage for the purchase of the property from a public lending
source such as mortgage bankers, banks, savings and loans, public housing finance agencies,
public housing authorities, or the City of Roanoke, and PITI payment on the mortgage
obtained is determln~d to be affordable to the low-moderate income First time homebuyer by
the lender. Similarly, the sale of the property to a subsequent low-moderate income
homebuyer is considered to be affordable if they are able to obtain a mortgage for the
purchase of the property from a public mortgage lender, and the PITI payment on the
mortgage obtained is determined to be affordable to the subsequent low-moderate income
homebuyer by the public mortgage lender.
~DS
HOME funds refer to funds received by the City of Roanoke, a participating jurisdiction, in
the HOME Investment Parmerships Act (the HOME Investment Partnerships Program) as
implemented by 24 CFR Part 92.
~OUID ASSETS:
Liquid Assets include:
1. Cash;
2. Amounts in savings and checking accounts;
3. Stocks, bonds, savings certificates, money market funds, and other investment
accounts;
4. Cash value of trusts that are available to the household;
5. Lnmp sum receipts such as inheritances, capital galn.q~ lottery winnlrlgS,
insurance se~lem~nts, and other claim.q, and
6. Liquid assets which, although owned by more than one person, allow
unrestricted access by the low-moderate income first time homebuyer.
Transfer is defined as any conveyance of the property, whether by sale, lease, gift, dement,
devise, operation of law or otherwise, other than the granting of a lien on the property as
Attachment C
Page 3
security for a debt. Foreclosure on the property is generally not considered transfer for
purposes of determining the period of affordability (see PERIOD OF AFFORDABILITY).
PERIOD OF AFFORDABILITY
Period of affordability is defined as the period of time that low-moderate income households
must own and occupy the property. The period of affordability is at least 15 years. If the
property being purchased is new construction, the period of affordability is 20 years. If the
property is purchased with an FHA insured mortgage, the period of affordability is the same
as the term of the FHA mortgage insurance (up to 30 years). If foreclosure should occur on
the property during the period of affordability, the period of affordability terminates upon
foreclosure, unless the low-moderate income household having title to the property
immediately prior to foreclosure regains title to the property in which case the period of
affordability resumes.
SUBSEOUENT LOW-MODERATE INCOME HOMEBUYER
Subsequent low-moderate income homebuyer is defined as a household which has total
household income not exceeding 80% of the area median household income, adjusted for
household size, as established by HUD, and purchases and occupies a property being sold by
a low-moderate income f'utst time homebuyer who received Downpayment and Closing Cost
Assistance, or a property being sold by another subsequent low-moderate income homebuyer.
DOWNPAYMENT AND CLOSING COST ASSISTANCE
HQME-OWN~:.R.~H/P EDUCATION REOU1REMENT
Low-moderate income first time homebuyers are required m complete an approved
Home-ownership Education Program to receive Downpayment and Closing Cost Assistance.
MIHIMUM CASH REOUIREMENTS
Low-moderate income first time homebuyers must pay the greater of:
1. One-half the required downpayment upon terms of their mortgage financing; or
2. One-half of the applicant's liquid assets; however,
3. Should the required one-half of the required downpayment, or one-half of the
applicant's liquid Maeta be less than $500, the minimum cash requirement is
REFINinG OF MORTGAGE
Low-moderate income first time homebuyers and subsequent low-moderate income
homebuyers mus~ not refinance the mortgage on the assisted property without the approval
and express written consent of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority.
3
Attachment C
Page 4
ELIGIBLE TYPE OF PROPERTIES AND OWNERSHIP
Eligible properties include single family houses, townhouses, and condominiums within the
City of Roanoke. Eligible type of ownership is limited to fee simple ownership of detached
single-family dwellings, townhouses, and condominiums provided that the property is
subdivided to allowing sale to individual homeowners.
OWNER-OCCUPANCY
Owner-occupancy of the property by low-moderate income first time homebuyers receiving
Downpayment and Closing Cost Assistance and subsequent low-moderate income homebuyers
is required. Continued compliance with *his requirement will be verified through recordation
of the Downpayment and Closing Cost Assistance agreement and review of public sources of
information, or by other means expressly approved by the City and HUD.
EXECUTION OF DOWNPAYMENT AND CLOSING COST ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT
Execution of a Downpayment and Closing Cost Assistance Agreement by the low-moderate
income first-time homelmyers is required at closing. The Agreement, to be approved as to
form by the City, sets forth the terms of the grant of HOME funds for Downpayment and
Closing Cost Assistance provided on behalf of the low-moderate income first-time
homebuyer, including the requirement of occupancy, the restriction on transfer of the
property, and the restriction on refinancing of the mortgage, all for the period of
affordability. Both the low-moderate income first-time homebuyer and subsequent low-
moderate income homebuyer must execute an Agreement of Assignment to avoid repayment.
Repayment of the funds provided for Downpayment and Closing Cost Assistance must be
made by the low-moderate income first-time homebuyer, or by the subsequent low-moderate
income homebuyer, if transfer of the property occurs during the period of affordabLlity,
unless waived.
REPAYMENT WAIVER AND ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT
Repayment may be waived upon approval of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority if the property is sold after a period of 3 years from the date of closing to
a subsequent low-moderate income homebuyer that will occupy the property and will accept
assi?me~ of tim DownlmYm~nt and Closing Cost Assistance Agreement.
4
Attachment D
RRHA HOME PROJECT ACCO~qTS
Fiscal Year 1994
Project Name
Account Numbers
....... HOME FUNDS ......
Project Admin/Support
Total
HOME Funds
Owner-Occupied Rehab
Rental Rehabilitation
Down Payment & Closing Cost
Assistance
RRHA General Administration
035-052-5300-5235
035-052-5300-5236
035-052-5300-5240
035-052-5300-5239
200,000
179,975
150,000
75,600
200,000
179,975
150,000
75,600
TOTALS 529,975 75,600 605,575
Page
HOME Investment Parmerships Program
~ h i~ the Policy of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment nnd Ho~slng
Authority (RRHA) to n,lmlnlster the HOME program so that individuals of similar income
have similar available ho-ring choices, re~rdies~ of race, color, religion, sex, national ori~
handicap, or familial s~s (families with children). Each propert~j owner applyi~ for
participation in the HOME pro, ram shall ~ree ~o avoid any d/scrlminaton on the basis of
race, color, reli/ion, sex, nntonal origin, hnndi~p, or ~ statlls ~ shall a~fee tO
market their vacant renUd units in good faith m inform and at~'t eli~le tenants from all
raci~ ethnic, and ~ender groups.
The RRHA shall /ire a cow of these policies and Guidelines to the
1. Applicant property owners.
Cttrrent t~nnnts of hon~in.o tO b~ rehabilitated under the
Progzam.
Social service agencies, inciudin~ Totnl Action Against Poverty
(TAP), ~ of Older Americans (LOA), Legal Aid Society,
and Rommke Neighborhood Parmership.
Be
In addition, ail adverlisemen~ press releases, information packages,
relative to tl~ HOME pro, ram shall include the Equal Hou~ Opportunity
1o~o or s~eme, m.
If · ~ renal property owner wishes, the RRNA may refer holders
o~ Sm~m $ em~fieaaes or ho~,*i-g vouchers to the rehabilitated property for
lmsn~ls ~. As provided in 24 CFR 511.10(m) (2), to the extent rent-
other than by ten~nl~ i~ rental subsidy nu~orizations the pro~ert~ owner
must foilo~ tl~ procedures established in Se~ion C
Other than as allowed in Section B (above), each pm~icii~tl-_o rental property
osmer shall seek to ntUa~ tenants regardle~ of ra~e, color, religion, sex,
n~ionnl ~ handic~o, or ~ status of all minority and majority
vacant after rehabiliutton or tl~t later become vacant. Tlw. se m~rkctlnE
effOrtS shall include, at a mlnimnm: the follow~
De
Attachmeni£
Pa§e 2
~ to the RRHA and TAP of any aad afl vacancies.
The RRHA nmy notify people on the Section 8, Housing
Vo~.her, and Public Housing waiting lists of the vacancy.
po~fing of Equal Housin~ Opportunity po~ter, provided by the
RRHA, on vacant premi.~s and rental offices, if existing.
If qualified prospective tenants are not otherwise available, the
owner shall advertise any and all vacancies in the Roanoke
Tunes and World News and the Roanoke Tn"oun~ such
advertisement to indude the Equ~l Housing Opportunity 1o~o
or s~ment. Such advertisements will specify that vacant ~mi~s
are available for but not limited to, Se~ion 8 tenants.
I~I]IF, llliLIil~ Each participatin8 rental property owner shall doo.ment
affirmative marketiag, such records to include the foilowins:
Cop~s of all ~%,erlis~m~n~, notice, and other o~treach for all
A los of afl contacts with potential tenants, includiag race, sex,
approximate age, and reasons for not accepfin8 as tenants.
The RRI-IA sludl keep records includin~ the following:
A 1o8 of vacancies reported by owners.
Opp(rtunit,/requiremenu. In ~dditioa, tl~ RRHA m~y make o~r periodic
~ of the property owner's records concernins tenants and marketing
activ~--Ue~ or ask for olher infornmlion about the same.
Fe
Attachment E
Page 3
~ Failure to comply with equ~l Oppm~,ni~y, Nondiscrimination, or
AlF~amlive M~rketin~ requirements will result in a written notice ~rom the
RRHA to the property owner that Sl)ecifi¢ provbiom of the Deed of Trust,
or otb~ ~greement(s), between the two parties hnve been violated, definin.a
what corrective actions, if eny, ere to be tnk~n, end advi~in.a that further
viotntions or fitilure to teke the prescribed actions tony require repayment of
the HOME lonn or grnnt and/or other financing provided.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. F~N
Deputy City Clerk
September 17, 1993
File #178-200-236
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31689-091393 authorizing execution of a written
agreement with the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority relating
to performance of certain Community Development Block Grant program activities to
be undertaken by the City during Proem Year 1993-1994. Resolution No. 31689-
091393 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eno o
pc:
Neva H. Smith, Executive Director, City of Roanoke Redevelopment
and Housing Authority, 2624 Salem Turnpike, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24017
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director, Human Development
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner
H. Daniel Pollock, Jr., Housing Development Coordinator
John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning
Phillip F. Sparks, Acting Chief, Economic Development
Charles A. Harlow, Acting Grants Monitoring Administrator
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31689-091393.
A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of a written agreement
with the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
relating to the performance of certain Community Development Block
Grant program activities to be undertaken by the City during
Program Year 1993-1994.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager is hereby
authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City, a written
agreement, more particularly described in the report of the City
Manager dated September 13, 1993, and providing for the provision
of certain administrative services under the City's Community
Development Block Grant for the 1993-1994 Program Year, between the
City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority and the City of
Roanoke, and providing for the services to be rendered by said
Authority to the City in implementing certain program activities
identified in the City's application and budget for the aforesaid
Grant, along with certain terms and conditions described in the
aforesaid report, including the compensation to be paid to the
Authority.
2. The form of the contract between the City and the
Authority shall be approved by the City Attorney.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
R~a~oke, Virginia
September 13, 1993
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Subrecipient Agreement with the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority for CDBG
projects
I. Background:
City Council aDDroDriated Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds on June 28, 1993 by Ordinance No.
31534-0628993. CDBG funds for Fiscal Year 1993-94 total
$2,584,400 including $2,076,000 new entitlement and
$508,400 in program income.
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA)
historically has administered certain portions of CDBG
programs for the City, including housing rehabilitation
and economic development activities.
II. Current Situation:
III.
ae
Funds budgeted for RRHA's services in FY 93-94 total
$376,632 for administration and support of eleven (11)
CDBG-funded programs.
Project funds to be administered by RRHA, and covered by
this contract, total $390,132 in CDBG funds plus a
minimum of $600,000 in private funds.
Administrative Agreement between the City and the RRHA
is necessary before the RRHA can perform and receive
payment for administrative activities regarding CDBG-
funded or assisted programs.
Issues:
A. Cost to the City
B. Funding
C. Administrative Capability
D. Timing
Members of City Council
Page 2
IV. Alternatives:
Ve
Authorize the City Manager to execute the attached
Agreement with the RRHA for the administration and
implementation of various community development
activities.
Cost to the City for implementation and
administration of designated projects will be
$376,632 in CDBG funds. No other City funds will
be expended.
Funding is available in CDBG accounts listed in
Attachment F of the attached Agreement.
Administrative capability to perform the services
specified is possessed by the RRHA. The RRHA is
experienced in and knowledgeable of the programs
specified, having performed similar responsibili-
ties in previous years.
Timing is important since previous contract expired
on June 30, 1993 and several programs are ongoing
and should be continued.
B. Do not authorize the execution of the attached Agreement
with the RRHA for the administration of various
community development activities.
Cost to the City would depend on the cost of
performing the activities directly with existing
and additional City staff, or of contracting for
services from private agents.
Funding for administration and projects would be
available in CDBG accounts shown in Appendix 1.
Administrative capability to perform the various
activities is available in some cases with existing
City staff. However, other capability would have
to be obtained by hiring additional CDBG-funded
staff and/or contracting with private agencies.
Some projects may be limited without the RRHA's
redevelopment and acquisition authority.
Timing would delay the implementation of many
program activities, until necessary staff could be
hired and trained or until other arrangements could
be made.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council concur in Alternative A
and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached
Members of City Council
Page 3
Agreement with the RRHA for the performance of various
community development activities.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Attachments
WRH:MTP
cc:
Assistant City Manager
City Attorney
Acting Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Human Resources
Chief of Economic Development & Grants
Chief of Community Planning
Housing Development Coordinator
Grants Monitoring Administrator
Neighborhood Partnership Coordinator
Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment & Housing Authority
MA:RRHACONT.RPT
AGREemENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this
__ day of
1993, by and between the following parties:
the Grantee:
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
and the Subgrantee
City of Roanoke Redevelopment
and Housing Authority
2624 Salem Turnpike, N.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
WHEREAS, the Roanoke City Council approved by Resolution No.
31445-051093 on May 10, 1993 the FY 1994 Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) budget, and by Ordinance No. 31534-062893 appropriated
funds therefor; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke City Council on , 1993, reviewed
and approved by Resolution No. , the execution of a subgrant
agreement between the City of Roanoke ("the Grantee") and the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority ("the Subgrantee"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
Board of Commissioners has reviewed and approved by Resolution No.
the execution of this subgrant agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority is
experienced in providing services to and on behalf of citizens of low
and moderate income;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantee and the Subgrantee mutually agree as
follows:
The Subgrantee shall implement certain projects and activities as
set forth in Part I of the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement.
II. The Grantee shall compensate the Subgrantee as set forth in Part
II of the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement.
AND CONDITIONS OF AG~K~ENT
Part I - Scope of Services:
The Subgrantee shall, in a satisfactory and proper manner, as
determined by the Grantee, and within the scope of the 1993-94 Grant
Programs Funds Appropriations for CDBG provided for the services
included herein and approved by the Roanoke City Council, perform the
following tasks:
A. Rehabilitation and Revitalization of Residential Areas:
Quick Response to Emergencies - The Subgrantee shall
administer the Quick Response to Emergencies Program in
RRHA-City Contract
page 2
accordance with written guidelines as set forth in Attachment
A__. Essentially, the Quick Response to Emergencies Program
consists of limited grants or loans to low and very low
income homeowners to repair or replace seriously substandard
components of the owner's structure, using CDBG funds. The
total of all such grants/loans to be made in Fiscal Year
1993-94 shall not exceed $140,650 of CDBG funds. Program
delivery costs for this program, including salaries shall not
exceed $103,040. Total program cost is $243,690.
Private Loan Program - The Subgrantee shall sell a mortgage
revenue bond of approximately $600,000 for the rehabilitation
or purchase/rehabilitation of owner-occupied houses within
the City of Roanoke. The Grantee shall provide a loan loss
reserve fund, equal to 5% of the amount of the bond, as cash
collateral for the bond. All costs of said mortgage revenue
bond, including loan lost reserve, auditing, legal expenses,
cost of insurance, other related expenses (excluding staff
costs), and additional costs incurred relative to previous
mortgage revenue bonds for the Private Rehabilitation Loan
Program, shall require no more than $42,912 of CDBG funds or
other funds by the Grantee. Program delivery costs for this
program, including salaries shall not exceed $40,320. Total
program cost is $83,232.
Operation Paintbrush - The Subgrantee shall administer an
exterior home painting, siding, and minor repair program in
accordance with written guidelines as set forth in Attachment
B~ using funds made available by the Grantee. The general
purpose of Operation Paintbrush is to make a strong visual
statement about the viability of the neighborhood by
dramatically improving a selected area through improving the
exterior of homes. The Subgrantee shall procure contractors
to paint, repair or re-side the homes according to standard
procurement procedures. Regulations concerning lead-based
paint shall be complied with. The total of all such grants
to be made in Fiscal Year 1993-94 shall not exceed $49,487 of
CDBG funds. Program delivery costs, including salaries,
shall not exceed $29,150, for a total program cost of
$78~637.
Rental Rehabilitation Program - The Subgrantee will continue
administration of the Rental Rehabilitation Programs funded
by HUD as outlined in the contract between the Grantee and
the Subgrantee dated August 15, 1991, as amended. The
Subgrantee shall oversee the rehabilitation, hold deeds of
trust, service those loans made from HUD funds, monitor the
projects after rehabilitation and any other program
requirement. HUD Rental Rehabilitation funds in the amount
of $54,454 for FY 1991 will be used for Rehabilitation
Subsidies during the contract year.
DownDayment and Closing Cost Assistance Program - The
Subgrantee shall administer the Downpayment and Closing Cost
Assistance Program on behalf of the Grantee, in accordance
with Attachment C, using CDBG funds allocated to the program
e
RRHA-City Contract
page 3
by the Grantee. This program consists of grants, of up to
$3,500 each, to low and moderate income buyers of their first
homes. Grant funds may be used to pay for up to one-half of
the required downpayment, all closing costs, and all prepaid
expenses, including buy-downs of interest rates. Grants may
apply to purchase of any owner-occupied home throughout the
City. The Subgrantee will assist with the marketing and
outreach for the Program, will process applications,
determine eligibility, and make grants as required for
closing of home purchases, secured by a grant agreement with
each assisted homebuyer. Funds for such grants were
previously allocated to Subgrantee pursuant to Amendment No.
3 to the August 28, 1992 Agreement between the City of
Roanoke and the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority. Program delivery costs, including salaries, shall
not exceed $89,615.
Technical Assistance, Counseling and Services - The
Subgrantee shall assist the Grantee in providing advice and
counseling to citizens, individually or in groups, concerning
community development and housing concerns. Such assistance
and services will be provided as requested by citizens and
shall include but not be limited to:
Property inspections and technical advice concerning
repair, remodeling, rehabilitation and maintenance;
Guidance and counseling concerning possible financial
arrangements for purchase or rehabilitation, including
possible options available in the private financing
market.
Providing technical assistance to the Grantee's Housing
Development Office relative to long-term housing and
education/information programs in accordance with
guidelines set forth in Attachment D.
Marketing - The Subgrantee shall publicize and market the
housing programs that the Subgrantee administers in this
contract. The Subgrantee will place signs provided by the
Grantee on sites of rehabilitation projects as needed.
Relocation Assistance and Counseling - The Subgrantee shall
assume responsibility for the relocation assistance and
guidance to be provided to residents and businesses displaced
by community development projects and activities of the
Grantee, in accordance with HUD regulations and guidelines.
In addition, the Subgrantee shall participate with the
Grantee in updating the city-wide housing resource summary
and a plan to meet the total relocation needs for the program
year.
General Administration of Community Development/Economic
Development Activities -- Prior Years Activities - The
Subgrantee shall continue to service outstanding loans,
forgivable and/or deferred payment loans, grants, etc., made
in previous years as appropriate and in accordance with
RRHA-City Contract
page 4
guidelines of the specific programs. Such programs include,
but may not be limited to: the Private Rehab Loan Program,
Rental Rehab, Neighborhood Stabilization and Enhancement
Program, Section 312, and Section 8/Moderate Rehab/SROs.
The Subgrantee shall provide counseling to parties delinquent
in their repayments in a reasonable effort to avoid
foreclosure. However, where delinquencies persist, the
Subgrantee shall institute appropriate foreclosure
procedures.
The Subgrantee shall maintain and protect properties on which
it has foreclosed, and in consultation with the Grantee,
shall arrange for resale, assumption of loan, or other
disposition of the property.
Gainsboro Conservation/Redevelo~nent Plan:
The Subgrantee shall implement the Gainsboro Conservation/
Redevelopment Plan (Amendment No. 4), coordinating its activities
with the Grantee, the Gainsboro Project Area Committee (PAC) and
the Gainsboro Neighborhood Development Corporation (GNDC).
Gainsboro Professional Park - As part of the Gainsboro
Conservation/Redevelopment Plan, the Subgrantee shall acquire
building lots for the physical relocation and rehabilitation
of two (2) structures currently located at 110 and 111 Wells
Avenue, N.W. CDBG funds available for this project total
$30,000. Program delivery costs for this activity shall not
exceed $8,000. Total program costs is $38,000.
Hotel Roanoke Redevelopment - The Subgrantee shall assist the
Grantee, as needed, with the Hotel Roanoke Redevelopment
project; including, but not limited to, financing assistance,
acquisition, and relocation assistance; and as more fully
detailed in a separate subgrant agreement. Program delivery
costs for this activity shall not exceed $7,769.
Henry Street Revitalization - The Subgrantee shall implement
the Gainsboro Conservation/Redevelopment Plan (Amendment No.
4), in the "Henry Street" area of the Gainsboro Project area
in accordance with such Plan, and in accordance with any
amendment or supplement to the Plan relating to the "Henry
Street" area after its adoption by Grantee's City Council and
the Subgrantee's Board of Commissioners. Funds available to
the Subgrantee for these activities shall not exceed $2,322.
All expenditures shall be approved in advance by the Grantee.
The Subgrantee shall arrange for and oversee the operation of
two (2) parking lots on Centre Avenue and First Street in the
"Henry Street" redevelopment area. Program delivery costs
for this Project shall not exceed $5,000. Total program cost
is $7,322.
e
Gainsboro Enhancement II - The Subgrantee shall acquire
appropriate building lots for the physical relocation and
rehabilitation, or new re-construction, of two (2) structures
currently located at 42 and 56 Wells Avenue, N.E. CDBG
Ce
De
RRHA-City Contract
page 5
funds available for this purpose total $15,000. Program
delivery costs for this activity shall not exceed $8,000.
Total program cost is $23,000.
C~m~unity Interaction:
The Subgrantee shall assist the Grantee in the performance of
certain basic community-oriented tasks which include, but are not
limited to, the following:
Planning, organization and implementation of neighborhood
meetings.
e
Development and distribution of materials necessary to inform
the public regarding neighborhood revitalization activities
performed by the Subgrantee pursuant to this contract.
Planning, organization and implementation of the CDBG public
workshops and/or hearings incidental to the Grantee's annual
application process.
The Subgrantee shall provide information monthly to the
Grantee concerning the status and activity of the various
housing programs, which the Grantee then may distribute to
community organizations or representatives, as the Grantee
sees appropriate.
Commercial/Industrial Development:
Deanwood Expansion - The Subgrantee shall continue to
implement Redevelopment Plan (1975), as amended by Amendment
No. 2, by Resolution No. 27751, adopted by City Council on
August 16, 1985, to include additional property within the
redevelopment area. Within this expanded area, the
Subgrantee shall perform, during the term of this Agreement,
limited site development and marketing of the properties.
Funds are available to the Subgrantee for this purpose in the
amount of $1,306. Additional funds may be provided from land
sale proceeds with City Council authorization.
Deanwood Addition is that five (5) acre tract fronting on
Orange Avenue and Plantation Road, N.E. The Subgrantee shall
perform, during the term of this Agreement, limited site
development and marketing of the properties, as well as
relocation of signage if needed for further development of
the property. Funds available to the Subgrantee for these
activities shall not exceed $8,455. Program delivery costs,
including salaries shall not exceed $1,966. Total program
cost is $10,421. All work for both Deanwood activities shall
proceed with the assistance of the Grantee's City Engineer
and Chief of Economic Development who shall approve all
requests for proposals, final plans and change orders for
this project within ten working days, except for issues
requiring action by City Council. All expenses related to
Deanwood property acquisition, disposition, site
clearance/improvements, maintenance, engineering and plan
RRHA-City Contract
page 6
development shall be charged directly to the Deanwood account
and not to the Subgrantee's general program administration.
Downtown East Parkin~ Lots - The Subgrantee shall continue to
arrange for and oversee the operation of three (3) parking
lots in the Downtown East area. The Subgrantee shall
participate actively with the Grantee to expedite the sale of
these properties and shall return any revenue realized from
such sales to the Grantee's program income accounts in
accordance with Part II, paragraph B of this Agreement.
Redevelopment Plans - Preparation and Amendment - The
Subgrantee shall produce and amend as needed Redevelopment
Plans for areas within the City.
Se
Property Marketin~ and Disposition - The Subgrantee shall
continue to promote and sell parcels available in all
Redevelopment Areas, including but not limited to the
Kimball, Downtown East, Deanwood and Gainsboro areas. All
contacts with potential developers shall be coordinated
between the Grantee's Chief of Economic Development and the
Subgrantee's Director of Land Planning. Each of these
parties or representative shall be afforded the opportunity
to be present at any showing of any available site by either
the Grantee or the Subgrantee. Negotiations incidental to
land sales will also be coordinated between the
aforementioned parties. Expenses related to land disposition
shall be charged directly to the affected program account and
not charged to the Subgrantee's general program
administration.
Economic Development Investment Fund - The Subgrantee shall
assist the Grantee's Office of Economic Development in
administering this investment program by serving as the
vehicle to dispense and to receive payment from business
participants in the program. In addition, the Subgrantee
will assist the Grantee in the distribution of materials
necessary to inform the business community, as well as other
potential investors, regarding the development fund and its
intended purpose. The Subgrantee shall further assist the
Grantee's Office of Economic Development and Office of Grants
Compliance by providing financial reports relating to this
program to the Grantee in accordance with Part IV. B. of this
Agreement. Funds are available to the Subgrantee for these
activities in the amount of $100,000. Program support costs
shall not exceed $10t000~ for a total program cost of
$110,000, excluding private matching funds.
Pro~ertyMaintenance:
The Subgrantee shall be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance
of all properties acquired by the Subgrantee as a result of CDBG
activities. The cost of these activities shall be charged
directly to the applicable program account and not to the
Subgrantee's general program administration. All equipment
purchases, as part of this activity, must receive prior approval
PART
ae
BJ
RRHA-City Contract
page 7
of the Grantee.
Program Coordination:
Appropriate staff of the Subgrantee shall meet and consult
regularly and as needed as determined by either party, with
appropriate staff of the Grantee. Such staff of the Grantee may
include, but are not limited to, the City Manager, Assistant City
Manager, Director of Public Works, Building Commissioner, Housing
Development Coordinator, Chief of Economic Development, and Grants
Monitoring Administrator. The intent of such meetings and
consultations shall be to facilitate the efficient and effective
implementation of program services listed above, and consider the
need for and planning of other activities of the Grantee,
Subgrantee, or both, consistent with the general purpose of
community development and neighborhood revitalization.
II - COMPENSATION AND ~r~OD OF PAYMENT:
Program Funds:
CDBG funds, as detailed in Attachment F, shall be made available
to the Subgrantee for program activities.
Program Income:
"Program income" means net income received by the Grantee or
Subgrantee directly generated from the use of CDBG funds. Program
income from any and all sources, including interest earned by the
program income itself, shall be submitted to the Grantee on a
monthly basis.
Limits of Funding Sources:
Payments to the Subgrantee may be made from any active CDBG
project and general administration accounts up to the amount
designated by Roanoke City Council; however, the total payments,
from all sources, to the Subgrantee for program support and
general administration of the identified program activities shall
not exceed $302,860 for the 1993-94 program year, unless increased
by amendment to this agreement. However, the $73,772 budgeted for
General Administration, in account number 035-093-9310-5035,
cannot be overspent.
Disbursement Procedures:
The Subgrantee shall file the necessary papers with the Director
of Finance ten (10) working days prior to the date that actual
disbursements are needed. Cash advances shall be reasonably
estimated and itemized, therefore, excess advances will not be
allowed. Cash advances will be recorded as Accounts Receivable
due from the Subgrantee. Funds should be dispersed by the
Subgrantee within ten (10) days of receipt. The Subgrantee shall
submit, by the fifth working day of each month, a monthly report
to the Director of Finance, indicating the actual expenditures
incurred against all cash advances not previously reported to the
PART
Be
RRHA-City Contract
page 8
Director of Finance. Expenditures reported will be deducted from
the Accounts Receivable balance due from the Subgrantee.
The Subgrantee also shall submit time sheets, by the tenth working
day of each month, to the Grants Monitoring Administrator, which
indicate Subgrantee's staff time committed to each project. No
additional cash advances shall be made to the Subgrantee until
these reports are submitted. Monthly financial status reports
issued by the Director of Finance shall be reviewed by the
Subgrantee and any discrepancies reported in writing within ten
(10) working days of receipt of said report. Approval of
reimbursement requests will be subject to timely receipt of the
monthly reports as detailed here and in Paragraph IV.B of this
Agreement. The Grantee reserves the right to refuse payment to
the Subgrantee in the event that the Subgrantee submits a
reimbursement request sixty (60) calendar days after the contract
expiration date.
Annual Audit and Monitoring:
The Subgrantee shall provide for an independent audit of all CDBG
expenditures in accordance with Circular A-128 for the contract
period covered by this Agreement as set forth in Part IV, Section
A. Two copies of said audit report shall be furnished to the
Grantee within 30 days after completion of the audit. In
addition, it is the intention of the Grantee to perform quarterly
monitoring visits to verify the Subgrantee's performance from a
financial and compliance auditing perspective during the contract
period covered by this Agreement.
III - GP~'r~E RESPONSIBILITIES:
General Guidance:
The Grantee's Grants Compliance Office shall provide general
guidance and direction to the Subgrantee concerning the intent and
operation of programs developed by the Grantee to be administered
by the Subgrantee under this Agreement. Additionally, other
parties and/or departments as listed under Part I, Item F of this
contract may provide specific guidance and direction on an as
needed basis.
Reports prepared by the Grantee's staff for presentation to City
Council relating to matters covered by this Agreement shall be
provided to the Subgrantee for review and comment five (5) working
days before the day of the Council meeting.
Existing Data:
The Grantee shall make available existing reports, maps,
or other existing data that may assist the Subgrantee's
performance of services covered under this Agreement.
records
Project Planning:
Within a Redevelopment Area, public improvements, such as streets,
curb and gutter, public utilities, etc., unless otherwise approved
PART
ae
Be
RRHA-City Contract
page 9
by the Grantee, shall be the responsibility of the Grantee.
Copies of the project plans may be obtained by the Subgrantee upon
request to the Grantee's City Engineer.
Non-Personnel Costs - Program Development:
Expenses relating to the development of a new program or the
continuation of an existing program not contained in Part I of
this Agreement may be reimbursed by the Grantee. Said expenses
shall not be incurred by the Subgrantee without written approval
of the Grantee.
IV - PERFORMANCE ANDRECORD~RRDING:
Time Period:
The Subgrantee shall commence the provision of the services
described in Part I of this Agreement as of July 1, 1993, and
continue through June 30, 1994. Reporting requirements and annual
audit shall cover the full program year period from July 1, 1993,
through June 30, 1994.
ReDortinq Requirements:
The Subgrantee shall report quarterly, by the tenth (10th) working
day of October 1993, January 1994, May 1994, and August 1994, the
progress of each activity covered by this Agreement, using a
reporting format acceptable to the Grantee's Grants Monitoring
Administrator. Such quarterly reports shall include, but not be
limited to the following:
Activity report for each conservation area and rehabilitation
district, identifying units completed, dollars spent,
applications on file and applications being reviewed for each
program.
List of gross program income receipts from all sources and
itemized disposition expenses on a quarterly basis.
List of loans delinquent and foreclosed,
by street address, total repayments made,
balance and amount of grant, if any.
identifying property
outstanding loan
The Subgrantee shall report monthly, by the tenth (10th) working
day of each month, the staff time expended on each program, as
specified in part II, D of this contract.
The Subgrantee agrees to submit any other reports as requested by
the Grantee.
Retention of Records:
Ail 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.
Appropriate City and/or HUD personnel shall have free access to
RRHA-City Contract
page 10
those records during the Agreement duration and the following
three-year period.
PART V - THIRD PARTY CONTRACTS AND BIDS:
The Grantee shall not be obligated or liable hereunder to any party
other than the Subgrantee. However, unless otherwise directed by the
City Manager, all bid documents, contracts, contract amendments and
change orders between the Subgrantee and a third party which relate to
construction or consultant services to be performed by the Subgrantee
concerning Part I, Section B and Section D of this contract shall be
approved by the Grantee prior to execution. The Grantee shall complete
its review of documents furnished by the Subgrantee within ten (10)
working days of their receipt.
PART VI - PEI~.SONNF_,L:
The Subgrantee represents that it has, or will secure (limited to the
funds provided under this Agreement) all personnel required in
performing the services under this Agreement. Such employees shall not
be employees of or have any contractual relationship with the Grantee.
All of the services required hereunder will be performed by the
Subgrantee or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in the
work shall be fully qualified to perform such services.
PART VII - UNIFORM ADMINISTRATI~ ~UIREMENTS:
The Subgrantee agrees to abide by the HUD conditions for CDBG programs
as set forth in Attachment F those described in 24 CFR 570.502, and all
other applicable federal regulations relating to specific programs
performed hereunder.
Ail proposals for CDBG-assisted rehabilitation in the City will be
submitted to the Grantee's Grants Monitoring Administrator for
determination of the structure's eligibility for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places. If property is historically
eligible, all project plans and specifications will be submitted to the
Grantee's Grants Monitoring Administrator for review as to compliance
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
PART VIII - CONFLICT OF IS'£m~ST:
No employee, agent, consultant, officer or appointed official of the
Subgrantee, who is in a position to participate in a decision-making
process or gain inside information with regard to any CDBG activities,
may obtain a personal or financial interest in or benefit from any of
the activities, or have an interest in any contract, subcontract or
agreement with respect thereto, or in the proceeds thereunder, either
for themselves, their family or business associates, during their
tenure or for one (1) year thereafter.
PART IX - IRD~ITY PROVISION:
The Subgrantee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
officers, agents and employees, from any and all claims, liability,
RRHA-City Contract
page 11
causes of actions, suits of any nature, costs, expenses; including
reasonable attorney's fees resulting from or arising out of the
Subgrantee's intentional or negligent acts or omissions in providing
the services under this Agreement including without limitation,
fines and penalties, violation of federal, state or local laws, or
regulations promulgated thereunder, personal injury, wrongful death
or property damage claims.
PART X - AMENDMENTS:
Either party to this Agreement, from time to time, may request changes
in the scope of services to be performed hereunder. Such changes which
are mutually agreed upon by and between the parties to this Agreement
shall be incorporated into written amendment to this Agreement.
PART XI - 'r~=4INATION OF AG~RRMENT FOR CAUSE:
If either party to this Agreement should fail to fulfill in a timely
and proper manner its obligations under this Agreement, either party
shall thereupon have the right to terminate this agreement by giving
thirty (30) calendar days written notice of such termination to the
affected party and specifying the effective date thereof.
PART XII - RE~a~SION OF ASSETS:
Upon expiration of this Agreement, the Subgrantee shall transfer to the
Grantee any CDBG funds on hand at the time of expiration and any
accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds. Any real
property under the subgrantee's control that was acquired or improved
in whole or in part with CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 shall either
(1) be used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208
until five years after expiration of this Agreement; or (2) be disposed
of in a manner which results in the Grantee being reimbursed in the
amount of the current fair market value of the property less any
portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds for
acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. Such reimbursement is
not required after the period of time specified in accordance with the
above.
PART XIII: - GO~d~ING LAW:
This Agreement shall be governed by laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantee and Subgrantee have executed this
Agreement as of the date first written above.
Attest:
City of Roanoke, Virginia (Grantee)
City Clerk W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
RRHA-City Contract
page 12
Witness:
City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority (Subgrantee)
Neva J. Smith
Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO CDBG ELIGIBILITY APPROVED AS TO FORM
Grants Monitoring Administrator Assistant City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION
APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AVAILABLE
Assistant City Attorney Director of Finance
Account No.
RRHA-City Contract
page 13
ATTAchMENTS
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT E
ATTACHMENT F
Quick Response to Emergencies Guidelines
Operation Paintbrush Program Guidelines
Down Payment & Closing Cost Assistance Guidelines
Technical Assistance, Counseling and Services
RRHA CDBG Project Accounts - FY 1994
Required Federal Regulations
MA:RRHA9394.CON
Attachment A
Page 1
QUICK RESPONSE TO EMERGENCIES PROGRAM
199~-94 PROGRAM GUIDELINES
GENERAL
The Ouick Re _sponse to Emem_encies Prog?m is a subsidy program of grants and/or
loans. The general iment of these subsidies is to provide emergency n~t~i$1mnce to low-
modera~ income homeowners encoun,~ring sudden emergency situations, requiring a
costly repair that would threaten the habitability of the house if no~ addressed and for
which the homeowner c~nnot wait several months for the processing of a lozn
The Program is distinguished frOm other relmbilimtion subsidy programs by its
purpo~, the extent of ~firs inl~ded, and the speed of ~lministl~ive processing.
PROGRAM DESIGN
]i~ - Owner-occupants of homes.in truly critical need of
significant but moderate repairs to the extent that lack of such repairs may
~ the house unlivable. Homes should not be in such bad condition that the
Previous recipients of assistance under the previous Critiml Home Repair
Program, Gainsboro Grant Program, Quick R~sponse to Emergencies, or
Indoor Plumbing/Rehabilitatioo Program will not be eligible again, except in
~ - A qualifying hotneowner may receive up to ~8.000 in
critically needed repairs to emergency problems, necessary to imep the home
liveable.
For applicants with incomes below 50% of the area median family income, the
subsidy will be in tbe form of a grant, with no ~yment expecu~d, h is
over a five-year period. The monthly payment, however, are not to
10% of the applicant's net income. (Net income is defined as gross income
less imn~41n~, withhokli/lgS or dedllc~iolls ~ the ingome for taxes, Social
Security, mandau~ insurance, refi~ment, or dues, over which the applicant
has no control.) In a case in which monthly payments over a five-year term
would exceed 10% of the applicant's net monthly income, the repayment term
Attachment A
~e 2
will be extended beyond five years.
Application and Selection -- Low-moderate income homeowners may apply to
the RRHA at any time and be considered for assistance.
An RRHA Inspector will visit the home as quicidy as possible, evaluate
whether an eligible emergency or other eligible n__e~_ exists, determine what
work is necessary, and receive eligibility information, e.g. evidence of income
and homeownership. This information will be verified by the quickest means
possible, so as not to dehy having the repairs made.
[The RRHA will obtain a credit repox~ on each applicant ~
at the applicant's expense, to u~e to evaluate creditworthiness. The applicant
wi~ also fur[fish informatio~ to th~ RRHA ~n~flnin~ ~lOull~ arid sources of
income and debt. In the interest of expediency, the RRHA will no~ seek
independent verifications of this information, but will r~ly oo the applicant's
certification.
[No lonn for emergency repa/rs will be made to an applic~lt who hu, declared
bankruptcy within the last two ynn, or hs more ~ two debts wi~ credit
ratings of 5 or worse, or has more than two outstanding judgements, or whose
debt-to-ndjus~l income ratio (including the Program loan) is mo~ than 50%.
[When the RRttA determines thai the applicant satisfies all criteria for its
Prognun loan, and all t~lated information is collecl~ (r~habilitnfio~ cost bids,
etc.), the applicant will execut~ a promissory note for ~-payment of the
Program k~n on ten~s as provided above. No rehabilitation work will be
authorized until thi.~ no~ is signed.
[In the event of default on the lo~n from the RRHA, collection may be pursued
through es~blished legal mechanisms, includin~ judgement awarded by a court,
but will not extend to foreclosure on the redpient's home.]
In order to lnuvide a minimum level of benefit under the Program to elderly
homeowners, the RRHA initially will reserve $40,000 of Program funds for
such elderly homeowners. For this purpose, 'elderly' is considered to be 60
years of a~e or older. Such resentation of funds will be until February 1,
1994.
In order to faciti~t~ use of the Pm~m by q~ elderly homeowners, the
RRHA will holily the League of Older Americans (LOA) when applications for
the Program may be fried. The LOA may m-I~- ~ferra]s of elderly candidates
2
Attachment A
Page 3
to the RRHA, which will d~termine their eligibility bas~l on Program
guidelines. The RRHA will suggest to elderly applicants that are not r~fen~t
by the LOA that they may contact the LOA for general services.
~r~ - T~ Program may finance repah' of conditions having
just arisen, as comrasted to conditions developing over time. Generally these
will be conditions that should be repaired within 24-72 hours lest the house be
vacated or suffer serious damage. Examples include:
a. Overflowing or unworkable sel~c systems;
b. Btokea pipes;
c. lnoperaliveb~ngsysmms;
d. Inoperative el~tric systems;
e. Inoperative water pumps;
An exception to this rule is roof replaaement, which is specifically included as
an eligible qualifying repair item at the discretion of t~e RRNA, even though
3
Attachment A
P~ge 4
~ - As soon as eligibility is verified, the RRHA Inspector will
atWmpt to contact a minimum of three contractors for bids on the required
work, and for indication as to when the work can be performed. Each of the
~.hree conUactors need not bid, but at least three should be invited to do so.
Because the primary concern is repair in the shortest time possible, the job will
be awarded to the bidder able to perform within the shortest time at a
reasonable cost, compared to the other bidders. In the absence of multiple
bids, the Inspector will document the file as to the basis of the conclusion that
the single bid received is reasonable. Files will also be documenlzd carefully
to reflect the time of performance of the bids.
4
PaEe l
OPERATION PAINTBRUSH
PROGRAM GUIDFI~INES
GENEIL~L DESCRIPTION
Operation Painthmsh is a program of grants for painting or siding the exterior of
homes and related ming repair up to a total of $4,000 per house. The program is
limited to low and moderate income homeowners refeived by the Roanoke
Neighborhood Partnership.
The general purpose of the program is to make a sUo~g visual stnMment about the
viability of the neighborhood by dramatically improving a selected a~a through
painting/siding the exterior of homes. In addition, the program encourages
neighborhood volunteefism by involving neighborhood, civic ~ religious
or~ani~ions, and local businesses in house painting projects on w~.
The program is designed to improve the quality of life for neighborhood residents
participating in the program by painting or siding their houses and by making minor
exterior repairs necessa~ for the painting job.
A. The applicant must be an owner-occupant; and
The applicant must be within HUD Income Guidelines, including from all
sources; and
The applicant's home must be referred to the Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority (RRHA) by the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership. The
Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership receives referrals di_,'e~ily from
neighborhood organizations which are members of the Partnership.
The applicant's home must be Calx~ble of being painted with minor repairs, as
necessary, at a cost not to exceed $4,000. If the house is teo large to be
p~in~d fo~ IM,O0O, it will be rejected from the program. (This provision may
b~ w~ved und~ special circumstances by the Director of Public Works.)
Trim only is not eligible for painting service.
APPLICATION AND SELECTION
The Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership staff will accept referrals from selected
neighborhood orga.niTn~ions to establish a list of houses to be considered for Operation
. Paintbrush. These neighborhoods include: Beimont/Southeast, Gilmer, Old
Southwest, Gainshoro, Hurt Park, Melrose Rugby and homes on the waiting list.
Prior to referring applicants to RRHA, the Neighborhood Partnership will screen the
referrals to eliminate requests for work on rental properties, persons with reported
income over the HUD Income Guidelines, or otherwise apparently ineligible referrals.
Attachme~
Page
The Nelghbothond Partnership wiLl contact the applicant and request they fill out a
full application with the RRHA.
RRHA will verify homeownership and income and will perform a detailed inspection
and work write-up for each of the applicants referred. The RRHA will competitively
bid and oversee work completion. No previous recipient of assistance under the
Operation Paintbrush program will be eligible again, except in special citcumstance~
as determined by RRHA's Neighborhood Development Director.
IV. CONSTRUCTION AND PAINTING REO~
The program will finance only exterior painting or siding and minor repairs,
princip~liy:
Scraping, priming (if necessary), and painting (colors to be selected by the
homeowner from a palette approved by RRHA);
B. Caulking and ~l~g windows;
Repairs nece~ary for the safety of the homeowner to include repairing or
building new steps, replacing broken windows, adding stair rails, repairing or
replacin$ porch floor boards, replacing or repairing entranco doors, and
replacing a unlimited number of siding boards necesmry to underl~ke the
No interior repair~ or painting shall be performed by the crew. The owner will sign a
release at completion of work, indicating that the job is complete and work was
Painting and repair work subsidy will be in the form of a grant, not to exceed $4,000
(including all costs). No repayment is expected.
VI. gI~LF. HE-LP
In limiml cases, an applicant may be referred to RRHA by the Neighborhood
Parmmhip aa a waf-help project. Lq this instance, an e~imate will be made by
RRHA inspectors as to the amount of paint required to paint the house. After the
applicant is scre~ under normal p _~ur~ by the RRHA, a~ to homeowuership
and income, the paint will be purchased by RRHA and delivered to the applicant.
The applicant will sign an agreement that the house will be painted within six (6)
. momhs of _rec~__'_pt of mater, s or the paint will be returned. RRHA staff will confirm
that painting has been completed.
upguide/pano
At:achmen: B
Page 3
10.
11.
12.
ROANOKE NEIGHRORHOOD PARTNERSHIP
ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
OPERATION PAIN4~RUSH PROCEDURg-g
Neighborhood Organizations will recommend and submit houses directly to the
Partnership office.
The Partnership will determine if the referral is eligible according to the
ne/ghborhood location. The Partnership will then process the list of eligible houses
according to location to the Re~noke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. A
photographic chronology will be Impt of houses before and after they ~rec~_Zve services.
The Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority will determine income eligibility
and ownership, competitively bid the work and oversee completion.
The Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority will determine the
appropriateness of the referral. The painting of trim only is not eligible. Metal roofs
are not eligible for services and the RRHA will refer to other sendce~ ~ n_~__~-_-sary.
During the painting season, private contractors will paint ot side homes on the list.
Each house will be in&vidually contacted through a bidding process administrated by
the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority.
Operation Paintbrush is a one time service. Houses which have received Operation
Painlbrush in the past are not eligible for services again.
Services should be divided between eligible neighborhoods. Houses should be painted
(so all neighborhoods _re~__'.ve service) in each eligible neighborhood at the same time.
Upon completion of any wailing list, the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority will contact the Partnership for more referrals provided funding is
available.
The Patmetship will continue to coordinate volunteer painting days as necessary and
ask the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority to conduct an ownership and
The eamership will inform the neighborhoods and their referrals if they are not
The Roanoke Redevelopment and Ho~,~i~g Authority will be responsible for day-to-
day supervis/on of the program.
Siding of houses is prohibited in Hurt Park, Mountain View, Old Southwest and
Gainsboio and potentlnlly other neighborhoods.
7/93
Attachment C
Page 1
ACTIVITY
Direct As~i~ance to Homebuyer~
Downpayment and Clo~n~ Co~t Assistance
Downpayme~t ~ Ck~in~ Co~ Assistance will be provided to facilim~ meeting the hou~n~
needs, strategies, priod6es md objectives identified in Rosao~ City's ~dve
Housing ~'ty S~,y.
by the low-moderate incom~ fu'st time homebuyers.
Downlmyment and Closing Co~t Assistance will be provided ~nm~,h a grant of Community
Development Block Grant (CDB43) funds as follows:
Dowu~---yum~ ~d Cl_o~ing Cost A~,i,~i~ce ~ mX ex~_ee,,d_ a ~ ~ $3,~.
F~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~ m ~ of ~ ~ ~y~t, plus
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ imray.
~'S ~ ~ ~ m~ ~ ex~ ~ of~ ~ ~
~, ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~i~ ~ ~ U. S. ~m~nt of
H~g ~ U~ ~vel~t ~).
~'s ~d a~ must ~ ex~ ~I0,~.
H~m m~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ ~ (3) y~ ~ ~
ff ~uye~ do ~s~r ~ ~, ~ ~s m~ ~ ~d.
1
Attachment C
Page 2
LOW-MODERATE INCOME FIRST-TIME HOMEBUY'IiR
Low-moderale inoome first-time homebuyer is defined as a household which has ~
household income not ex~edins 80% of the area median household income, adjus~d for
household size, as ~ by the U. $. Department of Housing and Urban Developnmu
(HUD), and Ires not owned a home ~rithin the past 3 yeats.
A property is c~sidex~l to be affordable to a low-moder~ income first time hemebuyer if
they are able to obtain a tno~.~,,ge f~r the purchase of the property f~om a public lending
public h~ai~g authorities, o~ the City of Roanoke, and PITI payment ea the mm-t~,e
the lender.
Liquid Assets include: 1. Cash;
2. Amounts in savings and checking ~ccounts;
3. Stocks, bends, savings certifica~, meney madm f~nde, and other investment
4. Cash value of Irusts that are available to the household;
5. Lump sum receipts such as inheritances, capilal ~nin$, lot~'y winnings,
6. Liquid assets which, although owned by mine than one person, allow
Transfer is defined as any conveyance of the property, whether by sale, lease, girl, descent,
devise, operation of law o~ otherwise, other than the ~anting of a lien on the property as
PROGRAM RFX)~MENT~
HOME-OWNERSHIP EDUCATION REOUIREMENT
Low-moderate income first time homebuye~ are requited to complete an approved
Home-ownership Education Program to receive Downpayment and Closing Cost Assistance.
lVIINIMUIVl CASH REOUIRF_30:.NTS
Low-moderate income first time homebuyers must pay the grealer o~
I. One-half the requh~l downpayment upon terms of their
financing; or
Attachment C
Page 3
One-half of the applicant's liquid assets; however,
Should the required one-half of the required downpayment, or one-
half of the applicant's liquid assets be less th~n $500, the minimum
REFINANCING OF MORTGAGE
Low-moderate income first time homebuyers and subsequent low-med~mte income
homebuyers must not refinance the mortgage on the assisted property without the ~,tnoval
and express wriRen consent of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority.
ELIGIBLE TYPE OF PROPERTIES AND OWNERSHIP
Eligible properties include single family houses, townhouses, and condomi~m~ wltl~ the
City of Roanoke. Eligible type of ownership is limited to fee si~le owner~tip of detached
single-fnmily dwellings, townhoun~, mhd coodomlniums provided that the ~ is
OWNER-OCCUPANCY
Downpayment and Closing Cost Assistance and subsequent low-moderate income homebuyer~
is required.
EXECUTION OF DOWNPAYMENT AND CLOSING COST ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT
Execution of a Downpayment and ~ Cost ~*i~anee A~reement by the low-moderate
form by the City, sets forth the terms of the grant of CDBG funds for Downpayment and
Closing Cost Assistance provided oa behalf of the low-moderate income first-time
homebuyer, including the requi~ment of occupancy, the restriction on transfer of the
property, and the restriction on re~m~cing of the mortgage.
Repayment of the funds provided for Downt~yment and Closing Cost ~ must be
m__nde by the low-moderate income first-time homebuyer, if transfer of the property occurs
during the initial 3-ye~' period.
Attachment D
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, COUNSELING, AND SERVICES
1993-94
In recognition of the immediate and long-term value of housing education and
information, and the guidance many citizens need to impwve or maintain their housing status,
the RRHA shall provide advice and counseling to the public, including individuals, families, and
groups, concerning housing concerns. Such assistance and services shall include but not be
limited to the following:
a. Assistance to tenants of condemned housing to find alternative shelter;
Provision of general information concerning provisions of the Landlord-Tenant
Act;
Co
Advice to citizens wishing to buy a home concerning approaches to do so,
including finance and repair;
General technical advice to homeowners concerning what repairs are of priority,
what implications may be if repairs are not made, and ways to pay for repairs;
eo
Providing or participating in basic technical assistance to clients of all appropriate
programs concerning implications of homenwnership and maintenance, and how
to care for the improvements in order to keep the house well-maintained.
Arrangements for provision of some of these services may be in conjunction with
Building Maintenance Code Enforcement by the City. When the City finds it necessary to cite
Building Maintenance Code violations on a rental property, the tenants and/or the owners may
be referred to the RRI-IA for assistance and counseling regarding alternatives. Such may also
be the case with owner-occupants of houses found to need ~oairs. Such an approach will
require close coordination between the City's Hc.,ming .Development Office and the RRHA.
Attachment E
Quick Response to
TOTAL QUICK RESPONSE
Private Loan Program
TOTAL PRIVATE LOAN pROGRAM
Operation pa£ntbrush
TOTAL OPERATION PAINTBRUSH
Geinsboro Enhancement II
TOTAL GAINSBORO ENHANCEMENT
Gainsboro Profession&l Park
TOTAL GAINSBORO PROF PARK
Henry Street Revit&lization
TOTAL H~NRY STI~ET
Deanwood
TOTAL DEANWOOD
Deanwood Addition
TOTAL DEANWOOD ADDITION
Hotel Roanoke Redevlop
TOTAL HOTEL
Economic Der
TOTAL ECON DEV INVESTMENT
Downpayment & Closing costs
TOTAL DOMNPMT & CLOS%NG
RRHA General Administration
TOTAL RRHA GEN ADMINISTRA
Fiscal Year 1994
Account Numbers
....... CDBG FUNDS ......
Project Admin/SuppOrt
035-092-9220-5203 850
035-093-9320-5203 140,000
035-093-9310-5076 103,040
0 140,850 103,040
035-091-9120-5105 2,912
035-092-9220-5105 40,000
035-093-9310-5037 -- 40,320
0 42,912 40,320
035-092-9220-5102 9,487
035-093-9320-5102 40,000
035-093-9310-5048 -- 29,150
0 49,487 29,150
035-093-9320-5009 15,000
035-093-9310-5008 8,000
0 15,000 8,000
035-093-9330-5011 30,000
035-093-9310-5007 8,000
0 30,000 8,000
035-091-9130-5144 2,322
035-093-9310-5046 5,000
0 2,322 5,000
035-092-9230-5131
0
1,306
1,306
035-091-9130-5157 8,455
035-093-9310-5045 -- 1,966
0 8,455 1,966
035-093-9310-5049 -- 7,769
0 0 7,769
035-092-9230-5136 100,000
036-093-9310-5031 -- 10,000
0 100,000 10,000
035-093-9310-5008 -- 89,615
0 0 89,615
035-093-9310-5035 -- 73,772
0 0 73,772
Total
CDBG Funde
243,690
83,232
78,637
23,000
38,000
7,322
1,306
10,421
7,769
110,000
89,615
73,772
PROGI~M 'I~TALS 390,132 376,632 766,764
AT~ACHEEN~ F
page 1
U.S. DEPARTHE~ OF HOUSDIG AND UR]L~ DEVELOI:~'iENT
C(:~/UNITY DEVF, LOPt~I~ BLOCK GRANT pRO~PAI'I
SPEC.TM, 'i'lflv4S AND CONDITIONS
A. The work to b~ perfo~d under this contract is on · project assisted
under a prosrm providing direct Federal financial asststtnce frc~ the
I~part~nt of Ho~ing ~d Urb~ ~v,lo~ ~d is ~J~ ~o ~
requir~ts of Secti~ 3 of the Ho~n~ ~d Ur~ ~t kct of
1968, as ~nded, 12 U.S.C. 170. Section 3 r~uim t~t to ~
~r~test ~t~t f~ible opport~ities fo~ teain~ ~ ~lo~t ~
~iv~ l~e inc~ rsmidmts of the proJact ae~ ~d c~tractm for
in c~ction ~ith t~ project ~ awa=~ to ~in~s c~ce~ vhich
arm locmt~ ~, or ~ed in mubst~tial ~rt ~ ~rs~ mid~ in
ar~ of't~ proJ,ct.
B. ~ parti~ to this contract will c~ly with t~ provi~l~ o[ ~aid
Secti~ 3 ~d t~ re~lation~ i~ued p~t t~reto b~ ~e
of Ho~ing ~d Ue~ ~velo~t s~t for~ in 21 ~ 135. ~d all
Ipplicable ~1~ ~d ords=s of the ~plmt ias~ ~r~dsr prior
to the section of this c~tract. ~ ~i~ to this c~tract
disability which v~ld peev~t th~ ir~ c~lyin[ vi~
requirers ·
C. ~e c~tractor viii s~d to ~ch 1a~r otl=izatim or repr~tative
of workers with which he ~s a collecti~ ~r[a~[ ~r~t or other
contract or ~derst~din[, if ~y, a notice advise[ t~ said lair
or~izati~ or ~rkers~ repres~tati~ of his c~i~ts ~der this
~cti~ 3 cla~e ~d s~ll post copies of t~ noti~ ~
plac~ available to ~lo~s ~d lpplimts fo~ ~lo~t or
train~.
D. ~ c~tr~tor will 2c1~ this ~ection I cll~* ~ ~ ~ontract
foe ~k ~ c~ti~ with the project ~ will, at ~ direction of
~ ~li~t f~ or recipient of FO~eal f~cial ~nis~ce,
m~il~ ~ti~ ~r~t to t~ sub,tract u~ a f~d~ t~t the
~r~t~ is ~ violation of rm~lati~ is~ ~ t~ Secretary of
~ ~ Ur~ Nvslo~t 2~ C~ Pa~ 13~. ~ c~tractor will not
~tract vi~ ~y subc~tractor w~rm it ~ notice oE ~ledge
t~t ~ ~tt~ ~ ~ fo~d in violati~ of rs~lati~ ~dsr 21
part 135 ~d will not let ~ su~ontract ~l~s t~ su~tracto~ has
first provid~ it with a prml~i~ statue of ability to c~ly
with the requi~ts of these re~lationn.
C~li~cm with t~ provisions of ~mction ~. t~ rm~lmtims mmt forth
in l~ ~ )m~t 135. ~d ill applicable ~les ~d or,rs of the
~par~t is~d ~m~dmr prior to th~ ~mcut%~ o~ the contract.
sbll ~ i condition o[ thm [mds~il [in~ciml ~simt~cs provided to
the project, bindini upon thm applicmt or ~mcipi~t for
page 2
asnisf~ltce, itl ruccossor and assisns. ~ailure to fulfill these
rcquiromentl shell ~ubJect the applic~t or recipi~t, it~ contractor~
Y~ral ~nia~co la provided. ~d ~o ~ch s~c~i~s ~ are s~c~ied
by 24 ~ Pa~ 13S.
'~-~1 ~u~m_l~ ~ C--_-_-_--:--=~Ws Contracts subject t~o e~--~utive Order 112&6. ~
mmmde~l,; Such contracts shall be subject tc HUD Equal gl~lo~m~nt
Opportunity roSulatimm at 2& CFR Part: 130 applicable to HllD-anaisted
construction contracts.
The Contractor ihell cause or require to be ~--arted in fu~l in any non-
exempt contrite ~nd ~ubcontract for construction york, o~ modification
thereof an defined in said rcSulations~ which il paid for in whole or in
part with ane4a~anca provided under this A~roeme~t, ~h8 following equal
oppor~uniW clause: 'q)urins the perfonmnca of ~hil contract, tho
contractor a~roac st follows:
The contractor will not diacr4uinate against any m~lo~e or applicant
for emplo~ient because of race, color, ~lijim, m or
~lo~t vi~t rqard to ~heir ra~, color, relili~, s~ o~
fo~ of c~tim; ~ cal~ti~ for tra~,
8uihbb to ~1o~ = appli~ f~
p~t~ ~ ~ cntr~t~l officer ntt~ f~ ~ p~si~ of
~is ~iacr~ti~ cla~e.
B. Tbs contractor will, in all solici~tious or advorCio~mants.for
~ to r~, color, ~llli~, m ~ ~ti~l oril~.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i collec~i~ ~8~ ~t or other
~ ~ ~~, a noti~ to ~ ~ ~ ~ ~tract
~ ~ ~ of ~ notice in c~i~ p~u avaihbh ~o
~1~ ~ ~licnCs for ~lo~t.
D. ~ ~r~or will c~l~ wi~h all provini~ of ~L~ ~r 1~2~6
~ c~trac~or yell fu~ioh a~l ~nfo~i~ ~ rt~ ~i~ by
~i~ ~r 112~ of Sep~r 2~, 1965, ~ by ~ ~u.
ro~la~i~-~d or,rs of ~ho Secro~a~
~d will ~mi~ access ~o his ~oks.
ATTACH}~RqT F
page 3
D~par~nt and th~ Svcretery of Labor for purposes of invutiSaCion to
a~cmt~cain co~liance wSth such rulms, r~u~ations and orders.
~n ~h~ ~v~nt of ~ contractor's nonc~i~ct vi~ ~
nondiscr~L~ c~s o~ ~h~s con~c~ o~ ~i~h ~y of ~h
~t~,l~i~ o~ o~d~rs, ~hLs con~c~ ~y ~ c~c~ ~mi~ or
s~ ~n ~ o~ ~n p~, ~d ~ c~r~c~or ~ ~ ~c~r~
re~ti~ or or.rs of ~ Secrm~ of ~r io~ ~r~ Co
~t~ 2~ of ~cu~i~ ~r 112~6 of ~p~ 2a, 196~, so ~c
~h pr~imt~ vi~l ~ b~d~s u~ ~h ~ractor or ~r.
c~r~tor vil~ ~ ~h ac~i~ vi~ ru~t go my ~rsct or
~rm or~r u ~ ~r~ ~Y dt~ ~ a m of ~orc~
~ pr~tmi~, ~cl~ins s~c~i~ for ~c~l~; p~i~,
of ~h dir~Ci~ ~ ~ ~par~, ~ c~racCor My r~ ~
~it~ S~m co ~car in~o ~h li~i~ci~ co protect ~ inCem~ of
~CracCor so ~ici~C2~ i~ a $~ or 1~ ~sc, ~ a~ ~1
o~rC~icy c~ ia hoc appli~ble co oy a~cy, ~tmcalicy or
n~ivi~i~ of ~ ~t which ~ ~t ~ici~tm 2 ~zk on or
~r ~ c~tzmcC. ~ ~tractor a~ ~t it ~I1 waist ~d c~rate
~li~cm of c~tz~torl ~ ~tzmctozl ~th ~ ~ ~ity
~rJ ~ i~ ~ ~LIh ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ of ~r such
~tra~ ~bi~Cy for ~C c~Cr~ ~ y~rally-asatsced
c~C~Cim ~Cr~Ca ~amC to ~ ~tin ~r ~ rill ~ out
u My ~ ~ ~ c~tracCors and ~traccors ~ ~ ~r~c or
~ ~ of ~z ~C ~o Pert ZI. S~ D. of ~ ~Civa
c~ly with C~m ~r~SI, t~ ~par~t ~Y ~ ~ or all of the
foll~l acCi~: mcll. ~m~tt or s~ ~ v~le or ~ part the
8rnC oT 1~ ~r~tee; refrain fr~ ~t~d~s ~Y f~r ~,isc~ce ~o
tho Con~ractor ~dor ~ ~osr~ vi~h rts~c~ ~o ehi~ ~ faille or
receded fr~ ~h C~C~ac~or; ~d refer the cs~e ~o t~ ~par~ of
J~c. for appropria~a la~ procaadin~s.
Aj~C ~s nbJ~t to ~ r~ir~ts of Titlo ~ of ~ Civil R~h~s Act
of 1964 (P.L. 88-352) ~ ~ Fi~i~s v~h ru~cC
the re~aC~onf ~r 24 ~ Part 1. In th ll~l, ~ Or O~br ~r~fer
o[ ~ IC~iT~, cl~red or ~rov~ vith ~sist~co provi~ ~r this
disc~i~ti~ u~ ~ ~s o~ ~ace, co,or, cecilia,
~ ~ ~rac~or ~d ~ ~i~ed S~a~ ara ~ic~i~ of ~ ~i~i~d
are n~W ~o ~orc~ ~ co~ ~ ~iil ~ imif so discr~.
~ ~inj of 811 or =y ~ of ~ prosrm e~th
~s~s~ce is ~S pr~t~ ~r ~his ~r~t to ~ ~tractor.
~tractor vhich is not ~ Applier s~ll c~17 vi~
c~t to ~ ue~s~=l ~s ~ns pcov~M ~r ~l
~tr~tor La ~iM nC ~ ~co~cl vi~ ~ ~i~t'a ~c~ ~d
~i~ ~ ~iC7 ~i~C AcC of 197~.
~tt~ to ~y s~ o~ ~ of ~s ~C or to ~7 ~fit to arise
f~ ~.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ch Cb pr~rm is st~, ~ ~ oC~r ~blic
~~ ~ m~c ~o ~ proem ~ his
shll ~a~, or ~ CO ~ ~cit~, ~ all ~ cmCricCs or
Of chit
7. ;% ~i~e4m ~:~ ;t ~m of ~ C- ~4--, ~ ueis~ce p~ovidod
c~ssi~ for ~ ~se of obcainins ~ appz~l of t~ a~lication for
such ~sis~co, or ~ approval or ippli~i~ for li~i~l
Title ~ of tho Housins and community uevl~opamnv ACk O~ ~.-#) --* --
of the Ho·rains and C~unity ~v~,op~.t ACC OZ. &. , "r r~lioion,
f~ ~ w~ll in ~ wi~ f~ avaflablo ~r ~h~ tit~.
~istrati~ o[ ~ Civil RiShts Act o~ 1~ (~ ~)
f~r~ of ~ ~st of t~ ~r ~d ~t Act.
~ purmmnt to it, a~=ll b~ roughed for · ~ ~_~.<=/~'
~ oi~r ~ City or ~ ~t~acto~ in L~ e~t of 8 ~tial failu=e
~tr~t~ s~l ~ ~titl~ to coll~t 811 ~ for ~ ~rfomd ~
of ~ ~U of re--tim. ~io ~t m7 ~ u~t~ for
c~ ~ ~le or ~ ~ ~ ~ City~ ~ ~t of ~
12.
notic~ of ~vir4. or eljevbor·, th~ City Iy take ~e or
follovinl 8c~ion, al ·ppropEiit· ~n tho
1) Tempor·rily vithbo~d cash pa~uonta pendins c0rToCtion of ~b~
by the Co~t~acto~,
2) Di~allo~ all or pert of tBJ coat of th~ activity or actiOn not in
c~li~nc·,
3) ~olly or pauly ~d or resinate tM ~t ~z~t, or
4) T~ o~ r~ila t~t ~y ~ lesally avlillbll.
R: ATTAC~IT. PRO 10/1/91
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #50-91-137
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of a report of the City Attorney with regard to various
government reorganizational issues, which report was before the Council of the City
of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the matter was referred to you for further
review and report to Council.
Sincerely, ~o.~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eno.
pc:
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
WILBURN C. DIBMNG, JR.
CITY OF ROANOKe,
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595
TELEPHONE: 703-981-2431
TELECOP~ER: 703-981 2940
September 13, 1993
WILLIAM X PARSONS
STEVEN J. TALEVI
KATNLEEN MARIE KRONAU
GLADYS L YATES
ASSISTANT CITY A~ORNEYS
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re:
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
(1) Town status
(2) Surrender of Charter
(3) Annexation
(4) Mandates
By motion made at the City Council meeting of July 23, 1993,
Council has requested that I respond to four questions posed by the
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor, in his letter of the same date.
The Mayor's questions were as follows:
whether the City of Roanoke may revert to town
status and, if so, by what procedure;
whether the City may surrender its Charter
thereby ceasing to exist and, if so, by what
procedure;
whether the City might regain the power of
City-initiated annexation and, if so, by what
procedure; and
4. how the City might address State-imposed
mandates without requisite funding.
I am pleased to provide this report in response to the Council s
request. '
TRANSITION TO TOWN STATUS
The Commonwealth of Virginia is unique in having a statewide
system of cities that are independent of adjacent counties. In the
other forty-nine states, cities and their residents are a part of
a county; city residents vote for the members of the governing body
of the county; and the county performs certain essential
governmental functions, such as education, social services and
health, within the city which, of course, is included in the
territory of the county. Thus, cities in the other forty-nine
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
September 13, 1993
Page 2
states resemble towns in Virginia. By achieving town status,
therefore, the City of Roanoke could replicate the national model
for urban local government.
The Code of Virginia provides a procedure for cities to make
the transition to town status. Under current law, however, this
procedure is available only to cities having a population of less
than 50,000.~ The procedure to achieve town status may be
triggered either by an ordinance passed by a majority of the
members of the governing body of the city or by petition filed with
the circuit court signed by fifteen percent of the registered
voters in the city on January first of the year in which the
petition is filed.~ In either case, the next step is a proceeding
before the Commission on Local Government which is empowered to
investigate, analyze and make findings of fact as to the proposed
transition from city to town status.3
After completion of the proceeding before the Commission on
Local Government, the next step is a legal proceeding before the
court in which the adjoining county must be given notice and an
opportunity to respond to the city's petition.4 The circuit court
shall grant town status if it finds that:
The city has a current population of less than
50,000;
2. The adjoining county has been made a party
defendant;
The transition from city to town status will
not substantially impair the ability of the
county to meet the service needs of its
population;
The transition will not result in
substantially inequitable sharing of resources
and liabilities of the new town and the
county;
Section 15.1-965.10, Code of Virginia (1950),
Section 15.1-965.10
Section 15.1-965.3
Section 15.1-965.11
as amended
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
September 13, 1993
Page 3
5. Balancing the equities, the proposed change is
in the best interests of the city, county,
Commonwealth and the people of each; and
6. The proposed change is in the best interests
of the Commonwealth in providing strong and
viable units of government.5
If the Circuit Court determines that town status shall be granted,
it may impose terms and conditions deemed appropriate to (1) ensure
an orderly transition; (2) adjust financial inequities; (3) balance
the equities between the parties; and (4) protect the best
interests of the city, county and Commonwealth and the people of
each.
Unless otherwise provided by agreement, the new town remains
liable for all bonded indebtedness, current debts, obligations and
liabilities incurred as a city. Unless otherwise provided, title
to all real and personal property of the former city and all its
rights and privileges under any contract also vest in the new
town.6
In recent history, one Virginia city has attempted to achieve
the transition from city to town status. Several years ago, a town
status petition was filed by the City of South Boston. Although
the City's petition was opposed by Halifax County, the special
three-judge panel granted the City's petition, but imposed a
significant condition upon the transition by barring the new town
from annexation for fifteen years. City officials, who had
candidly admitted that annexation would be a goal of the new town,
have filed an appeal of the decision to the Supreme Court of
Virginia. On appeal, one of the issues is whether the three-judge
panel acted within its authority in barring the new town from
annexation for fifteen years. A writ has been granted by the
Supreme Court, and a decision in this important case is expected
this fall. Should the Supreme Court rule against the City of South
Boston on the annexation or other issues, the City will have a
window of opportunity to reject town status after the Court s
decision.7 .
Section 15.1-965.16.B
Section 15.1-965.23
Section 15.1-965.19
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
September 13, 1993
Page 4
Since, under current State law, there is no procedure for a
city of 50,000 or more in population to make the transition to town
status, the town status alternative could be made available to
larger cities only through general law enacted by the General
Assembly. Whether such legislation could be enacted is strictly a
political question. As previously noted, a city making the
transition to town status surrenders its status as an independent
unit of local government. Although most local government
officials, including most city advocates, vigorously support
Virginia's concept of independent cities, our system is not without
its critics at the State level. Significantly, in 1989, the
Grayson Commission, which included Delegate Cranwell among its
members, recommended (1) that a new category of dependent city,
called a Class A city, be created; (2) that cities with a
population of less than 125,000 residents be encouraged to revert
to town status or new Class A city status; and (3) that towns and
Class A cities be permitted to expand their boundaries with minimal
review.~ House Bill 990, which included the foregoing
recommendations, was introduced at the 1990 Session of the General
Assembly and defeated.
SURRENDER OF CHARTER
Surrender of the City's charter is dissolution of the City.
Upon the effective date of dissolution, the City, along with its
officers, would cease to exist. The territory of the former City,
lying within the boundaries of Roanoke County, and the residents of
the former City would thereby be absorbed into the County.
The Constitution of Virginia requires the General Assembly to
provide by general law for the organization, government, powers,
change of boundaries, consolidation and dissolution of counties,
cities and towns.9 Although the General Assembly has provided by
general law for the dissolution of towns, no provisions of general
law appear to provide for the dissolution of cities.
The procedure for dissolution of towns is set out in Chapter
20.3, which refers to dissolution as "annulment" of a town charter,
of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia enacted by the 1992 Session
of the General Assembly. Before initiating proceedings to annul or
" Jack D. Edwards,
Annexation in Modern Virginia
225-226
Neiqhbors and Sometimes Friends:
(Center for Public Service 1992), p.
Article VII, ~2, Constitution of Virginia
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
September 13, 1993
Page 5
repeal its charter, a town must enter into an agreement with the
County in which it is located. This agreement must provide for
transfer to the county of all revenues the town receives, services
it performs, real and personal property and other assets, including
all debts due to the town, and for the assumption by the county of
all indebtedness, bonded or otherwise, of the town.i°
Subsequent to the agreement with respect to dissolution, a
referendum is required. If a majority of the qualified voters in
the town favor annulment of the charter, the court shall by order
provide that such annulment shall become effective on December 31
of the year in which the order entering such fact of record is
issued, or on December 31 of the following year or, upon joint
petition of the town and the county, upon some other date agreed
to.TM
Upon the effective date of annulment, the town shall terminate
along with the terms of its officers and the rights, powers, duties
and compensation of its officers, agents and employees.TM On the
same date, all property, real and personal, tangible and
intangible, of the former town vests in the county. By agreement
between the former town and county, the territory of the former
town may become a special debt district for the purpose of repaying
all or part of the indebtedness chargeable to the town prior to
annulment. A special real property tax may be levied in such
special tax district for up to twenty years.13
Although the General Assembly has not provided by general law
for the dissolution of cities, such omission is of little practical
significance. If enacted, such general law could be expected to
require a city seeking dissolution to meet, as a minimum, the
conditions currently imposed upon towns seeking to surrender their
charters. The most critical of such conditions would, of course,
be the consent of the county into which the dissolved city would be
absorbed.
io Section 15.1-965.29
ii Sections 15.1-965.30 through 15.1-965.34
12 Section 15.1-965.36
is Section 15.1-965.38
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
September 13, 1993
Page 6
ANNEXATION
The City's ability to initiate annexation effectively ended in
1979 when the General Assembly enacted a new statute which
authorizes counties meeting certain population criteria to qualify
for annexation immunity. Under the new law, if a county has a
population of at least 20,000 persons and a population density of
at least 300 persons per square mile or a minimum population of at
least 50,000 persons and a population density of at least 140
persons per square mile, then such county may be declared totally
immune from city-initiated annexation upon petition filed with its
circuit court.~4 Obviously, the minimal population criteria
established by the General Assembly bear little relationship to the
ability of a county to provide urban services. Nevertheless,
Roanoke County was granted immunity from city-initiated annexation
on February 23, 1981, after the Circuit Court had concluded the
ministerial task of establishing that Roanoke County met the
population criteria established for immunity.
Although immune from city-initiated annexation, Roanoke County
is not immune from citizen-initiated annexation. Virginia law has
always permitted citizens to seek annexation of their own property.
In this regard, State law provides that an annexation petition may
be initiated by 51% of the qualified voters of any territory or 51%
of the owners of real estate both in number and in land area.~
In 1986 and 1987, certain citizens of Roanoke County sought to be
annexed to the City of Salem. In March, 1987, Salem and Roanoke
County reached a settlement by which the County agreed to an
annexation of approximately 95 acres. In return, the City of Salem
agreed to reject any award resulting from a citizen-initiated
petition filed in 1987, and the City agreed to oppose all citizen-
initiated annexation petitions filed between 1988 and 1993. The
parties also agreed to a payment of $175,000 to Roanoke County for
loss of net tax revenue.
By way of history, the City's ability to initiate annexation
was lost in 1979, when a General Assembly, weary of a decade of
annexation controversy, passed a package of bills allowing nine
counties, including Roanoke County, to obtain immunity from city-
initiated annexation and providing additional State aid for all
localities. In 1978, a Task Force of the Virginia Association'of
Counties ("VACO") and the Virginia Municipal League ("VML") had
reached what was considered a historic compromise as to annexation
Section 15.1-977.21
Section 15.1-1034
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
September 13, 1993
Page 7
when the two organizations recommended to the General Assembly,
inter alia, that counties exceeding 100,000 in population should
have immunity from annexation; that counties should be able to
obtain partial immunity for territory in which it could be proven
that urban services were being provided; and that core cities
should be compensated for future high tax burdens.~6 For the first
time, VML had agreed that some counties should have immunity from
annexation while VACO had conceded that core cities need more help
from the Commonwealth.~?
Unfortunately, the package of bills, first introduced at the
1978 Session of the General Assembly and finally passed at the 1979
Session, failed to address the peculiar financial needs of core
cities that would be barred from annexation. This fact was
recognized by the VACO-VML Task Force in a second report to the
General Assembly in 1979 which stated:
"The Joint Task Force feels that obtaining equity in
State aid to localities and obtaining assistance for
cities relinquishing annexation are not identical issues.
The Joint Task Force strongly supports the concept of
compensatory funding for the relinquishing of annexation
opportunities by cities and towns.''~8
In the process of coalition building in the General Assembly,
the financial needs of core cities being barred from annexation
were overlooked. Large urban counties (cities in all but name)
were unconcerned with annexation as were 62 of 95 counties not
adjacent to any independent city. In addition, many cities were
uninterested in annexation because they bordered no counties. To
win the support of these localities that really had no stake in the
annexation battle, the annexation package adopted by the 1979
Session provided additional State aid to all localities. Ignored
was the historic recognition of the VACO-VML Task Force that
compensatory funding would be needed by cities relinquishing the
right of annexation. Dr. Jack D. Edwards, Professor of Government
at the College of William and Mary and an expert on the history of
~8 Edwards, Neighbors and Sometimes Friends:
Annexation in Modern Virginia, p. 75
~? Edwards, Neiqhbors and Sometimes Friends:
Annexation in Modern Virqin~a, p. 76
~" Edwards, Neiqhbors and Sometimes Friends:
Annexation in Modern Virqin~a, p. 78
Municipal
Municipal
Municipal
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
September 13, 1993
Page 8
annexation in Virginia, has described the package adopted by the
General Assembly in 1979 as follows:
"By the time the package of statutes was approved in
1979, the addition of additional state aid had been
divorced from annexation. Under the new statutes,
financial grants to cities were unrelated to their
ability to annex; furthermore, counties also became
eligible for added funding from these sources, without
regard to whether they were vulnerable to annexation.
The aid bills might have been justified on the basis of
the needs of local governments, but they had little to do
with annexation.''zg
In addition to shortchanging cities being stripped of
annexation power, the 1979 "annexation compromise" may have taken
Virginia down a "wrong turn" according to David Rusk, a national
expert on cities.2° Dr. Rusk testified before the Governor's
Advisory Commission on the Revitalization of Virginia's Urban
Areas, an important Commission on which Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick
serves, that on a national basis "elastic" cities (San Diego,
Houston, Albuquerque, Nashville and Jacksonville) are much
healthier than "inelastic" cities (Boston, St. Louis, Cleveland and
Buffalo). Elastic cities are those that have been allowed to
expand their boundaries by annexation or consolidation. Inelastic
cities have, on the other hand, been trapped within their city
limits. The inelastic cities, according to Dr. Rusk, have lost
what they can least afford to lose, their middle class families.
Inelastic cities, he testified, are poorer, more racially
segregated and suffering more from shrinking tax bases and rising
social ills than elastic cities. Closer to home, Dr. Rusk has
statistically established that North Carolina cities are healthier
than Virginia cities, a result he attributes to liberal annexation
powers available to North Carolina cities.
Deterioration of core cities represents a threat to the health
of the entire Commonwealth. Even the health of affluent suburbs is
threatened when they surround a deteriorating center. Restoration
of annexation powers or other mechanisms by which elasticity can be
z9 Edwards, Neighbors and Sometimes Friends: Municipal
Annexation in Modern Virqinia, p. 82
20 David Rusk, testimony to Governor's Advisory Commission on
the Revitalization of Virginia's Urban Areas, Richmond, Virginia,
July 19, 1993. The balance of this paragraph relies on Dr. Rusk's
testimony.
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
September 13, 1993
Page 9
achieved by Virginia cities would require members of the General
Assembly to focus on the well being of the Commonwealth as a whole
rather than purely local interests. Given that the General
Assembly acted at the 1993 Session to extend to July 1, 1995, the
annexation moratorium on those cities still able to file annexation
petitions,2~ it appears unlikely that the General Assembly is
prepared to revisit annexation issues in the immediate future.
MANDATES
For years, unfunded federal and State mandates have been a
source of frustration for City Council. City officials have long
recognized that the cumulative effect of federal and State mandates
has a significant financial impact on City government and limits
our ability to use local revenues most effectively. The City's
annual legislative program has for many years implored our General
Assembly to refrain from new mandates and relax existing mandates.
Organizations such as the Virginia Municipal League, National
League of Cities and U. S. Conference of Mayors have joined in the
cause.
Some progress has been made with the General Assembly. I have
recently noticed an increased sensitivity, particularly among our
local delegation, as to the mandate issue. The General Assembly
has even imposed some restraints upon itself. Several years ago,
the General Assembly began the fiscal note process by which cost
estimates for proposed legislation are completed prior to final
review of the legislation by committee. Although this procedure
could be improved by requiring that cost estimates be completed
prior to the first full review by committee, which would allow
local governments a fairer opportunity to review estimates and have
more meaningful input in the legislative process, this first step
is, nevertheless, appreciated. Additionally, the 1993 Session
amended the State Code in the following respects as to mandates:
Requiring assessments by all State agencies of
all mandates imposed on local governments with
the objective of determining which mandates
may be altered or eliminated22; and
Requiring the Commission on Local Government
to prepare and annually update a catalog of
Section 15.1-1032.2
22 Section 15.1-945.3(6)
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
September 13, 1993
Page 10
federal and State mandates imposed on local
government with a summary of the fiscal impact
of all new mandates.23
I am advised that the Commission on Local Government has completed
its catalog of mandates. The General Assembly should be commended
for these steps which demonstrate a new sensitivity to the mandate
issue. Regrettably, some legislators remain insensitive to the
devastating effect mandates can have on local government finances.
There is no magic elixir to solve the mandate problem. Local
government organizations have done a good job in educating
legislators as to the impact of mandates. Our own General Assembly
has voluntarily enacted some restraints on itself. More voluntary
restraint is necessary. In the last analysis, the mandate issue is
strictly a political question; legislators must police themselves
and be held accountable in the political arena. Courts cannot
protect local governments in this political fray.
CONCLUSION
We in Virginia are frequently reminded that local governments
are "creatures" (or sometimes "children") of the Commonwealth. As
such, it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth to provide an
organizational framework that will promote healthy local
governments. Moreover, it is often beyond the political abilities
of local officials to solve regional social and fiscal inequity
problems.
I have been asked to consider three alternatives for altering
the boundaries of the City, i.e., reversion to town status,
surrender of City Charter and restoration of annexation powers.
Each alternative, as noted, requires approval of the General
Assembly. Of the three alternatives, reversion to town status
would seem to be the most likely to be approved by the General
Assembly although considerable opposition would certainly be
encountered if the City chose to pursue this alternative. Town
status may have some viability because a few Virginia legislators
have begun to question the wisdom of Virginia's system of
independent cities. Indeed, the Grayson Commission recommended
that cities of less than 125,000 should be encouraged to revert to
town status or obtain Class A city status (a dependent city similar
to a town). Of course, reversion to town status would represent a
fundamental change in governmental structure and should not be
Section 15.1-945.3(7)
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
September 13, 1993
Page 11
considered without ample opportunity for public participation in
the decision making process.
The issue of local government organization on a statewide
basis will not go away and ultimately will have to be addressed by
the General Assembly in a comprehensive manner. Until this occurs,
the General Assembly will have to find other means to meet the
needs of core cities barred from annexation. One possibility is to
provide special compensation to those cities that have been barred
from annexation. Another possibility would be to require local
governments to share some of the regional costs that are currently
borne only by core cities, such as provision of public housing.
Although even affluent counties have persons who need public
housing, all too frequently such persons are required to move to a
core city to obtain this public benefit which then becomes the sole
responsibility of City taxpayers.
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to explore these
important public issues.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr.
City Attorney
WCD:f
cc:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #60-53-79-123-217-247-305
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31690-091393 declaring the City's intent to
reimburse itself from the proceeds of general obligation public improvement bonds
authorized to be issued, pursuant to Ordinance No. 31375-040593 adopted on April 5,
1993, for certain expenditures in connection with construction of the Hotel Roanoke
Conference Center and the Juvenile Detention Home Expansion, effective
September 13, 1993. Resolution No. 31690-091393 was adopted by the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely,g._~ ~' ~~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eric.
pc:
Brian J. Wishneff, Acting Director, Hotel Roanoke Conference Center, 111
Franklin Plaza, Suite 230, Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dr. Raymond D. Smoot, Jr., Vice President for Business Affairs
and Treasurer, 312 Burruss Hall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia
24061-0142
Margie W. Thomas, Secretary of Virginia Teeh Board of Visitors,
210 Burruss Hall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0142
The Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, City Sheriff
The Honorable Jerome S. Howard, Jr., Commissioner of Revenue
The Honorable Gordon E. Peters, City Treasurer
W. Robert Herbert
September 17, 1993
Page 2
pc:
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director, Human Development
Mark C. Johnson, Manager, Juvenile Detention Home
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Phillip F. Sparks, Acting Chief, Economic Development
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31690-091393.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION declaring the City's intent to reimburse itself
from the proceeds of its general obligation public improvement
bonds authorized to be issued pursuant to Ordinance No. 31375-
040593, adopted April 5, 1993, for certain expenditures in
connection with construction of the Hotel Roanoke Conference Center
and the Juvenile Detention Home Expansion; and providing for an
effective date.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as
follows:
1. The City hereby declares that it reasonably expects and
intends to reimburse expenditures in the total amount of
$967,220.00 approved by Ordinance No. 31400-032293, adopted on
March 22, 1993, and Resolution Nos. 4 and 5, adopted by the Hotel
Roanoke Conference Center Commission on March 23, 1993, and May 3,
1993, respectively, for architectural, engineering, planning and
construction management services in connection with the Hotel
Roanoke Conference Center ("preliminary expenditures" under Section
1.150-2(f)(2) of the Income Tax Regulations) from the proceeds of
its general obligation public improvement bonds authorized to be
issued pursuant to Ordinance No. 31375-040593, adopted by the City
Council on April 5, 1993, in the amount of $13,800,000 for the
purpose of paying the costs of the construction of the Hotel
Roanoke Conference Center. Of the $967,220.00 authorized to be
expended by Ordinance No. 31400-032293 of City Council and
Resolution Nos. 4 and 5 of the Hotel Roanoke Conference Center
Commission, $289,201.45 has been expended as of the date of this
Resolution.
2. The City hereby declares that it reasonably expects and
intends to reimburse $313,700 of the expenditure of $3,000,000,
approved by Ordinance No.31666-082393, adopted by City Council on
August 23, 1993, and Resolution No. 31497-060793, adopted by the
City Council on June 7, 1993, for the purchase of approximately
4.679 acres of land required for construction of the Hotel Roanoke
Conference Center from the proceeds of its general obligation
public improvement bonds authorized to be issued pursuant to
Ordinance No. 31375-040593 adopted by the City Council on April 5,
1993, in the amount of $13,800,000 for the purpose of paying the
costs of construction of the Hotel Roanoke Conference Center. None
of the $3,000,000 (including the $313,700 to be reimbursed from
bond proceeds) authorized by Ordinance No. 31666-082393 and
Resolution No. 31497-060793 to be expended has been expended as of
the date of adoption of this Resolution.
3. The City hereby declares that it reasonably expects and
intends to reimburse the expenditure in the amount of $271,990.00
approved by Resolution No. 31518-061493, adopted by the City
Council on June 14, 1993, for architectural and engineering
services ("preliminary" expenditures under Section 1-150-2(f)(2) of
the Income Tax Regulations) from the proceeds of its general
obligation public improvement bonds authorized to be issued
pursuant to Ordinance No. 31375-040593, adopted by the City Council
on April 5, 1993, in the amount of $1,500,000 for the purpose of
paying the costs of the Juvenile Detention Home Expansion. None of
the $271,990.00 authorized to be expended by Resolution No. 31518-
061493 has been expended as of the date of adoption of this
Resolution.
4. This Resolution shall be effective on and after the date
of its adoption.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595
TELEPHONE: 703-981-2431
TELECOPIER: 703-981-2940
September 13, 1993
'93 EP-9 P3:09
WILLIAM X PARSONS
STEVEN J. TALEVI
KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAU
GLADYS L YATES
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: Declaration of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
New federal income tax regulations require that, when the City
intends to reimburse itself from the proceeds of bonds previously
authorized by City Council for expenditures advanced from City
funds in connection with such bond projects, the City must declare
its official intent to so reimburse itself through adoption of a
resolution. The resolution must state the amount of the advance,
identify the authority for the advance, describe the project for
which the original expenditure is paid and state the maximum
principal amount of the obligations expected to be issued for the
project.
By Ordinance No. 31375-040593, City Council authorized
issuance of general obligation public improvement bonds in the
amount of $20,100,000 for the Hotel Roanoke Conference Center
($13,800,000), City Jail Expansion ($4,800,000) and Juvenile
Detention Home Expansion ($1,500,000). The following City funds
have been advanced in connection with such projects:
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
September 13, 1993
Page 2
By the
protect its right
in connection with the above-reference bond projects.
with kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
attached Resolution, which I recommend, City Council may
to reimburse the General Fund for cash advances
Wilburn C. Dibling,
City Attorney
City Manager
Grisso, Acting Director of
Parker, City Clerk
Finance
WCD:f
Attachment
cc: W. Robert Herbert,
James D.
Mary F.
Jr.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 0,56
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
September 17, 1993
File #468
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31692-091393 accepting the bid of H. Hamner
Gay and Co., Inc., in the amount of $2,924,017.00, for construction of that portion
of the 13.5 mile waterline from Carvins Cove Filter Plant to Crystal Springs Pumping
Station referred to as Contract B-1, upon certain terms and conditions; authorizing
the proper City officials to execute the requisite contract for such work; and
rejecting all other bids made to the City for the work. Ordinance No. 31692-091393
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Ene.
pc:
H. Hamner Gay, Vice-President, H. Hamner Gay and Co., Inc., P. O. Box
11908, Lynehburg, Virginia 24506
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
John A. Peters, Project Manager
Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
M. Craig Sluss, Manager, Water Department
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #468
Aaron J. Conner General Contractor, Inc.
G. L. Howard, Inc.
E. C. Pace Co., Inc.
Ramey, Inc.
Wright and Lopez, Inc.
Yates Construction Co., Inc.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31692-091393 accepting the bid of H. Hamner
Gay and Co., Inc., in the amount of $2,924,017.00, for construction of that portion
of the 13.5 mile waterline from Carvins Cove Filter Plant to Crystal Springs Pumping
Station referred to as Contract B-I, upon certain tel'ms and conditions; and
authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite contract for such work.
Ordinance No. 31692-091393 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993.
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,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eric.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31692-091393.
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of H. Hamner Gay & Company,
Inc., for construction of that portion of the 13.5 mile waterline
from Carvins Cove Filter Plant to Crystal Springs Pump Station
referred to as Contract B-l, 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 as
follows:
1. The bid of H. Hamner Gay & Company, Inc., in the total
amount of $2,924,017.00, for construction of that portion of the
13.5 mile waterline from Carvins Cove Filter Plant to Crystal
Springs Pump Station referred to as Contract B-l, as more
particularly set forth in the September 13, 1993, report of the
City Manager to this Council, 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.
municipal
ordinance shall be
In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this
in full force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #60-468
James D. Grisso
Acting Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31691-091393 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the, 1993-94 Water Fund Appropriations, providing for the transfer of
$3,216,417.00 from Water Plant Expansion - Bonds '92 to Carvins Cove, Phase II,
Contract B-1, in connection with construction of Phase II Improvements to Carvins
Cove Filter Plant, Contract B-1. Ordinance No. 31691-091393 was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, September 13,
1993.
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eric.
pc.'
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
John A. Peters, Project Manager
Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
M. Craig Sluss, Manager, Water Department
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKEt
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31691-091393.
VIRGINIA
Government of the
exist.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1993-94 Water Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1993-94 Water Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained
to read as follows, in part:
A ro riations
Capital Outlay
Water Plant Expansion - Bonds 92 (1) ..............
Carvins Cove, Phase II, Contract B-1 (2) ..........
$ 31,469,874
2,059,072
3,216,417
1) Appropriated
from Bond
Funds
2) Appropriated
from Bond
Funds
(002-056-8366-9189)
(002-056-8377-9001)
$(3,216,417)
3,216,417
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
CITY '~
'93 ?E?-3 I!!1 :!)3
Roanoke, Virginia
September 13, 1993
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of City Council:
SUBJECT:
BID COMMITTEE REPORT
CARVINS COVE WATERLINE PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD, CONTRACT B-1
I concur with the Bid Committee recommendations relative to the
above projects and recommend it to you for appropriate action.
WRH/JAP/fm
Sincerely,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Attachment: Bid Committee Report
CC:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Human Resources
Manager, General Services
City Engineer
Manager, Building Maintenance
Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations
Construction Cost Technician
Roanoke, Virginia
September 13, 1993
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
City of Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of City Council:
SUBJECT:
BID COMMITTEE REPORT
CARVINS COVE WATERLINE PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD, CONTRACT B-1
I. Backqround:
Carvins Cove Filter Plant Improvement includes expansion
of the Filter Plant at Carvins Cove (Phase I) and the
installation of over 70,000 linear feet of waterline from
Carvins Cove to the Crystal Springs Pump Station (Phase
II).
Contract B-1 of Phase II includes the installation of
water lines from the Boxley Hills Pump Station to the
beginning of Contract B-2 at Utility Line Services. This
project has an Engineer's Estimate of $4t100~000.00.
II.
Current Situation:
A. Bids were received on July
contractors:
Bidder
1. H. Hamner Gay &
Company, Inc.
Aaron J. Conner,
General Contractor,
Inc.
3. E. C. Pace Company,
Inc.
4. Yates Construction Co.,
Inc.
5. Wright & Lopez, Inc.
6. G. L. Howard, Inc.
7. Ramey, Inc.
1993 from the following
Base Bid Bid Bond
$2,924,017.00
$2,946,698.65
$3,103,902.00
$3,194,114.60
$3,347,732.00
$3,369,128.00
$3,649,263.50
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Members of City Council
Bid Committee Report
Carvins Cove Waterline Project
Construction Contract Award, Contract B-1
Page 2
III. Issues:
A. Cost
B. Fundinq
IV.
Alternatives:
A.
Authorize the City Manaqer to execute a unit price
contract in a form approved by the City Attorney with H.
Hamner Gay & Company, Inc., in the amount of
$2,924,017.00 with a project contingency of $292,400.00.
1. Cost is below Engineer's Estimate (29%) and was
competitively bid.
2. Fundinq is available in Account No. 002-056-8366
entitled Water Fund - Water Plant Expansion Bonds
'92.
B. Do not authorize the City Manager to execute a unit price
contract with H. Hamner Gay & Company, Inc.
1. Cost would be based on a future bid.
2. Funds would remain available in Account No. 002-056-
8366.
V. Recommendation: Alternative A
Authorize the City Manager to execute a unit-price contract
with H. Hamner Gay & Company, Inc., for Phase II Improvements
to the Carvins Cove Filter Plant, Contract B-l, in the amount
of $2,924,017.00 with a project contingency of $292,400.00
and transfer $3,216,417.00 from Account No. 002-056-8366,
Water Fund - Water Plant Expansion Bonds '92 to a new account
to be established entitled Carvins Cove, Phase II, Contract
B-1.
Members of City Council
Bid Committee Report
Carvins Cove Waterline Project
Construction Contract Award, Contract B-1
Page 3
Respectfully submitted,
William White, Chairman
Kit B. Kiser
M. Cra~ Sluss
WRH/JAP/fm
cc:
City Attorney
Acting Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities and Operations
Manager, Management & Budget
Manager, Water Department
Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations
City Engineer
Construction Cost Technician
Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #102-207-468-481-514
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31693-091393 approving the term of 60 years
for the lease of certain air space over South Jefferson Street, and authorizing the
appropriate City officials to advertise an invitation for bids for such lease, upon
certain terms and conditions. Ordinance No. 31693-091393 was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, September 13,
1993.
Sincerely, ~~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Ene.
pc:
James F. Douthat, Attorney, Woods, Rogers and Hazlegrove, P. O. Box 14125,
Roanoke, Virginia 24038-4125
M. C. DeVaux, Engineer, Richard L. Williams Consulting Engineers, Inc.,
P. O. Box 20187, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Robert G. Reid, Vice-President, Mennel Mill of Virginia, 1702 S. Jefferson
Street,. Roanoke, Virginia 24016
John R. Gibson, General Manager, Mennel Mill of Virginia, 1702 S. Jefferson
Street, Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Peter White, President, Neighbors in South Roanoke, 26~5 Rosalind Avenue,
S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014
W. Robert Herbert
September 17, 1993
Page 2
pc:
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Richard V. Hamilton, Rea! Estate Agent
Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner
John R. Marlies, Chief, Community Planning
Stephanie F. Cicero, Neighborhood Partnership Coordinator
Phillip F. Sparks, Acting Chief, Economic Development
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31693-091393.
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE approving the term of sixty (60) years for the
lease of certain air space over South Jefferson Street, and
authorizing the appropriate City officials to advertise an
invitation for bids for such lease, upon certain terms and
conditions; and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, S15.1-308 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,
requires that a lease term in excess of five (5) years must be
approved prior to advertising an invitation for bids for such
lease.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke as follows:
1. This Council hereby approves the term of sixty (60) years
for the lease of certain air space over South Jefferson Street, and
authorizes the appropriate City officials to advertise an
invitation for bids for such lease, upon the terms and conditions
set forth in the report to this Council dated September 13, 1993.
2. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
municipal government, an emergency is declared to exist, and this
ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
'93 SF_-P-1 P3:57
Roanoke, Virginia
September 13, 1993
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Overhead Right-of-Way Encroachment
South Jefferson Street
Requested by Roanoke City Mills, Inc.
(Mennel Milling Co.)
The attached report was considered by the Water Resources
Committee at its meeting on August 23, 1993. The Committee
recommends that Council authorize the appropriate City officials
to advertise for bids and to execute documentation approved by
the City Attorney providing a lease for air rights over South
Jefferson Street for a pipe bridge to successful bidder, subject
to the approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals, in accordance
with conditions stated in the attached report.
Respectfully submitted,
eth T. Bowles, Chairman
Water Resources Committee
WRH:KBK:afm
Attachment
cc:
City Manager
City Attorney
Acting Director of Finance
Director of Utilities & Operations
Building Commissioner
Chief, Community Planning
Coordinator, Neighborhood Partnership
M. C. DeVaux, Engineer, Richard L. Williams Consulting
Engineers, Inc.
CITY OF ROANOKE
Interdepartmental Communication
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 23, 1993
ir~,~er Resources Committee
· Kiser, Director, Utilitiws an~ Operations thru
Robert Herbert, City Manager~ /~,+
Overhead Right-of-Way Encroachment
South Jefferson Street
Requested by Roanoke City Mills, Inc. (Mennel
Milling Co.)
Backqround:
Roanoke City Mills~ Inc. has been in business in
the 1700 Block of South Jefferson Street for many
years. It is currently owned by Mennel Milling Co.
Be
The location of the business to date has been
entirely on the east side of Jefferson Street with
some parking on the west side directly across the
street.
C. The structure closest to the east side of the
street, known as the Scale Building, is used both
as the point where the grain is delivered to the
mill by trucks and also the point where the
processed flour is loaded out into trucks. This
causes conflicts interrupting the smooth operation
of the mill's processes, as the building will only
permit one-way access, one truck at a time.
Mill property is landlocked. Ail property on the
east side of Jefferson Street is completely
developed. Property on the west side of the street
remains the only area for mill expansion. To
remain in business and expand to meet current
contracts, the mill must fully utilize all
properties it owns.
To meet customer and qovernment requirements, mill
may unload grain from rail cars at rear of mill but
may not load out finished product in that area
because of unsanitary rodent and insect-infested
adjoining property, thus, load out processing and
Overhead Right-of-Way Encroachment
South Jefferson Street
Roanoke City Mills, Inc. (Mennel Milling Co.)
Page 2
August 23, 1993
storage facilities must be established west of
Jefferson Street. Long, narrow, configuration of
that property forces mill to request waiver of
setback requirements in order to utilize as much of
the property as possible. At approximately six (6)
feet back of the street right-of-way line and
seventeen (17) feet back of the curb line, this
will place the structure much further back than the
Feed Mill structure on the northerly end of the
property east of the street.
II.
Current Situation:
A. A request to permit the installation of a DiD~
bridqe across South Jefferson Street, 17 feet 9
inches above the highest point on the street
surface (which exceeds the minimum standard height
required by City and VDOT) from the Scale Building
directly across the street to a new Flour Load-out
Building on the west side of Jefferson Street (see
attached information) has been received from
Roanoke City Mills, Inc. (see attached letter).
The piDe bridge is to be of metal construction and
will be completely enclosed. It will contain pipes
for transfer of flour as well as a maintenance
walkway. It will be 64.5 feet long, 7.0 feet wide,
and 8.0 feet high. Exterior cladding material will
be metal siding in a color suitable to the
neighborhood group.
Major hiqhwa¥ setback line of 25 feet from westerly
right-of-way line of Jefferson Street must be
waived by City Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA).
Application for a variance has been submitted.
1985 Major Arterial Highway Plan showed Jefferson
Street in "Not to be Improved" status relative to
widening. Project is conditioned upon receiving a
variance from BZA, or City Council.
Rezoninq is not an issue in this situation.
Properties on both sides of Jefferson Street are
zoned, HM, Heavy Manufacturing.
Overhead Right-of-Way Encroachment
South Jefferson Street
Roanoke City Mills, Inc. (Mennel Milling Co.)
Page 3
August 23, 1993
Initial meeting with neighborhood group, Neighbors
in South Roanoke, was held on June 10, 1993 to
discuss the potential visual impact of the
structure on travelers on South Jefferson Street.
This meeting resulted in scheduling a subsequent
meeting for June 28, 1993, to include general
neighborhood representation (see attached letter).
Suggestions by neighborhood group and City for
beautification of area have been accepted by
Roanoke City Mills as follows:
Loading docks on the east side of street will
be angled to improve truck access and traffic
congestion.
New concrete curbs~ sidewalks~ and driveway
entrances will be installed by Roanoke City
Mills on the west side of the street.
Ail driveways will be paved on the west side
of the street by Roanoke City Mills.
Architecturally decorative treatment will be
applied to the space between the new flour
load-out structure, it's driveways, and the
sidewalk.
Structure and bridge will be sheathed in
materials that conform as closely as possible
to neighborhood desires.
Potential lease must be advertised and successful
bidder is to be required to reimburse City for the
full cost of advertising for the lease of those air
rights for a term of sixty (60) years. Bid for
license payment is recommended to be a one-time fee
of not less than $500.00. This value was
established by applying the value per square foot
of surrounding properties to the 7.0' x 60.0'
footprint of the bridge over the street.
Advertisement and a public hearing are required for
lease of air rights over City right-of-way. City
must advertise for bids for the lease of air rights
Overhead Right-of-Way Encroachment
South Jefferson Street
Roanoke City Mills, Inc. (Mennel Milling Co.)
Page 4
August 23, 1993
once a week for four (4) successive weeks in two
(2) newspapers with local circulation. In
addition, prior to authorizing lease by ordinance,
City must advertise a public hearing on the
proposal once a week for two (2) successive weeks,
hearing to be held not less than six (6) nor more
than twenty-one (21) days after date of second
advertisement.
Staff recommends authorization of a lease for this
structure including provisions for removal of
structure should use terminate, structure be
allowed to deteriorate unreasonably, or be damaged
to the point that owners did not wish to repair it.
Successful bidder must obtain a performance bond
naming the City as the obligee or insured party in
the event lessee does not demolish or remove
structure as required in lease. Bond to be in the
initial amount of $30~000.00. The amount of the
bond to be reviewed every five (5) years and
adjusted as necessary by mutual agreement of the
parties. Successful bidder to also be responsible
for utilities, maintenance, and lighting of bridge.
III.
Issues:
B.
C.
D.
Need
Timinq
Income to City
Indemnification and General Liability Insurance
IV.
Alternatives:
Committee recommend to City Council that it
authorize City staff to advertise once a week for
four (4) consecutive weeks in two (2) newspapers
with local circulation for bids and to hold a
public hearing regarding a lease for a term of 60
years for air rights over South Jefferson Street to
permit the construction of a 64.5' x 7' x 8'
Overhead Right-of-Way Encroachment
South Jefferson Street
Roanoke City Mills, Inc. (Mennel Milling Co.)
Page 5
August 23, 1993
enclosed pipe bridge, 17 feet 9 inches above the
street, from the existing Roanoke City Mills, Inc.
(Mennel Milling Co.) Scale Building on the east
side of the street to a new Flour Load-out Building
on the west side, for a one-time consideration of
not less than $500.00; successful bidder to prepare
all appropriate legal documents in a form approved
by the City Attorney, including provision for a
performance bond to assure demolition of structure
if necessary; and, authorize the award of such
lease to the successful bidder. City to retain the
right to reject all bids.
1. Need for new facility is met.
Timinq to permit construction to begin as soon
as possible is met.
3. Income to City is at least $500.00.
4. Indemnification and General Liability Insur-
ance, bodily injury, and property damage
liability insurance coverage, with the City
named as additional insured to be provided by
successful bidder. The amount of such insur-
ance shall not be less than:
In the case of bodily injury liability
insurance, $1,000,000 for injuries, in-
cluding death, to one person in any one
occurrence and $5,000,000 annual aggre-
gate.
In the case of property damage insurance,
$500,000 for damage in any one occurrence
and $1,000,000 annual aggregate.
In the case of general liability
insurance, coverage in the amount of
$1,000,000.
The above amounts may be met by
"umbrella" coverage in a minimum amount
of $5,000,000.
Overhead Right-of-Way Encroachment
South Jefferson Street
Roanoke City Mills, Inc. (Mennel Milling Co.)
Page 6
August 23, 1993
Insurance coverage shall be reviewed at five
(5) year intervals during term of lease.
Committee not recommend to City Council that it
authorize advertisement for bids for a lease for
air rights over South Jefferson Street to permit
the construction of an overhead flour load-out pipe
bridge across the street.
1. Need for new facility is not met.
2. Timinq to permit construction to begin on
schedule is not met.
3. Income to City is zero.
Indemnification and General Liability Insur-
ance is not an issue.
Recommendation: Committee recommend to City Council that
it authorize the appropriate City officials to advertise
for bids and to execute documentation approved by the
City Attorney providing a lease for air rights over South
Jefferson Street for a pipe bridge to successful bidder
in accordance with Alternative "A".
RVH/KBK/WRH/kp
Attachments
cc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Building Commissioner
Chief, Community Planning
Coordinator, Neighborhood Partnership
M. C. DeVaux, Engineer, Richard L. Williams
Engineers, Inc.
Consulting
WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE
Roanoke OIfice
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL TELEPHONE
703/983-7662
August 16, 1993
Kit B. Kiser, Director
Utilities & Operations
Room 350 Municipal Bldg.
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24011-1587
Re: Roanoke City Mills (Mennel Milling Co.)
Pipe Bridge
Dear Kit:
I enclose three documents prepared by Donald S. Jack &
Associates, Inc. and Richard L. Williams, Consulting Engineers,
for the proposed Roanoke City Mills flour load-out facility
currently being considered by the Water Resources Committee and
the Board of Zoning Appeals. The rendering shows the load-out
facility and pipe bridge across Jefferson Street and the site
plans show the Roanoke City Mills proposal and a site plan with
existing City setbacks. I am enclosing legal size as well as
"plat size" documents for your convenience.
Roanoke City Mills is landlocked. Ail of the property that
has become available on the east side of Jefferson Street has
been purchased and Reserve Avenue and Victory Stadium block
expansion to the south. Carillon and Virginia Scrap Iron & Metal
Company own the remainder of the property adjacent to Roanoke
City Mills and neither will discuss a sale. Carillon indicates
it might lease an area for truck parking after it has completed
its current construction.
At the present time Roanoke City Mills is in the process of
reviewing its flour mill facility in reaction to a significant
increase in business and in response to more stringent industry
and governme~tal standards for milling operations. To continue
at its present location, Roanoke City Mills must improve its
loadihg and unloading facilities both as to sanitation and
accessibility. The Virginia Scrap Iron property to the east of
MJ173448
WOODS, ROGERS (:~ HAZLEGROVE
Kit B. Klser
August 17, 1993
Page 2
the existing flour mill can best be described as a Jungle and,
while government regulation and customer demand will allow grain
to be unloaded on the adjacent railroad siding, flour cannot be
shipped by rail because of the condition of the adjacent
property. Accordingly, Roanoke City Mills must receive all grain
and ship all flour transported by truck from the existing scale
building. Only one truck can use the scale building at a time
and it takes approximately ninety minutes to load a flour truck
from this facility. This not only hinders Roanoke City Mills'
ability to do business but creates a traffic problem along
Jefferson Street when grain shipments are received by truck. The
proposed load-out facility will separate the receipt of grain
from the shipping of flour and will load a truck with flour in
approximately fifteen minutes. The proposed facility will
consist of a precast concrete facia tower containing four storage
tanks which will be accessed and loaded by four to six flour
conveying pipes located in a pipe bridge leading from the
existing flour mill across Jefferson Street.
Roanoke City Mills is approaching the modernization of its
facility from a number of different perspectives. First, the
general appearance, sanitation and efficiency of the existing
facility must be improved. Extensive renovation has taken place
within the flour mill during the past 18 months and the exterior
of the office on the east side of Jefferson Street has been
painted. The flour mill is scheduled to be painted next year and
a contract has been let to completely remove and renovate the
front of the "mattress factory" at the southeast end of the
Jefferson Street Bridge. The existing feed mill storage building
on the west side of Jefferson Street has been painted and a mural
is being placed on the side of the building adjacent to the
grassy area along Reserve Avenue.
The proposed flour load-out facility will not only be more
attractive, sanitary, and efficient than the existing facility
but will be safer both from an employee and traffic perspective.
The driveway through the load-out facility that is not concrete
will be hard surfaced and a non-organic architecturally
decorative treatment will be placed between the load-out facility
and Jefferson Street. Roanoke City Mills will construct new
concrete curbs, sidewalks and driveways along the length of the
property on the west side of Jefferson Street as shown on the
site plan. With appropriate variances, the remainder of the
property on the west side of Jefferson Street can be configured
to allow truck parking along the northern side of the existing
feed mill storage building and for the construction of a new
flour packing line and warehouse building. A variance is
M#173448
WOODS, ROGERS (sT ['auAZLEGROVE
Kit B. Kiser
August 17, 1993
Page 3
required because the existing alley will not accommodate truck
access to the parking area and the proposed flour load-out
facility will block access if it complies with the existing set
back and is not located as shown on the site plan proposed by
Roanoke City Mills.
Pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow and safety are prime
objectives in the proposed reconfiguration of Roanoke City Mills.
On the east side of Jefferson Street the bag loading dock area
adjacent to the existing office and warehouse will be redesigned
as shown on the site plan to allow tractor trailers to back into
the loading docks at an angle and thus not restrict traffic along
Jefferson Street. The flour load-out facility on the west side
of the street should be located adjacent to the right-of-way as
shown on the site plan in order that trucks will not have to make
sharp turns £n and out of the facility. Of course, the capacity
of the new facility will move trucks through in fifteen minutes
rather than an hour and a half, separate the delivery of grain
and the shipment of flour by truck and change the traffic flow so
that trucks delivering grain will go north on Jefferson Street
and trucks loading flour will go south on Jefferson Street. The
pipe bridge across Jefferson Street from the existing mill to the
flour load-out facility will serve not only to transfer flour to
the load-out facility but will be constructed so that employees
can cross Jefferson Street through the pipe bridge and thus
provide an additional pedestrian safety feature.
A number of specifics included in the Roanoke City Mills
proposal should be addressed. For example, the set back for the
flour load-out facility proposed by Roanoke City Mills is
approximately six feet from the property line, seventeen feet
from the curb line of Jefferson Street and is further from the
curb line of Jefferson Street than the front of the existing feed
mill storage building. From a construction standpoint, if the
load-out facility is located as depicted on the site plan showing
the City required setbacks, a bridge support will be required
near the curb line of Jefferson Street which is assumed will be
less attractive than the actual load-out facility. Roanoke City
Mills will bear the cost of curb, gutter, sidewalk and parking
lot improvements shown on the site plan.
After consultation with its customers and reflection on
modern flour mill operation, Roanoke City Mills must insist on
non-organic decorative materials adjacent to the flour load-out
facility. Modern sanitation requires flour be absolutely free of
contaminants and even the smallest area of organic material will
M#173448
WOODS, ROGERS (~ HAZLEGROVE
Kit B. Klser
August 17, 1993
Page 4
attract insects which would be drawn to the flour and, once in a
load of flour, could contaminate an entire baking facility.
I trust the enclosed and the commitments and rationale in
this letter will assist the City in evaluating the feasibility
the proposed facility of Roanoke City Mills and that you will
contact me if I may be of any further assistance in this or any
other regard.
JFD:srg
/~S F. DOUTHAT
E. Douglas Chittum (w/enc.)
Mr. John Gibson
Moody C. DeVaux, P.E.
M%173448
--HOUSE
EXISTING MILL BUILDING
RAMP DOWN
CONCRETE STORAGEi
EXISTING
65' SCALE
EXISTING SCALE BUILDING
PROPOSED BRIDGE
:LOCATE
POWER POLE
T
PROPOSED NEW FLOUR
LOADOUT BUILDING
PROPOSED
NEW FLOUR
LOADOUT BLDG.~
DRIVE EL. 925'-6"'
PROPOSED BRIDGE
4-94-1 '-3"
EL.
~923'-6"
60'-0" R.O.W.
EXIST. CONC. FLOUR
STORAGE BUILDING %
EXIST. SCALI
BUILDING
;TREET
SECTION
1 "=20'-0"
Neighbors in South Roanoke
P. O. Box 88B*,
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
July 9, 1993
Mr. Richard V. Hamilton, Engineering Coordinator
City of Roanoke, Municipal Building
112 Church Avenue, Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Mr. Hamilton,
Thank you for attending the NEIGHBORS in SOUTH ROANOKE membership meeting on
Monday, June 28, 1993 at South Roanoke United Methodist Church.
Per your request, included in this letter are recommendations of NEIGHBORS in SOUTH
ROANOKE regarding the MINNEL MILLING Company; Roanoke City Mills, expansion
project.
First, it is of our opinion that we have a true corporate citizen; more than good listeners to
our concerns.
Second, it was mutually agreed that the traffic patterns around the Mill should change. The
Trucks should enter their parking areas across from the main building through the alley.
This would alleviate traffic congestion on S. Jefferson Street. The city might help here in
providing a harder surface alley. The parking lot next to the railroad track has excess gravel
that is moved from the parking by the trucks onto the sidewalks. This is a hazard to
walkers and runners. It is also a waste of gravel. A harder surface for the parking lot next
to the tracks would alleviate alot of gravel on the sidewalk.
Third, we proposed, and it was agreed, that the connecting bridge should be re-engineered.
One idea is to allow the walkway to have half way up the structure a visually opaque siding.
This would encourage employee usage of this walkway by employees, reduce potential
pedestrian traffic problems, and decrease the need for additional security.
Fourth, Additional green is needed along S. Jefferson and on the existing plant silt We
recommend the city rework the sidewalks and curbs. Trucks NOT BE ALLOWED TO
ROLL OVER THE CURBS and the grassy area (currently now with a little dirt) be
revitalized and planted with grass. MENNEL MILLS should include in their design of the
new 8 story tower a green grass area and possibly some shrub plantings.
NEIGHBORS in SOUTH ROANOKE is aware of the rodent problem created by the
overgrowth of the property to the rear of the mill. Rats travel in the sewers. Rats are
noticed by walkers, joggers and persons in their backyards at night. The dumpster at Crystal
Spring School is frequented by rats which might be coming from this area. There is also a
has also been a cat haven in this area. Stray cats live and multiply in this area. MENNEL
Mill can not do anything to correct this problem for the neighborhood because they do not
own the property.
NEIGHBORS in SOUTH ROANOKE appreciates the cities efforts to encourage Roanoke
City Mills to work with the neighborhood group. John Gibson, general Manager, seems to
be genuinely interested in our concerns. The neighborhood is delighted Roanoke City Mills
chose to expand its facility in Roanoke. We look forward to working together to enhance
this area to benefit both the neighborhood transitional area between downtown and the
residential area and the corporate image of MENNEL MILLS
Sincerely,
Pete White, President
Neighbors in South Roanoke
cc: Kit Kiser, Director of Public Utilities
John Marlles, Chief of Planning
June 11, 1993
Mrs. Barbara Duerk
Neighbors in South Roanoke
2605 Rosalind Avenue S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24014
Dear Barbara:
I want to thank Neighbors in South Roanoke for working
cooperatively with the city and Mennel Mill to develop an expansion
project that meets the neighborhood's and business' needs.
On June 10, you, Beverly Lambert, Don Reid, Sonny
DeVeaux, John Gibson and I met to review the proposed plans,
discuss neighborhood concerns and identify next steps. Neighbors
in South Roanoke will sponsor a neighborhood meeting to review the
plans and gain neighborhood input. You agreed to notify the
neighborhood of the meeting scheduled for June 28, 7:30 P.M. at
South Roanoke Methodist Church. Sonny and John wi]] represent
Mennel Mill, bring the plans and renderings, and discuss planned
maintenance and additional changes agreed upon on June 10.
Currently, Mennel Mill is scheduled to remove the plywood and
brick in the windows at the old mattress factory, the brick building
located before the docks. Additionally, the warehouse across from
the mill is scheduled for painting this month.
Mennel Mill proposes to build a steel building with pre(mst
concrete on the west side of Jefferson along with a walkway 4- 6 feet
wide and 8 feet tall which will connect the existing and proposed
buildings. The new building is needed to load and unload bulk
supplies. The new building will provide quicker unloading (in about
15 minutes) and reduce the interruptions of traffic flow on Jefferson
Street. The walkway will house 4 pipes, provide space for operation
and maiutenance of the pipes, and provide a walkway for employees
to go from the existing and proposed building.
Page Two
After much discussion, Mennel Mill agreed to the following:
Extension of the one-way proposed asphalt drive to accommodate one
waiting truck;
Planting of grass in the area between the street and sidewalk on both
sides of Jefferson Street;
Maintenance of the gravel away from the sidewalk and street at the
existing building and within 4 years to repair the broken sidewalk
and build a wall beyond the sidewslk to keep the gravel on the drive;
Repair and improve the sidewalk along the current parking lot to
bear the traffic and weight of the trucks, asphalt of the truck drive,
continuing asphalt to the south warehouse building which will remove
the gravel to appro~mately 20 feet from the street, planting of
greenery along the proposed drive the street;
§. Building setback of appro~r~mAtely 16 - 20 feet from Jefferson Street;
6. Provide samples of colors and trim for the walkway;
7. Participate in the June 28 neighborhood meeting;
Make request to the Water Resources Committee for air rights at the
July meeting.
I believe this summarizes our meeting. If there are any changes or
additions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Partnership Coordinator
CC:
Kit Kiser, Director of Utilities
Richard Har, ilton, City Engineer
Robert G. Reid: VP - Mennel Mill Operations
John R. Gibson, Mennel Mill General Manager
Sonny Deveaux, consultant
Beverly Lambert, Neighbors in South Roanoke
CITY OF ROANOKE
Interdepartmental Com~unication
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
May 19, 1993
Stephanie F. Cicero, Coordinator, Neighborhood
Partnership
Richard V. Hamilton, Engineering Coordinator~
Roanoke City Mills Proposal
Pipe Bridge Over South Jefferson Street
As instructed by Mr. Klser, I have contacted Mrs. Duerk of the
South Roanoke neighborhood group and Mr. Moody C. DeVaux of Richard
L. Williams, Consulting Engineers, the consultant for Roanoke City
Mills (Mennel Milling Co.), regarding a meeting that it is
recommended they have regarding the bridge proposal. They both
understand the need for such a meeting and are willing to
participate. Mr. DeVaux' telephone number is 774-5706.
This is to ask that you arrange to bring these two
organizations together at some location convenient to both parties
to permit them to discuss the proposal. The end result we need is
a report from you and/or the neighborhood group providing their
input into the proposal for the staff and City Council's benefit.
Thank you for your assistance.
RVH/kp
cci Kit B. Klser, Director of Utilities and Operations
4919 B COLONIAL AVENUE
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
P.O. BOX 20187
May 11, 1993
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018
PHONE (703) 774-5706
FAX (703) 772-3266
Mr. Robert Herbert
~anoke City Manager
215 Church Ave.
Roanoke, VA 24011
Re:
New Flour Loadout
Facility for Roanoke City
Mills/Mennell Milling
C~,,.. No. 92-274
Dear Mr. Herbert:
Roanoke City Mills desires to build a flour loadout building on the west
side of Jefferson Street adjacent to the existing ~c_~_le building as sh~n on
Drawing P-1. The purpose of this building is to transfer flour through pipes
frc~ the mill to storage tanks. Trailers will be loaded frcm these storage
tanks for deliveries. The Mill needs to build a pipe bridge across Jefferson
Street be~---n the buildings as shown in the elevation on Drawing P-1.
The proposed pipe bridge will have a ~atlkway to maintain the transfer pipes.
The walkway, as well as the pipes, will be u~letely enclosed for the
entire length of the bridge. The bott~n elevation of the bridge and the
elevation of the existing pavement is shown on Drawing P-l, and will provide
a cl~rance of 17 feet 9 inches (plus or minus).
Roanoke City Mills would like to have approval for air rights across
Jefferson Street for this bridge to expand their existing facilities.
Very truly yours,
~~DeVa
ux, P.E.
Enclosure
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #76-133-468
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31694-091393 authorizing the appropriate City
officials to enter into an amendment to the lease agreement between the City and the
Crystal Tower Building Corporation, to permit the multi-jurisdictional drug
prosecutor's office to move to larger quarters for a six-month period, from July 1,
1993 through December 31, 1993, upon certain terms and conditions. Ordinance No.
31694-091393 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting
held on Monday, September 13, 1993.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eno.
pc;
Marigay H. Piersall, Director of Properties, Crystal Tower Building
Corporation, 145 W. Campbeli Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Alice L. Ekirch, Regional Drug Prosecutor, Regional Drug Prosecutor's
Office, 145 W. Campbeli Avenue, Suite 318, Roanoke, Virginia 24011
The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Richard V. Hamilton, Real Estate Agent
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31694-091393.
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the appropriate City officials to
enter into an amendment to the lease agreement between the City and
the Crystal Tower Building Corporation for use by the multi-
jurisdictional drug prosecutor, upon certain terms and conditions,
and providing for an emergency.
BE
follows:
1.
IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as
The City Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized to
execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the City, in form
approved by the City Attorney, an amendment to the lease agreement
dated October 2, 1992, with the Crystal Tower Building Corporation
to permit the multi-jurisdictional drug prosecutor's office to move
into larger quarters for a six (6) month period, from July 1, 1993
through December 31, 1993, as set forth in the report to this
Council dated September 13, 1993.
2. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this
ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
'93 J-1 F','"
Roanoke, Virginia
September 13, 1993
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Lease Agreement - Regional Drug
Prosecutor's Office
The attached report was considered by the Water Resources
Committee at its meeting on August 23, 1993. The Committee
recommends that Council authorize an amendment to the lease
between the City and Crystal Tower Associates for office space
for the Regional Drug Prosecutor in accordance with conditions
stated in the attached report.
Respectfully submitted,
Water Resources Committee
WRH:KBK:afm
Attachment
cc:
City Manager
City Attorney
Acting Director of Finance
Director of Utilities & Operations
Commonwealth's Attorney
Regional Drug Prosecutor
Marigay H. Piersall, Director of Properties,
Crystal Tower
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 23, 1993
MembErs, Water Resources Committee
/k~l~ B. kiser, Director, Utiliti~_O~e~ations, thru
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager~
LEASE AGREEMENT
REGIONAL DRUG PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
Backqround:
A. Current lease aqreement between the City and
Towers Associates expires December 31, 1993.
Crystal
II.
Current Situation:
A.
Need for additional space, effective July 1, 1993, has
caused the office to move to new larger quarters in the
Crystal Tower Building.
B. Lease addendum to cover cost of move to new space from
July 1, 1993, through December 31, 1993, is attached.
Additional cost of lease to be absorbed by Commonwealth
Attorney's Office budget so no appropriation is necessary
at this time.
III ·
Issues:
A. Need
B. Timinq
C. Cost to City
IV.
Alternatives:
A. Committee recommend to City Council that it authorize an
amendment to the lease between the City and Crystal Tower
Associates to permit the Regional Drug Prosecutor's
Office to move into larger quarters for a six (6) month
period, from July 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993, new
quarters to be Suites 316, 317 and 318 Crystal Tower
Building, new lease fee to be $3~840.00 annually, in
monthly installments of ~640.00. Lease fee prior to July
1, 1993, was ~475.00 per month. Lease amendment to be in
a form approved by the City Attorney.
1. Need by Regional Drug Prosecutor for additional
space is met.
2. Timing to conform existing situation as quickly as
possible is met.
Cost to City to be absorbed by Commonwealth
Attorney's budget for this six (6) month term, but
wlll increase future budget for lease by ~165.00 per
month. Source of these funds is a grant from the
Commonwealth Attorney's Services and Training
Council.
Committee not recommend to City Council that it authorize
an amendment to the lease for office space in the Crystal
Tower building for the Regional Drug Prosecutor's Office.
1. Need for additional space not met.
2. Tlminq to confirm existing situation as soon as
possible not met.
3. Cost to City is not an issue.
Recommendation: Committee recommend to City Council that it
authorize an amendment to the lease between the City and
Crystal Tower Associates for office space for the Regional
Drug Prosecutor in acoordance with Alternative "A".
KBK/RVH/fm
Attachment
cc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Commonwealth's Attorney
Regional Drug Prosecutor
Marigay H. Plersall, Director of Properties,
Crystal Tower
oMMONWEALTH' OF VIRGINIA.
CITY OF ROANOKE
REGIONAL DRUG PROSECUTOR
145w CAMPBELL AVE., SUITE ~
ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24011
June 25, 1993
Kathleen M. Kronau, Esq.
Assistant City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Ms. Kronau:
Enclosed is an Addendum to the Lease Agreement with the
Crystal Tower Building Corporation for the term July 1, 1993,
through December 31, 1993, for office space now being used by the
Regional Drug Prosecution Program. The Regional Drug Prosecutor's
office proposes to move to the third floor of the Crystal Tower
Building on July I, 1993. The additional office space is necessary
because of the addition of an Assistant to the Drug Prosecutor.
We presently occupy two offices on the second floor of the building
and the third floor suites consist of four offices. Please review
the enclosed Addendum to the Lease Agreement and obtain the
necessary signatures.
If you have any questions, feel free to give me a call.
Very truly yours,
Alice L. Ekirch
Regional Drug Prosecutor
ALE:msh
Enclosure
RECEIVED
otfic of City Attorney
JUN :~8 199.~
GoHHONWEALTH- OF
Alice L. Ekirch
CITY OF ROANOKE
REGIONAL {~RUG F~OSECUTOR
14SW CAM~:~ELLAVE,SUITI~ 318
July 7, 1993
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
City .of Roanoke
Municipal Building, Room 364
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Re: Lease Agreement/Regional Drug Prosecutor's Office
Dear Mr. Herbert:
The current Lease Agreement between the City of Roanoke and
Crystal Towers Associates for the Regional Drug Prosecutor's Office
will expire December 31, 1993. However, effective July 1, 1993,
the Roanoke Regional Drug Prosecutor's Office will be moving into
new office space located on the third floor of the Crystal Towers
Building which consists of four offices. The additional space is
needed as we have seen an increase in our case load, and the
necessity to move an Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney to our
offices to handle drug cases in the General District Court and to
assist the Regional Drug Prosecutor if the-need arises. An
addendum to the Lease Agreement was forwarded to your offices on
June 25, 1993, covering the new Lease period of July I, 1993 to
December 31, 1993, for review and approval. The rental cost of the
new office space will be absorbed by the current budget of the
Commonwealth Attorney's office so there will be no additional
funding required.
In accordance with the above, we respectfully ask that you
request authorization to execute the six-month Lease for the
Regional Drug Prosecutor's Office in the Crystal Towers Building.
Mr. W. Robert Kerbert,
Page Two
July 7, 1993
C~ty Manager
Shou]d you have any questions, please call me.
Very truly yours,
Donald S.~Caldwell ~
Commonwealth's Attorney
Alice L. Ekirch
Regional Drug Prosecutor
ALE:msh
cc: Kathleen M. Kronau, Esq.
ADDENDUM TO LEASE AGREEMENT
DATED OCTOBER 5, 1992
Addendum to Lease Agreement ("Addendum") dated
October 5, 1992 by and between Crystal Tower Building
Corporation ("Landlord") and City of Roanoke, hereinafter
called "Tenant".
RECITALS:
This addendum supplements and amends the referenced Lease
Agreement and is made for the same consideration therein
recited. In each instance of conflict between the Lease
Agreement and this Addendura, this Addendum will prevail.
The Premises to which the Lease Agreement and Addendum
pertain are located in the Crystal Tower Building, 145 W.
Campbell Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia.
NOW,' T}t~REFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements set forth herein, the parties hereby modify and amend
the aforementioned Lease Agreement as follows:
1. Section 1. (b) shall be amended to read as follows:
Premises: Office space designated Suites No.
and 318 on the third floor, in the Building,
defined in Section 2 hereof.
316, 317.
further
(d) shall be amended to read as follows:
Base Rent: $ 3840.00 , payable in monthly
installments of $ 640.00 each.
WITNESS the following signatures:
LANDLORD:
CRYSTAL TOWER BUILDING CORPORATION
By:
Marigay H. Piersall
Director of Properties
TENANT
CITY OF ROANOKE
By
Title
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2~11
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
D~puty City Clerk
September 17, 1993
File #117-458
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31648-091393 extending the franchise between
the City of Roanoke and Roanoke Gas Company, dated August 27, 1973, for a term
of 180 days, retroactive to midnight on August 30, 1993. Ordinance No. 31648-
091393 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on
Monday, August 23, 1993, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Monday,
September 13, 1993.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eno.
pc:
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2AOI 1
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
September 17, 1993
File #117-458
Frank A. Farmer, Jr.
President and Chief
Executive Officer
Roanoke Gas Company
519 Kimball Avenue, N. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24030
Dear Mr. Farmer:
I am enclosing four copies of Ordinance No. 31648-091393 extending the franchise
between the City of Roanoke and Roanoke Gas Company, dated August 27, 1973, for
a term of 180 days, retroactive to midnight on August 30, 1993. Ordinance No.
31648-091393 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on
Monday, August 23, 1993, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Monday,
September 13, 1993.
Please execute two copies of the abovereferenced ordinance and return to the
undersigned for filing with the City's official records.
Sincerely, ~/),.~/~__
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eno.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31648-091393.
AN ORDINANCE extending the franchise between the City of
Roanoke and Roanoke Gas Company, dated August 27, 1973, for a term
of one hundred eighty (180) days; and providing for an effective
date for this ordinance.
WHEREAS, the Franchise Agreement between the City of Roanoke
("City") and Roanoke Gas Company ("RGC"), dated August 27, 1973
("Franchise"), terminates at midnight on August 30, 1993;
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this Council that the Franchise
be extended, without lapse, for a period of one hundred eighty
(180) days from midnight on August 30, 1993, in order to permit
additional time for the negotiation of a new franchise, including
a fair and reasonable franchise fee for the use of the public
right-of-way, between the City and RGC; and
WHEREAS, this Council has been advised that RGC, by Frank A.
Farmer, Jr., its President and Chief Executive Officer, has agreed
in writing to extension of the franchise between the City and RGC
upon the terms and conditions stated in this ordinance;
THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke
as follows:
1. The Franchise between the City and RGC, dated August 27,
1973, is hereby extended for a term of one hundred eighty (180)
days from midnight on August 30, 1993, upon the same terms and
conditions, except that Section 8 of such Franchise shall be
deleted.
ordinance
In order that there be no lapse in the Franchise, this
shall be retroactive to midnight on August 30, 1993.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
ACCEPTANCE
ROANOKE GAS COMPANY, a Virginia public service corporation,
hereby accepts the grant and each and all of the provisions,
conditions and limitations of this ordinance of the City of
Roanoke, adopted on the 13th day of September, 1993, and hereby
covenants and agrees that it will perform and discharge each and
all of the duties and obligations imposed upon it as a grantee in
and under said ordinance and that it will be bound by each and all
of the terms, conditions and provisions therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the said ROANOKE GAS COMPANY has caused
this written acceptance to be executed in its name by its President
or Vice-President, thereunto duly authorized, and its corporate
seal to be hereunto duly affixed and attested by its Secretary,
thereunto duly authorized on this day of September, 1993.
ROANOKE GAS COMPANY
ATTEST:
By
(Title)
Secretary
Roanoke, Virginia
August 23, 1993
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re:
Franchise between City of Roanoke
and Roanoke Gas ComDany
Dear Members of Council:
The Franchise Agreement between the City of Roanoke and
Roanoke Gas Company, dated August 27, 1973, terminates at midnight
on August 30, 1993. In order to permit additional time for the
negotiation of a new Franchise, including a fair and reasonable
franchise fee for Roanoke Gas Company's use of the public right-of-
way, it is recommended that the current Franchise be extended for
a period of 180 days from midnight on August 30, 1993.
I have been advised that Frank A. Farmer, Jr., President and
Chief Executive Officer, Roanoke Gas Company, has agreed in writing
to extension of the Franchise between the City and the Company upon
the terms and conditions stated in the attached ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:f
cc:
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
(Original faxed and
hand-f ~livered to
John Williamson @
Roanoke Gas 8/23/93. )
~nry Parker - FYI
Office of the Mayor
August 22, 1993
Frank A. Farmer, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
Roanoke Gas Company
519 Kimball Avenue, N.E.
Roanoke, VA 24030
Dear Mr. Farmer,
This is to confirm our agreement that the Franchise Agreement, between the
City of Roanoke and Roanoke Gas Company, dated August 27, 1973, shall be
extended for a term of 180 days from Au§ust 31, 1993, upon the same terms and
conditions except that Section 8 of said franchise agreement shall be deleted. This
is also to confirm that City Council has no intention of exercising its right and option
to acquire plant and property of Roanoke Gas Company pursuant to Section 8 of saicl
Franchise Agreement.
I have been in communication individua!iy with a majority of Council and believe
that this letter accurately represents the intent of City Council in this matter.
Sincerely,
David A. Sowers
Mayor
Room 452 Municipal Building 2t5 Church Ave~ue,..SW Roanoke, Virginia 2401 t ~703) 981-2444
Roanoke Gas
519 Kiml~/l Amn~m~. N.E.
P.O. {I~x 13~0~
~03 ~3-Y~O0
OR C NAL FAX
August 23, 1993
The Honorable Davit~ A. %~owers
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Room 452, Muaicipal Build{nE
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Mayor Bowers:
This will confirm our agree~n£ that the Frar~his¢ Agreement between the City
of Roanoke and Roanok~ Gas Company, dated August 27, 1973, shall be ~xt,-nded for
a term of 180 days f~om midnight Ausuat 30, 199'3, upon the sau~ ~rms arid
conditions except that Smetion 8 of maid ~t shall be dele{~l.
I am authorized to enter imo this agreement by the ~ of Directors of
Roanoke Cas Company.
$inee~ly,
I~mnk A. {~armm', Jr.
Roana~ Gas Company
FAF,jr/mvs
AUG-l?-1995 12:19 FROM ROANOKE GAS TO
ROANOKE GAS COMPANY
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
TO: GLORIA
COMPANY: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
LOCATION;
FAX NUMBER g81-2940
TELEPHONE NUMBER;
'93 AUF~ 1-] kt2:28
FROM:
COMPANY:
LOCATION:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
FAX NUMBER:
ROBERT W. GLENN, JR.
ROANOKE GAS COMPANY
983-3846
g83-3957
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) 1
ANY PROBLEMS CONCERNING THIS TRANSMITTAL, PLEASE CALL~703) 983-3800
WRITE OR TYPE MESSAGE BELOW
Gloria:
Thank you for your kind assistance this morning on the telephone.
It is our understanding that the City Council vote on 1fie proposed acquisition of
Roanoke Gas assets with the City is scheduled for the August 23rd agenda. Accordingly,
I would like to request time on the agenda to address City Council through our spokesperson,
William B. Poff of Woods, Rogers and Hazlegrove.
Our understanding is that the meeting will be at 2:00 p,m. in City Council
Chamber. Please let me know if this changes.
Again, thanks for your kind assistance,
In particular, please express my gratitude to everyone in the City Clerk's office
for their patience and understanding during the past few days. While we are extremely
gratified by t~e outpouring of support we are receiving from our customers, we realize their
calls have placed an added burden on you. Thanks again.
Robert W. Glenn, Jr.
TOTAL P.01
ROANOKE GAS COMPANY
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
TO:
COMPANY: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
LOCATION:
FAX NUMBER g81-2940
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
3.a.
FROM:
COMPANY:
LOCATION:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
FAX NUMBER:
ROBERT'W. GLENN, JR.
ROANOKE GAS COMPANY
g~3- 3957
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) 1
ANY PROBLEMS CONCERNING THIS TRANSMITTAL PLEASE CALL (703) 983-3800
WRITE OR TYPE MESSAGE BELOW
Thank you for your kind as~isten~e this morning on ~e telephone,
It is our understanding that the City Council vote on the propoeed acquisition of
Roanoke Cae aeeem with the City is ~neduled for the August ~Jrd agenda. Accordingly,
I would like to request time on the agenda to addras~ City Council through our spokaspemon,
William B. Poff of Woods, Rogers and Hazlegrove.
Our undemtanding is that the meeting will be at 2:00 p.m. in City Council
Chambem. Please let me know if this (=hange~
Again, thanks for your kind aseistance,
In particular, please expreas my gratitude to everyone in the City Clerk's office
f~r their patience and understanding during the past few days. While we are exlremely
gratified by the outpouring of support we are receiving Eom our customers, we realize their
calls have placed an added burden on you. Thanks again.
Robert W. Glenn, Jr.
TOTAL. P.O1
MARY F, PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
September 17, 1993
File #15-110-178
Robert W. Glenn, Jr., Chairperson
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
1878 Arlington Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear Mr. Glenn:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 31696-091393 waiving the requirement of City
residency for Jack Loeb, a Commissioner of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority, with respect to his current term which expires on August 31,
1994. Resolution No. 31696-091393 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993.
t~'"'~ v~5 ~'Sincerely, ~~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Enc.
pc:
Jack Loeb, President, Loeb Construction Company, P. O. Box 8156, Roanoke,
Virginia 24014
H. Wesley White, Secretary, City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authol~ity, 2624 Salem Turnpike, N. W., Roanoke, Vil~ginia 24017
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 13th day of September, 1993.
No. 31696-091393.
A RESOLUTION waiving the requirement of City residency for
Jack Loeb, a Commissioner of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority.
WHEREAS, the Council is advised that Jack Loeb, who was on
September 17, 1990, appointed to a term as a Commissioner of the
City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority expiring on
August 31, 1994, has moved his residence from the City; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to retain the valuable services
of Mr. Loeb as a Commissioner and to waive the requirement of City
residency set out in §2-281(b), Code of the City of Roanoke (1979),
as amended;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that the requirement of City residency set forth in §2-
281(b), Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is hereby
waived as to Jack Loeb, Commissioner, City of Roanoke Redevelopment
and Housing Authority, with respect to his current term which
expires August 31, 1994, Council having found specific reasons and
unusual circumstances justifying such waiver.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
CITY OF ROANOKE. .... -'
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATI'ORNI~'" ~ -
464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595 '93 F[~ -3
WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR.
CITY ATTOR#I[Y
February 8, 1993
WILLIAM X PARSONS
MARK ALLAN WILLIAMS
STEVEN J, TA!..~VI
KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAU
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: Waiver of City residency requirement for Jack Loeb,
Commissioner, City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housinq Authority
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
I have been advised by the City Clerk that Jack Loeb,
Commissioner, City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority,
has moved his residence from the City. At the request of the City
Clerk, I have researched this matter and find no bar to Mr. Loeb's
continued service on the Board of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment
and Housing Authority so long as City Council waives the City's
residency requirement which is established by S2-281(b), Code of
the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended. Since the Board of
Commissioners exercises significant legal authorities, it is
recommended that such waiver be memorialized by adoption of the
attached resolution.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr.
City Attorney
WCD:f
Attachment
cc: Mr. Jack Loeb, Commissioner, RRHA
Ms. Neva Smith, Executive Director,
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
RRHA