HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 05-01-89 Bow~e$
(29~32)
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ...... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
May 1~ 1989
2:00 p.m.
AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL
C-1
C-2
C-3
Call to Order -- Roll Call. All Present.
The invocation will be delivered by The Reverend Jerry O.
Campbell, Pastor, Greene Memorial United Methodist Church.
Present.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America will be led by Mayor Noel C. Taylor.
Recognition of Student Government Day participants and
sponsor8.
Ms. Niki Samuel was honored as the "1989 Student of the
Year."
CONSENT AGENDA (Approved 7-0)
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED
TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE
MOTION IN THE FORM LISTED BELOW. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DIS-
CUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL
BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
A list of items pending from July 10, 1978, through April
24~ 1989.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
Qualification of Ms. Harriett M. Stokes as a member of the
Roanoke Arts Cornmission~ to fill the unexpiced term of Mc. W. L.
Whitwell~ ending June 30~ 1991.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
Qualification of Ms. Mimi Hodgins as a member of the
Roanoke Acts Cornmission~ to fill the unexpired teem of The
Reverend Timothy W. Ashton, ending June 30, 1989.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
Request for an Executive Session by
Matter Pursuant to Section 2.1-344
(1959), as amended.
Mr. Bowecs on a Personnel
(a) (1), Code of Virginia
(I)
REGULAR AGENDA
Hearing of Citizens Upon Public Matters:
Request of Mrs. Rosa Miller, President, Northwest Neighbor-
hood Improvement Council, to address Council with regard to
a petition seeking assistance from the City of Roanoke in
cleaning certain blighted areas.
Received and filed.
Petitions and Communications: None·
Reports of Officers:
a. City Manager:
Briefings: None·
Items Recommended for Action:
A report recommending authorization to submit an appli-
cation to the State Department of Corrections for
renewal of a grant for the Office on Youth.
Adopted Resolution No. 29532. (7-0)
A report recommending authorization to execute a
Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority for the administra-
tion of the 1988 Rental Rehabilitation Program·
Adopted Ordinance No. 29533. (7-0)
A report recommending execution of a grant agreement
with the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development, accepting Fiscal Year 1989 Rental
Rehabilitation Program funds in the amount of
$106,000.00.
Adopted Ordinance No. 29534. (7-0)
b. Director of Finance:
A joint report of
Manager with regard
of Roanoke retirees.
the Director of Finance and City
to a cost-of-living raise for City
Concurred in the report.
Reports of Committees:
A report of the committee appointed to tabulate bids
received for repairs and improvements to Alum Tanks at the
Water Pollution Control Plant, recommending award of a
(2)
10.
contract to Structures and Utilities Co., Inc., in the
amount of $44,500.00; and appropriation of funds therefor.
Council Member Robert A. Garland, Chairman.
Adopted Ordinance No. 29535. (7-0)
be
A report of the Water Resources Co~ittee recommending
appropriation of $38,000.00 in order to cover an over-
expenditure and provide necessary funds for estimated
electric costs for operating Carvins Cove Filter Plant,
Falling Creek Filter Plant and Carvins Cove Low Lift Pump
Station through the current fiscal year. Council Member
Elizabeth T. Bowles~ Chairman.
Adopted Ordinance No. 29536. (7-0)
A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending
authorization to sell certain City-owned property located
at the southwest corner of Plantation Road and Mohawk
Avenue~ N. E., identified as Official Tax No. 3040712, to
Executone Corr~nunications, Inc., for $2~500.00. Council
Member Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman.
Adopted Ordinance No. 29537 on first reading. (7-0)
dj
A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending that
the City Manager be authorized to enter into an agreement
with the County of Roanoke and the Virginia Department of
Transportation, for storm drainage improvements in the
vicinity of Williamson Road and Nelms Lane, N. W. Council
Member Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman.
Adopted Ordinance No. 29538.
Unfinished Business: None.
Introduction and Consideration of Ordinances and Resolutions:
None·
Motions and Miscellaneous Business:
Inquiries and/or co~ents by the Mayor and members of City
Council.
Vacancies on various authorities~ boards, cowmissions and
corr~ittees appointed by Council·
Other Hearings of Citizens:
(3)
Student Government Day
Activities
May 1989
7:30-7:50 a.m.
7:50-8:00 a.m.
8:00-11:45 a.m.
11:45-1:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, fourth floor, Municipal
Building
Students arrive to meet government counterparts
and receive name tags/information
Juice/donuts in the Council Conference Room
Opening remarks - Mayor Noel C. Taylor
Council Chambers
Student will work with his/her government
counterpart
Campbell Court, 17 Campbell Avenue, S.W., 2nd
Floor
Opening Remarks - Chairman, Youth Services
Citizen Board, Reverend Ulas Broady
Lunch
1:30-1:50 p.m.
1:50 p.m.
2:00 p.m.
3:00 p.m.
Remarks - Vice Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick
- Dr. Frank Tota, Superintendent,
Roanoke City Schools
Special Presentations - Michelle Bono, Public
Information Officer
Presentation of Certificates for Student
Government Day Participation
- Sandy Sayers, Patrick Henry High School
- Sandra Puckett, William Fleming High School
Break
Students return to Council Chambers
City Council meeting - Special Presentation by
· Mayor Noel C. Taylor
Brief City Council recess for students to leave
Chamabers
** Please remember to fill out your evaluation form and return it
City staff. Thank you.
Pending Items
Referral Date
7/10/78
2/23/87
6/20/88
8/8/88
8/8/88
9/12/88
from July I0, 1978~
Referred To
City Manager
Regional Cable
Television Committee
Regional Cable
Television Comynittee
City Manager
1989-90 Budget Study
City Attorney
City Manager
through April 24~ 1989.
Item
Recommendation No. 11 con-
tained in the Mayor's 1978
State of the City Message.
(Development off Mill Moun-
tain - hotel.)
Request of Cox Cable Roanoke
for a renewal of their fran-
chise agreement in order to
simplify and clarify langu-
age, make certain additions
and deletions~ and extend the
term.
Communication advising of Cox
Cable Roanoke's intent to
seek renewal of the Cable
Television Franchise in the
City of Roanoke.
Mayor's 1988 State of the
City recommendation No. 1
pursue a diversified economic
development strategy invol-
ving downtown~ industrial
areas~ tourism and conven-
tions and review the current
City organizational structure
manpower, and money available
to market the City.
Mayor's 1988 State of the
City recommendation No. 5 -
encourage federal officials
to ensure health care costs
for AIDS patients and to pre-
vent ail forms of discrimina-
tion against those who are
stricken with this disease.
Comments of Mr. Michael B.
Smith, regarding the need for
a storm drainage system on
EdgeIawn Avenue, N. W., to
eliminate excessive water
run-off.
Pending Items from July 10, 1978,
Referral Date Referred To
11/14/88 City Manager
1/9/89
City Manager
4/10/89
City Manager
City Attorney
4/17/89
City Manager
4/17/89
1989-90 Budget Study
through April 24, 1989.
Item
Report of the City Planning
Commission recommending ap-
proval of the proposal of the
Citizens' Advisory Committee
on City-Wide Parks Study to
name the sports complex area
near Victory Stadium, "Roa-
noke River Sports Complex."
Matter with regard to speed-
ing on Hemlock Road, N. W.
Requested to prepare the
proper measure to be for-
warded to local governments
in the Roanoke Valley
expressing the concern of
Council over the problem of
drug abuse and the need to
address the matter on a
regional basis; viz: renova-
tion of the alcohol detoxifi-
cation and rehabilitation
center at 801 Shenandoah
Avenue, N. Wo, in the total
amount of $256,876.00, of
which the City of Roanoke
will appropriate $84,000.00
in C.D.B.G. funds.
A communication from Mr.
Roger E. Franklin requesting
consideration of certain pro-
posals for neighborhood revi-
talization.
Recommended 1989-90 General
Fund Budget for the City of
Roanoke.
-2-
CY~C~ of rh~ Oty Clem
May 3, 1989
File #15-230
Mr. Timothy L. Jamieson, Chairman
Roanoke Arts Commission
6857 Sugar Rum Ridge Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Mr. Jamieson:
This is to advise you that Ms. ~arriett
Hodgins have qualified as members of the
for terms ending June 30, 1991 and June
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk
M. Stokes and Ms. Mimi
Roanoke Arts Corrc~ission
30, 1989, respectively.
CMC
MFP : ra
pc: Ms. Joyce A. Sink, Secretary, Roanolce Arts Commission
Room 456 Munici~c~al Building 215 C~ui~'h A,.,~qu~ SW. B~x~noke '4rg~nia 24~11 (703) 981-254~
0-2
, CITY iL~ ''
Oath or Affirmation of Office
State o] Virginia, ~it~t o~ l~oanoke, to.~olt:
I w~l aup~rt the Conatit.tion of the Unit~ ~tatea, and the Constitution of the 8tale of ~i~gini~, snd ~t
I ~1 faithfull~ and imp.~iall~ discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me aa
· Deputy Clerk
Office of the City Cler~
April 12, 1989
File #15-230
Ms. Harriett M. Stokes
242 Locust Avenue
Salem, Virginia 24153
Dear Ms. Stokes:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held
on Monday, April 10, 1989, you were elected as a member of the
Roanoke Arts Co~nission, to fill the unexpired term of Mr. W. L.
Whitwell ending June 30, 1991.
Enclosed you will find a certificate of your election and an Oath
or Affirmation of Office which may be administered by the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, located on the third
floor of the Roanoke City Courts Facility, 315 Church Avenue,
Please return one copy of the Oath of Office to Room 456 in the
Municipal Building prior to serving in the capacity to which you
were elected.
Sincerely, ~l~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Ene.
pc: Mr. Timothy L. Jamieson, Chairman, Roanoke Arts Corr~nission,
6857 Sugar Rum Ridge Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Ms. Joyce A. Sink, Secretary, Roanoke Arts Commission
Room 456 Municipal Building 2t5 C~urch Avenue, SW. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-254't
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) To-wit:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the
Council of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof,
do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council held on
the tenth day of April, 1989, HARRIETT M. STOKES was elected as a
member of the Roanoke Arts Cor~nission, to fill the unexpired term
of Mr. W. L. Whitwell ending June 30, 1990.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this
twelfth day of April, 1989.
City Clerk
0-2
Oath or Affirmation of Office
8tat~ o] Virginia, ~it~t o] Roanoke, to .~oi~:
I, ., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that
I will support the Constitution o! the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Virginin, and that
I will faithhflly and impor'cially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as
according to the best of my ability.
So help me God.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this
Deputy Clerk
Office of the Cig, Clerk
April 12, 1989
File #15-230
Ms. Mimi Hodgins
805 Virginia Avenue
Salem, Virginia 24153
Dear Ms. Hodgins:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held
on Monday, April 10, 1989, you were elected as a member of the
Roanoke Arts Cor~ission, to fill the unexpired term of The
Reverend Timothy Wo Ashton ending June 30, 1989.
Enclosed you will find a certificate of your election and an Oath
or Affirmation of Office which may be administered by the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, located on the third
floor of the Roanoke City Courts Facility, 315 Church Avenue,
S. W.
Please return one copy of the Oath of Office to Room 456 in the
Municipal Building prior to serving in the capacity to which you
were elected.
Sincere ly, ~l~.~'t.~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enco
pc: Mr. Timothy L. Jamieson, Chairman, Roanoke Arts Corr~ission,
6857 Sugar Rum Ridge Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Ms. Joyce A. Sink, Secretary, Roanoke Arts Corr~nission
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Chub'ch Avenue S W Roanoke. ",,1rg~nia 2401 t (703) 981-2541
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) To-wit:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the
Council of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof,
do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council held on
the tenth day of April, 1989, MIMI HODGINS was elected as a
member of the Roanoke Arts Corr~nission, to fill the unexpired
of The Reverend Timothy W. Ashton ending June 30, 1989.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke
twelfth day of April, 1989.
this
City Clerk
Office of the Council
May 1~ 1989
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
~oanokeo Virginia
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
I wish to request an Executive Session
matter~ pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a)
(1950)o as amended.
to discuss
(1), Code
a personnel
of Virginia
Sincerely,
David A. Bowers
Council Member
DAB: se
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Qhurch A'c~'~ue, SW Ro~n4:Y~, Vli~inio 240t t (703) 981-2541
621 Rutherford Avenue N.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
April 23, 1989
Mayor N.C. Taylor & City Council
215 Church Avenue S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia24016
To Mayor Taylor & Members of City Council:
We, the members of the Northwest Neighborhood Improvement Council,are
requesting time on the agenda of the May 1, 1989 meeting. Our spokes-
person will be Mrs. Rosa Miller, president of the organization.
We do hope this request will be granted. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Northwest Neighborhood Im-
provement Council
Mrs. Rosa Miller, President
Veron ~olland, Secret. ry
Office of ~e CaW Cern
~ay 3, 1989
File #236-304
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 29532 authorizing accep-
tance of a Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development .ict Grant
made to the City of Roanoke by the Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Corrections, and authorizing acceptance, execution
and filing of the "Special Conditions" with the Department of
Corrections for said grant for the purpose of continuing coor-
dinated planning and youth services program implementation by the
City's Office on Youth until June 30, 1990, which Resolution No.
29532 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting held on Monday, May 1, 1989.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc o
pc:
The Reverend Ulas N. Broady, Chairman, Youth Services Citizen
Board, 2204 Lynnhope Drive, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Ms. Marion V. Crenshaw, Youth Planner
Mr. John R. Marlles, Chief of Community Planning
Room456 MunicipalBuilding 215 Church Avenue SW Roanoke ~r~nia24~11 (703)98t-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 1st day of May, 1989.
No. 29532.
A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a Delinquency
Prevention and Youth Development Act Grant made to the City of
Roanoke by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections
and authorizing the acceptance, execution and filing of the
"Special Conditions" with the Department of Corrections for this
grant for the purpose of continuing coordinated planning and youth
services program implementation by the City's Office on Youth until
June 30, 1990.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City of Roanoke hereby accepts the offer made by the
Commonwelath of Virginia Department of Corrections of a Delinquency
Prevention and Youth Development Act Grant for the purpose of con-
tinuing coordinated planning and youth services program implemen-
tation by the City's Office on Youth until June 30, 1990, in an
amount and subject to such terms as are described in the report to
Council from the City ~anager dated May 1, 1989.
2. The City Manager, ~. Robert Herbert, or the Assistant City
Manager, Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., is hereby authorized to accept,
execute and file on behalf of the City of Roanoke the "Special
Conditions" with the Department of Corrections for the aforemen-
tioned grant.
3. The City Manager is further directed to furnish such addi-
tional information as may be required by the Department of
Corrections in connection with the City's acceptance of the afore-
mentioned grant or with such project.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
May 1, 1989
The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Renewal of Grant Application for Office
on Youth
I. Background:
Grant first officially awarded to the City under the
Virginia Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development
Act on June 17, 1980.
Grant budget is for 12-month period, beginning July 1,
1989 through June 30, 1990.
Grant provides for continuation of coordinated planning
and program implementation for the Office on Youth.
II.
Current Situation:
A. Grant budget is as follows:
Budget Category
Local Match
State Funds Cash In-Kind Total
Personnel
Consultants
Travel
Equipment
Supplies and Other
Operating Expenses
$37,712 $ -0- $37,712
-0- -0- -0-
995 1,400 2,395
-0- -0- -0-
-0- 8,600 3,000 11,600
Total
38,707 10,000 3,000 51,707
Funding for local cash match in the amount of $10,000
has been included in the FY89-90 Community Planning
budget account no.001 052 8110 9536.
Members of Council
Page 2
May 1, 1989
III. Issues:
IV.
A. Cost.
B. Continuity.
C. Staff.
D. Impact on future City budgets.
Alternatives:
Authorize the City Manager to submit the Youth Services
Grant to the State Department of Corrections.
Cost (local) of Office on Youth in FY89-90 is
$10,000, which has been included in the FY89-90
Community Planning budget.
2. Continuity of program would be maintained.
Staff, consisting of Youth Planner and part-time
secretary, has been hired under the direction of
the Office of Community Planning.
Impact on future City budgets would mean continued
City cost of 25% of total projected budgeted for
the Office on Youth.
Do not authorize the City Manager to submit the Youth
Services Grant to the State Department of Corrections.
1. Cost would not be an issue at this time.
2. Continuity would be questionable.
Staff, consisting of Youth Planner and part-time
secretary, would be contingent upon the
availability of another funding source.
Impact on future City budgets would be the
possibility of more than the 25% contribution
towards maintenance of the program.
Members of Council
Page 3
May 1, 1989
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council adopt Alternative A
which will authorize the City Manager and the Director of
Finance to execute and forward the grant application to the
Department of Corrections. If awarded, the grant will be
presented to City Council for acceptance and fund
appropriation.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:mpf
attachment
cc: Assistant City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Human Resources
Director of Public Works
Chief, Office of Community Planning
Chairman, Youth Services Citizen Board
Office of ~e Ci~ Cier~
~tay 3, 1989
File .
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 29533 authorizing execution
of a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority pertaining to the administra-
tion of a Rental Rehabilitation Program as described in a report
of the City Manager under date of May I, 1989, which Ordinance
No. 29533 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting held on Monday, May 1, 1989.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc,
pc:
Mr. Herbert D. McBride, Executive Director, Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 2624 Salem Turnpike,
N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017
~r. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner/Zoning
Administrator
Mr. Daniel H. Pollock, Housing Development Coordinator
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator
ROOm 456 Municii:x:ll Building 215 C~urch Avenue SW Roanoke. ~rg~nia 2401 '~ (703) 981-254'~
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 1st day of May, 1989.
No. 29533.
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the execution of a Memorandum of Under-
standing with the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
pertaining to the administration of a Rental Rehabilitation Program;
and providing for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the
City Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to execute
and attest, respectively, the requisite Memorandum of Understanding
with the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority per-
taining to the administration of a Rental Rehabilitation Program,
as requested and described in the City Manager's report to Council
dated May 1, 1989; such Memorandum of Understanding to be approved
as to form by the City Attorney.
2. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordi-
nance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
k
Roanoke, Virginia
May l, 1989
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: I988 Rental Rehabilitation Program - Execution of Memorandum of
Understanding With RRHA
I. Background
Rental Rehabilitation Program is a cooperative program among the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the City, and the
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA), to encourage reha-
bilitation of privately-owned rental property in targeted neighborhoods.
B. Roanoke received its 1988 Program allocation of $1#2,000 from HUD in
August 1988. Program's design at that time provided that:
Funds from HUD would be loaned to property owners to pay one-third
of rehabilitation costs, as a no-interest loan, to be repaid in one
lump sum after l0 years; and
The balance of rehabilitation costs would be loaned to property-
owners by the RRHA, from a $350~000 loan made to the RRHA by the
Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) ca 7% for l0 years.
Detailed provisions of $350~000 loan from VHDA to RRHA, were determined
to be unacceptable to administrative staff of the City and RRHA.
Negotiations with VHDA did not produce acceptable terms for this loan
until recently.
II. Current Situation
A. General agreement with VHDA has now been reached and provides that:
1. VHDA will set $350~000 aside for use in conjunction with Roanoke's
HUD-funded Rental Rehabilitation Program;
VHDA will loan its funds directly to property owners for rehabili-
tation and possibly acquisition or refinancing under the Program.
Therefore, the RRHA and City are not borrowing or lending the funds
and are not accountable for them. However;
R'RHA and City will select properties to receive loans with VHDA's
approval, and will package VHDA loan applications, oversee rehabi-
litation, and generally administer the Program; and
/~. VHDA will service its own loans, i.e. receive payments, keep its
own accounting, be responsible for delinquencies and defaults, etc.
May 1, 1989
Page 2
Bo
Technic~lly~ Roanoke's Rental Rehabilitation Program will consist of
the loans for one-third of rehabilitation costs, from HUD funds, with
the applying property-owner taking responsibility for matching with
other financing. Practically, however, most property-owners are
expected to take advantage of the attractive terms of VHDA's supplemen-
tal loans, which will enhance dramatically the rehab feasibility of
many projects, while enabling the City/RRHA loans to be repaid after l0
years.
Execution of a Memorandum of Understanding with the RRHA is necessary
to specify the arrangements between that agency and the City for
implementation of the Program, now that agreement has been reached
with VHDA on that agency's role in the financing process.
III.
Issues
A. Impact on neighborhood revitalization
g. Housing opportunities for disadvantaged citizens
C. Cost to the City
D. Timing
IV. Alternatives
Authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understandinr,
(Attachment) with the RRHA for administration of the 1988 Rental
Rehabilitation Program, the Memorandum to be approved as to form by the
City Attorney.
Impact on neighborhood revitalization would be positive. The
Program will result in more than $¢26~000 of complete rehabilita-
tion to 22-28 rental units. In addition, the $1#2~000 from HUD
eventually will be repaid to the City for other rehabilitation pro-
jects in the future.
Housing opportunities for disadvantaged citizens will be enhanced,
as all units renovated using VHDA funds will be occupied by low-
moderate income tenants for the life of the VHI)A loan for the pro-
perty.
Cost to the City will be nothing. The $1#2~000 grant from HUD is
reserved to the City, requires no City matching funds, and is drawn
on by the RRHA as the administering agent. The VHDA funds reserved
to the Program do not constitute an obligation of the City and will
not require a match of any funds from the City other than the HUD
funds for the Program. Administration of the Program in this
fiscal year is provided for by the contract for services between
the RRHA and the City, and will be accomplished with existing
staff, paid with CI)BG funds.
t~. ~ is such that the Program can be advertised immediately. The
oegmmn$ and ending dates of the 1988 Program are specified in
paragraph 9 of the memorandum of understanding (Attachment).
May l, 1989
Page 3
15. Do not authorize the execution of the Memorandum of Understandinl; with
the RRHA for the Rental Rehabilitation Program.
Impact on neighborhood revitalization would be negative.
Approximately 25 substandard rental units in l0 - 15 buildings would
continue to deteriorate, have a blighting effect on neighborhoods,
and pose health and safety hazards to occupants and/or the public.
~tousing opportunities for disadvantaged citizens would be hindered,
in that low-income families would have fewer decent housing
opportunities for rent.
Cost to the City would be increased due to lost tax revenue from the
upgraded buildings, and to the staff attention required by substandard
housing. Alternative arrangements would have to be made for admi-
nistration of the HUD-funded Program, for which City staffing is
inadequate.
Timing is such that il much more delay is experienced in beginning
the 1988 Program, HUD could recapture the $142,000 allocation,
taking it away from the City.
V. Recommendation
Adopt Alternative A, thereby authorizing the City Manager to execute the
Memorandum of Understanding (Attachment) with the RRHA for the administra-
tion of the 1988 Rental Rehabilitation Program, such Memorandum to be
approved as to form by the City Attorney.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:HDP:bc
Attachment
CC**
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Building Commissioner
Housing Development Coordinator
Grants Monitoring Administrator
Executive Director~ RRHA
(CR.6)
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
RENTAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Fiscal Year 1988
This Memorandum of Understanding (Memorandum) is between the City of
Roanoke (Grantee), and the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority (RRHA). This memorandum sets forth the understandings of the
parties concerning the Grantee's Rental Rehabilitation Program (Program)
approved by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) per-
suant to Section 17 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (t~2 USC 1~37o),
and supported by funding from the Virginia Housing Development Authority
(VHDA).
The Grantee has received $1t~2,000 from HUD in Federal Fiscal Year 1988 for
its Program to finance the rehabilitation of rental properties for the benefit
of lower-income families. VHDA has agreed to reserve $350,000 to be loaned in
conjuction with the Program. The Grantee and the RRHA hereby agree as follows:
1. The Grantee and the RRHA cooperatively will administer the Program in
accordance with:
a. Section 17 and other applicable Federal laws; and
b. the regulations in 2t~ CFR Part 311; and
c. the Program description submitted to and approved by HUD and
attached hereto.
The Grantee and the RRHA will establish a program management team
(Team) to include at least the following:
H. Wesley White, 3r., Land Planning/Subsidized Housing Director
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
P. O. Box 6359
Roanoke, Virginia 2t~017
(703) 983-920#
H. Daniel Pollock, 3r., Housing Development Coordinator
Room 170, Municipal Building
213 Church Avenue S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 2t~011-1392
(703) 981-2221
RRHA Rehabilitation Inspector
,Viemorandum of Understanding
Page 2
The Team cooperatively will select the residential projects to be reha-
bilitated under the Program, using the minimum guidelines of the
Program and the Evaluation Scale defined in the Program description.
The RRHA shall perform inspections of projects before eligibility is
determined and any tentative commitment is made. The RRHA will also
obtain verifications of necessary information on projects receiving
initial approvals, but before the Team issues a financing commitment
to that project.
Upon selection of a project, the RRHA shall issue a financing commit-
ment contingent upon the applicant's obtaining or providing the balance
of the funds needed for project completion. If the applicant wishes to
obtain VHDA financing, the RRHA will assist the applicant to package a
loan application to VHDA, including verifications, information, etc.
obtained by the RRHA earlier. '
3. The RRHA shall make deferred payment loans from HUD funds to owners
selected properties who obtain or provide the necessary supplemental
financing, in accordance with the Program description.
6. The RRHA shall perform inspections periodically during rehabilitation
as necessary to have rehabilitation completed according to schedules
established with the property owner, and to insure work performed is in
accordance with the approved work write-up, building code requirements,
and Housing Quality Standards. The RRHA will also periodically verify
continued compliance of the project with the Deed of Trust held by the
RRHA on the property as a condition of the rehabilitation subsidy.
7. The RRHA agrees to determine the eligibility for rental assistance via
Housing Vouchers and/or Certificates of the families residing in the
projects approved to be rehabilitated under the Program, as required by
HUD and policies of the RRHA.
8. The RRHA shall report monthly to the Grantee the progress of the
Program, including the applications received , and the status of their
review, approval, funding, rehabilitation and completion.
9. The time of performance for the marketing, eligibility verification,
rehabilitation inspections, and making of deferred payment loans shall
be from the date of execution of this agreement until the earlier of
the following:
a. the available $1t~2,000 is exhausted
b. HUD withdraws Program funds from the Grantee) or
c. 3uly 1~ 1989, unless extended by the terms of a separate
contract for services between the Grantee and the RRHA for a
time beyond 3une 30, 1989.
Memorandum of Understanding
Page 3
BY,'
10. The time of performance for verification of compliance of each project
with the Deed of Trust extended as a condition of the rehabilitation
subsidy shall be the ten-year term of each Deed of Trust held by the
RRHA.
11. To the extent that the rehabilitation subsidy funds are repaid to the
RRHA by owners of property receiving such funds, the RRHA will return
such funds to the Grantee.
For the Grantee:
City Manager Date
For the RRHA:
Executive Director Date
FEOERAL ASSISTANCE
,, 88 05 18
:~"'~'"~'~ity of Roanoke
Office of the City Manager
215 Church Avenue SW
Roanoke ..r~
VA ,m,~--. 24011
funds to the City to subsidize rehabilitation
of rental property to be principally occupied by low
income tenants.
City of Roanoke, Virginia
25,000
(liN)
Rehabilitation Pro(
~Mmmm~
701 East Franklin Street
Richmond, VA 23219
.Rental Rehabilitation Program
I. Background
Roanoke is a city of approximately 100,000 citizens housed in
dwelling units. Like most cities, Roanoke has had periods of rapid growth
and of stability. The last 30 years has been a time of maturation for the
City.
Compared to the Roanoke metropolitan area, the City's housing stack is
relatively old, more likely to be rental property, and more likely to be in
need of repair.
Two-thirds of all housing units in the City are more than 25 years old.
Almost half are more than ~5 years old. ~!/ith age comes the need for
substantial repairs or renovations and more diligent preventive main-
tenance. Because of the expense, many owners have deferred taking these
measures~ without which the houses have tended to deteriorate at an acce-
lerating pace. The too frequent result of this can be seen in the figures
for vacant housing units (about 2,600) and values of single-family houses
(20% are assessed at less than S20,000; 7% at less than SI0,000.)
The City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
have administered a variety of neighborhood revitalization programs over
recent years. Most of these programs and the funds allocated to them have
been targeted toward the rehabilitation of owner-occupied houses in neigh-
borhoods designated as Conservation Areas or Rehabilitation Districts under
Virginia law. This concentration has begun to have a significant positive
effect in these neighborhoods.
However, a large proportion of the housing stock in the aforementioned
areas is rental property (50!t~, compared to 39% City-wide), of which a
sizable percentage are in fair to poor condition. The incentive for pri-
vate investments to be made in owner-occupied homes in these neighborhoods
is weakened by nearby rental units in disrepair. It is obvious that the
upgrading of deteriorated rental property must be a critical element of
overall neighborhood revitalization.
Past and current programs for rehabilitation of rental property have con-
sisted of Section 8/Moderate Rehabilitation and Substantial Rehabilitation/
Public Housing. While each of these programs has contributed to the improve-
ment of housing stock, neither is designed to encourage a strong role by
the private~ unsubsidized rental market in neighborhood revitalization.
The Rental Rehabilitation Program described herein is designed to attract
private investment while maintaining flexibility in an area's housing
market, by the direct rehabilitation of 20-22 rental housing units that may
be occupied by lower income families. Indirectly, the improvement of these
units will encourage maintenance and repair to other rental and owner-
occupied buildings nearby.
Rental Rehabilitation Program
Page 2
II. Pro,ram Design
A. Form of Rehabilitation Subsidy
The City's Rental Rehabilitation Program will offer a complete financing
package, blending Rental Rehabilitation Program funds with loan funds made
available by Virginia Housing Development Authority from the Virginia
Housing Fund. Specifically, the arrangements will be as follows..
'1. Rental Rehabilitation Program funds from HUD's program aUocation
will finance one-third of rehabilitation costs, up to the per-unit
limits HUD allows, l'his supplement will be in the form of a
deferred payment loan (DPL) with a balloon payment in either 5 or
10 years, depending on the financing option chosen by the applicant
property-owner (3a and 3b below).
2. Loans from VHD^'s Virginia Housing Fund will be used for the
balance of the rehabilitation, and for purchase i! one is involved,
the financial figures allow, and the applicant wishes.
3. Loans from the Housing Fund will be made under two Scenarios, at
the option of the applicant:
a) ^ 20-year amortization with a balloon payment after 5 years.
The HUD Program funding would also have a balloon payment due
5 years.
b) A 10-year amortization. The HUD Program funding would have a
10-year balloon.
Following is a comparison of these two arrangements for a typical duplex
2-bedroom units, receiving 530,000 rehabilitation:
Alternative A: 20-year amortization with a balloon payment in ~ years
520,000 loan from VHD^ (a 74~ 20-year term 515§/month
510,000 Program DPL~ 5-year ballnn., 0
~4onthly payment for first ) years -' ~155/month
After 5 years, refinance remaining principal of 517,260 + 510,000 from
Program DPL to meet balloon payments (e.g. assume 134 for 10-year term
= 5~07/month after 1st § years)
Alternative R: 10-year
10 years amortization~ balloon payment on Program DPL in
$20,000 loan from VHD^ 0 74, 10-year term 5232/month
$10,000 Program DPL! 10-year
~onthly payment for Zirst 10 years-~' 0
~232/month
~fter lO years, refinance 510,000 from Program DPL to meet balloon
payment (e.g. assume 13~ for )-year term = 5228~month after 1st 10 years)
Rental Rehabilitation Program
Page 3
Offering these two options will increase the flexibility of the Program to
fit the personal investment obiectives of the applicant, whether of maximum
immediate cash flow or of equity appreciation. It also may increase the
probability that the Program may be applied beneficially to a wider variety
of properties. Of major importance to the City is the eventual return of
Program funds for reuse, either in 5 or 10 years.
B. General Conditions
I. Each unit subsidized must be located in an area designated as eli-
gible for the Program (see Section IIC following).
2. Each unit subsidized under the Program must be substandard
according to either Section 8 Housing Quality Standards (HQS) or
the City's Building Code.
3. Minimum loan underwriting criteria will be established for pro-
jects to be financed under the Program, relating to:
--Loan-to-Value ratios
--Income and cash flow
--Personal financial condition of the applicant.
¢. Each unit subsidized under the Program must be renovated to at
least Section 8 HQS and qualify for a Certificate of Occupancy from
the City Building Department. As part of the rehabilitation,
improvement of the exterior appearance of the building will be con-
sidered a priority.
5. Any unit rehabilitated under the Program must receive work costing
at least $6,000.
Each unit must be maintained at least to Section 8 HQS and
Certificate of Occupancy standards for the term of the DPL, whether
occupied by Section 8 tenants or not.
No unit subsidized under the Program may be converted to a con-
dominium or cooperative for the term of the DPL.
There may be no discrimination against a prospective tenant because
of receipt of or eligibility for housing assistance, or because of
residence with a minor child, for the term of the DPL.
Each property owner will agree to comply with applicable require-
ments for nondiscrimination and "affirmative marketing" of units
rehabilitated under the Program for the term of the DPL. Guide-
lines and procedures for property-owners will be developed jointly
by the City and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, to
insure that each owner is aware of his/her obligations in this
regard. (See Attachments to this Program Description.)
Rental Rehabilitation Program
Page ~
Areas of ~
The Rental Rehabilitation Program will be offered in the areas shown on
the attached map, including the following neighborhoods:
Gainsboro Conservation Area
Gilnler Avenue Conservation Area
Harrison Avenue Conservation Area
Hurt Park Conservation Area
Belmont Conservation Area
Highland Park Conservation Area
Loudon Avenue Rehabilitation District
Melrose Rehabilitation District
Fallon Park Rehabilitation District
Morningside Rehabilitation District
Kenwood Rehabilitation Distr~ct
· ashmgton Park Neighborhood
In general, each o~ these neighborhoods has a si8ni~icant degree of
housing deterioration, especially of rental property. The Rental
Rehabilitation Program is expected to make a valuable contribution to
the revitalization of these older neighborhoods.
Each of these areas meets the criteria established by program regula-
tions, as follo~s~
Median incomes not exceeding 80% of median income for the Roanoke
area. According to the 1980 census, the median household income in
the Roanoke SMSA was 515,11i), of which 801~ was 512,895. The median
income of each o! these neighborhoods was below this figure and
ranged from S6,sl~ to 511,750.
Rents affordable to lower income families~ The ii)BO Census reports
that these neighborhoods had median contract rents between S7B and
SI3G, compared to city-wide median of SI§0. Gross rents,
including estimated costs of utilities) ranged from 5155 to 52~)0.
At the same time) the Section 8 Fair Market Rents, including uti-
lity allowances) were S265 for a two-bedroom unit, and 5306 for a
three-bedroom unit. At this time, the prevailing rents, with uti-
lities, in these areas are in the S250-S~00 range, with few beyond
this range.
Expected rent stabilit),. While each of the eligible neighborhoods
has experienced rehabilitation of some buildings in recent years,
there is no evidence of significant "gentrification" or rapidly
rising property values or rents, or displacement that might be
associated. There are no known significant developments planned in
any of these areas that would cause the rents to increase dramati-
cally in the next five years.
Rental Rehabilitation Program
Page 5
D. Selection. Criteria
Program applicants satisfying the basic general conditions listed
earlier will be selected competitively based on a number of con-
siderations. The 100-point evaluation scale, outlined below, will give
priority to projects involving lower income or very low income tenants,
larger apartments, and small buildings.
Evaluation Scale
Factor
Current Occupancy:
Very low income families
Lower income tenant
Vacant
Tenant not of lower income
Size of Unit(s):
Three bedrooms or more
Two bedrooms
One bedroom
Number of Units in Building:
Two to four units
Single unit building
Five to seven units
Loan to Value Ratio (with rehabilitation financing): (15)
60% or less
61% - 85%
86%- 100%
SCore
(20)
20
10
10
0
(15)
15
10
0
15
0
Cash Flow--The proportion of debt service payments as a part
of the projected feasible rental income (15)
Less than 60%
60% - 70%
71% - 80~
General Desirability (considering impact on
community revitalization, consistency with
program goals, etc.)
15
10
0
15
10
0
_,,(20)
100
In some cases, the scoring of some factors will have to be "prorated.', For
example, a triplex with two two-bedroom units and one single bedroom unit
would be rated 7 in the Size of Units category.
Rental Rehabilitation Program
Page 6
The Evaluation Scale will be applied as long as it is effective in meeting
the requirements of program regulations. However, if it appears that some
requirements will not be met, e.g. 70~ of the units assisted being of two
or more bedrooms, or that a high-rated application just is not suitable for
the Program, application of the scale may be compromised to insure
compliance with Program requirements and objectives.
This scale will be applied to those applications received during the ini-
tial application period and is based on the expectation that more applica-
tions will be received than can be funded. If this does not prove to be
the case, a minimum acceptable score will be established (e.g. a score of
50) and applications meeting or exceeding this minimum score will be pro-
cessed and approved as they are received, consistent with the intent of the
program.
The Program design and use of the Evaluation Scale address several of the
mandates of the Program~ as follows:
Lower income benefit...The Current Occupancy factor gives priority to units
occupied by iow or very low income tenants~ or vacant units into which
lower income tenants might locate after rehabilitation. In addition, this
will be monitored through the processing of applications to insure maximum
feasible benefit to lower income. However~ it is expected that some
buildings whose rehabilitation would be valuable to the community as well
as low income tenants may also have some units occupied by tenants not of
lower income. The displacement of such tenants is to be avoided in the
interest of neighborhood stability as well as fairness to the individual.
To deal with such instances of high priority to a neighborhood and to allow
~or unforeseeable circumstances~ the City requests reduction of the 100%
lower income benefit standard to 70~. This request is pursuant to infor-
mation and input received from resident organizations of affected neigh-
borhoods, apartment owners~ and agencies serving lower income clientele.
(See also Section IV A.)
Housing for families.. The Size of Unit(s) factor gives heavy priority to
projects with two, three~ or more bedrooms. This item too will be moni-
tored as applications are processed~ to insure that at least 70~ of rehabi-
litation funds are used Ior large units. Characteristics of rental housing
stock in the eligible neighborhoods indicate this standard will be met
easily.
Substandard units occupied by very low-income familia : All units
receiving ass[stance under the Program must be substandard. Those
currently occupied by families of very low income are afforded greater
weight by the Evaluation Scale (see "Lower income benefit" above in this
section).
Efficient use of Pro,ram fund,.. The Program design will leverage at least
two dollars of private funds for rehabilitation from the Virginia Housing
Fund for every dollar of subsidy. In addition Program funds will revolve
Rental Rehabilitation Program
Page 7
back to the City for reuse in 5 or 10 years, depending on the financing
option selected by the property-owner. The terms of the financing package
(i.e. low interest rate on the bulk of the financing, deferred payment loan
on the remainder) is expected to be attractive to investor owners.
Financial feasibility: Each DPL provided by the Program will be secured by
a deed of trust on the property. The total of all indebtedness against the
property, including the DPL, may not exceed 95% of the appraised after-
rehab value. A11 approved projects must also show a positive cash flow
with a margin for maintenance, vacancy loss and contingencies. Priority
wi1! be given to properties with lower loan-to-value ratios and more com-
fortable cash flow margins, thereby showing stronger financial feasibility
and greater incentive to the property owner to abide by the terms of the
DPL (e.g. maintenance of the property to Section g standards).
Each applicant will be counseled that the Program design is such that the
feasibility of the rehabilitation must be based on market, unsubsidized
rents, and that if proiected cash flow is not sufficient without subsidized
rents, the rehabilitation may not be feasible.
III. Administrative Organization and Procedurc~:
The Rental Rehabilitation Program will be administered jointly by the City
and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA). The RRHA has
agreed to cooperate with the City in the administration of the Program,
through the administration of the financing package as well as Housing
Voucher and/or the Section 8 rent subsidies that may apply directly or
indirectly to the Program. A program management team will be formed to
include at least the following:
H. Wesley White, 3r., Land Planning/Subsidized Housing Director
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
P.O. ~)ox 6329
Roanoke, Virginia 2~017
703-983-920(~
Dan Pollock, Housing Development Coordinator
Room 170, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 2~011
703-981-2221
RRHA Rehabilitation Inspector
The program management team will be responsible for generat program admi-
nistration and assignment of specific tasks, including:
Rental Rehabilitation Program
Page 8
Program Publicity, Marketing~ and Outreach: The principal point of
contact for Program information will be the RRHA.
Receipt and Initial Screening of Preliminary Proposals.: Preliminary
proposals will contain basic information about the project, such as
location, number and size of units to be rehabilitated, general
description and estimation of cost of repairs, current indebtedness
that will remain on the property, projected rental income and expenses,
characteristics of current occupants, etc. These basic proposals will
be submitted to the RRHA, who will immediately review each upon its
receipt to determine completeness and basic eligibility.
Preliminary Property Inspection: The rehabilitation inspector will
perform a cursory inspection of each unit proposed to be rehabilitated
under the Program, to verify that the units are substandard and in need
of repair.
Prioritization: If sufficient proposals are received after advertise-
ment of the Program to require competitive ranking, the program manage-
ment team will apply the Evaluation Scale to determine which proposals
appear to be best suited to the intent of the Program. If there are
not enough eligible proposals to exhaust the funds allocated, the team
will determine whether each proposal meets minimum requirements.
Tentative commitments will be issued to those receiving the highest
rankings or meeting minimum standards, contingent on verifications of
information presented. The RRHA then will request the necessary finan-
cial verifications and direct the applicant to obtain an appraisal of
after-rehab value and a complete detailed set of plans, specifications,
and contractor's bids.
Final Review and Selection: The program management team will review
the application packages to verify the eligibility and feasibility of
the project. This review will include the rehabilitation inspector
verifying that the rehabilitation work specified in the proposal is
appropriate and sufficient to meet Building Code and Section HQS stan-
dards. When determined that the proposal meets the criteria for the
Program, arrangements will be made to close the loans, escrow the reha-
bilitation financing, and begin the rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation: Arrangement for rehabilitation work to be performed
will primarily be the responsibility ol the applicant property owner.
Periodic in-progress inspections will be made by the rehabilitation
inspector.~ relative to compliance with the work write-up and work-
manship standards, and by City building inspector(s), to assure
compliance with code requirements. Final inspections will be performed
by a Section 8 housing inspector (to verify compliance with Section 8
Housing Quality Standards), a City building inspector (to confirm
Certificate of Occupancy quality), and the rehabilitation inspector.
Rental Rehabilitation Program
Page 9
Post-Rehabilitation Monitoring,; Property owners will be asked to sub-
mit brief periodic (probably quarterly) reports of the status of each
project, especially concerning rents and tenants. Blank report forms
will be sent by the RRHA to the owner for completion and return. In
addition, on at least an annual basis, a Section 8 housing inspector,
rehabilitation inspector, or City building inspector will perform an
on-site inspection to verify that each unit is maintained in accordance
with the terms of the DPL.
The tentative timetable for the Program is as follows:
Approval of Program funding
Approval of Virginia Housing Fund
allocation for Program
Advertise for proposals
Screen proposals and perform
initial inspections
Select first high priority projects per
Evaluation Scale; request financial
verifications, etc.
Verifications received and first
financing packages approved
Hold first loan closings
Begin first rehabilitation
by end of 3une
by end of 3uly
by end of August
by end of September
by mid October
by mid November
by end of November
December 1988
It is
projects according to the following schedule-.
First Quarter (3uly - September 1988)
Second Quarter (October- December 1988)
Third Quarter (3anuary - March 1989)
Fourth Quarter (April - 3une 1989)
expected the Program subsidy funds wil! be committed to specified
0
$ 50,000
67,000
25~000
$1a2,000
Rental Rehabilitation Program
Page lO
IV. Certilications='
A. Public Consultation=
The proposed Rental Rehabilitation Program has been presented and
discussed with representatives of resident organizations of neigh-
borhoods affected, public and private non-profit agencies concerned
with housing issues of lower income tenants, and organizations of ren-
tal property owners, as well as many individuals, This Program design
reflects concerns, attitudes, and expectations expressed from these
quarters, Also as a result of these public consultations, the City
requests reduction of the lower income benefit standard to 70%, in
order to avoid displacement of tenants in otherwise high priority pro-
jects, to provide for unexpected contingencies that cannot be foreseen
in the rental property markets of eligible neighborhoods, and to allow
for unexpectedly low rehabilitation expenses resulting in more units
rehabilitated than Housing Vouchers or Section g certificates awarded,
Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity=
The City and the RRHA will provide detailed guidelines to applicant
owners describing their obligations for fair housing practices, These
may include procedures to notify the RRHA and other community or ser-
vice agencies of vacancies, posting of Equal Housing Opportunity logo-
type of premises, public advertisement of vacancies, etc. These
requirements will be conditions of the deed of trust for the DPC.
Evidence of compliance will be examined by the RRHA at least annually,
at the time of on-site inspection. Violation of fair housing and non-
discrimination provisions will be grounds for requiring payment of the
DPL as specified in the deed of trust.
Tenant Assistance Policy=
All reasonable efforts will be made to avoid involuntary displacement
of tenants due to rent increases, especially tenants of lower income.
Tenants who would have to pay more than 30% of their adjusted income
for rent after rehab will be offered rental assistance. In no case
will a very low income family be displaced involuntarily by a tenant
not o! very low income. Any low-income tenant who is eligible for
Section 8 or Housing' Voucher assistance will be given preference for
such assistance to stay in the renovated unit or to find adequate
housing elsewhere.
Each tenant in a unit to be rehabilitated under the Program will be
counseled about the effect of the rehabilitation on him/her. The RRHA
will insure that information is provided to all tenants, and individual
counseling afforded to all those in jeopardy of being displaced invo-
luntarily. This counseling will at least include descriptions of
alternative housing opportunities, ways to search for suitable
Rental Rehabilitation Program
Page l !
alternative arrangements~ and tenant rights under the Federal Fair
Housing law. Direct referrals to other apartments also may be made.
No tenant offered decent, safe, and sanitary housing at an affordable
rent (as defined in 2q CFR 511.10[hlrt]) will be considered to be
displaced. Any tenant displaced involuntarily by the Rental
Rehabilitation Program shall receive priority consideration for
available Section 8 Certificates, Housing Vouchers and public housin8
units administered by the RRHA.
D. Neighborhood Preservationz
Rehabilitation of rental property without displacement of current resi-
dents will enhance the preservation and revitalization of affected
neighborhoods. The improvement of rental properties will supplement
substantial investments made in owner-occupied homes over the last few
years.
Rehabilitation proposed in parts of the Hurt Park and Highland Park
Conservation Areas designated the Southwest Historic District will be
reviewed for sensitivity to historic preservation, in accordance with
the Memorandum of Agreement with the Virginia Division of Historic
Landmarks.
E. Compliance with Applicable Regulations:
Administration of the Rental Rehabilitation Program will comply with
all applicable federa! regulations and requirements, including but not
limited to those concerning nondiscrimination and equal opportunity, as
identified in 2~ CFR 5II.!0(m).
F. Authority to Apply.'
The City and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority are
legally authorized to develop and administer housing rehabilitation and
rent subsidy programs within the City, such as this Rental
Rehabilitation Program.
RENTAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND NONDISCRIMINATION POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
General Policy: It is the Policy of the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) to administer the Rental
Rehabilitation Program so that individuals of similar income have similar
available housing choices, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, or handicap. Each property owner applying for participation in the
Rental Rehabilitation Program shall agree to avoid any discrimination on the
basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or handicap, and shall
agree to market their vacant rental units in good faith to inform and attract
eligible tenants from all racial, ethnic, and gender groups.
A. The RRHA shall give a copy of these Policies and Guidelines to the
following:
1. Applicant property owners.
2. Current tenants and tenants applying to the RRHA for housing
rehabilitated under the Program.
Social service agencies, including Total Action Against Poverty
(TAP), League of Older Americans (LOA), Legal Aid Society, and
Roanoke Neighborhood Alliance.
#. Resident organizations of affected/eligible neighborhoods.
General public, upon request.
In addition, all advertisements, press releases, information packages,
application forms, and written communications prepared by the RRHA
relative to the Rental Rehabilitation Program shall include the Equal
Housing Opportunity logo or statement.
If the participating property owner wishes) the RRHA shall refer
holders of Section 8 certificates or housing vouchers to the rehabili=
rated property for possible occupancy. As pi'ovided in 2g CFR
5 t t. 10 (m) (2), to the extent rent-subsidized tenants occupy Rental
Rehabilitation units, other affirmative marketing procedures will not
be required of the property owner. For any occupancy other than by
tenants holding rental subsidy authorizations, the property owner must
follow the procedures established in Section C (infra).
Other than as allowed in Section B (supra), each participating property
owner shall seek to attract tenants regardless of race, color, reli-
gion, sex, national origin, or handicap, of ail minority and majority
groups, especially those unlikely to apply without special outreach, to
units vacant after rehabilitation or that later become vacant. These
marketing efforts shall include, at a minimum, the following:
^dvertisement of any and all vacancies in the Roanoke Times and
World News and the Roanoke Tribune, such advertisement to include
the Equal Housing Opportunity logo or statement. Such adver-
tisements will specify that vacant units are available for, but not
limited to, Section 8 tenants.
Notification to the RRHA and TAP of any and all vacancies. This
notice will be forwarded by the RRHA to other service agencies and
organizations. The RRHA may notify people on the Section 8,
Housing Voucher, and public housing waiting lists of the vacancy.
Posting of Equal Housing Opportunity poster, provided by the RRHA,
on vacant premises and rental offices, if existing.
Documentation: Each participating property owner shall document affir-
mative marketing, such records to include the following:
1. Copies of all advertisements, notices, and other outreach for all
vacancies.
2. A log of all contacts with potential tenants, including race, sex,
approximate age, and reasons for not accepting as tenants.
Quarterly reports to the RRHA, in a format provided by the RRHA,
regarding the occupancy of all assisted units and marketing
activities for any vacancies.
The RRHA shall keep records including the following:
I. A log of vacancies reported by owners.
2. Copies or other evidence of notices regarding the Program and
vacancies sent to agencies and/or organizations by the RRH^.
3. A log of referrals made to vacant units, including race, sex, and
approximate age.
Copies of advertisements placed by owners.
5. Records of characteristics of tenants occupying units, including
race, sex, and approximate age.
Assessment: The RRHA shall use the quarterly reports filed by property
owners to verify compliance with affirmative marketing and Equal
l~ousing Opportunity requirements. In addition, the RRH^ and/or the
City may make other periodic inspections of the property owner's
records concerning tenants and marketing activities, or ask for other
information about the same.
Violations: Failure to comply with Equal Opportunity, Nondiscrimina-
tion, or Affirmative Marketing requirements will result in a written
notice from the RRHA to the property owner that specific provisions of
the Deed of Trust between the two parties have been violated, defining
what corrective actions, if any, are to be taken, and advising that
further violations or failure to take the prescribed actions may
require repayment of the Deferred Payment Loan and/or other financing
provided.
Office of ~he Ciiy CJe~
~ay 3, 1989
Fi le ~
~r. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance Ho. 29534 accepting a Rental
Rehabilitation Program Grant from the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development, and authorizing execution of the
requisite grant agreement and the HUD funding Approval Form,
which Ordinance No. 29534 was adopted by the Council of the City
of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, May 1, 1989.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
pc: Mr. Herbert D. McBride, Executive Director, Roanoke
Redevelopment and Rousing Authority, 2624 Salem Turnpike,
H. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Co.vnissioner/Zoning
Administrator
Mr. Oaniel H. Pollock, Housing Development Coordinator
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator
Room 456 Municipal Building 21§ C~urch Avenue S.W Roanoke, 'virg,nia 240t t (703) 98t-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 1st day of May, 1989.
No. 29534.
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE accepting a Rental Rehabilitation Program Grant from
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, autho-
rizing the execution of the requisite grant agreement and HUD Funding
Approval Form; and providing for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The offer of a grant for Fiscal Year 1989 from the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development in the amount of
$106,000 for rehabilitation subsidies for the City's Rental Rehabili-
tation Program is 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 grant agreement with the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development and HUD Funding
Approval Form in order to accept such grant from the said Department;
such grant agreement to be approved as to form by the City Attorney.
3. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordi-
nance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
May 1, 1989
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: 1989 Rental Rehabilitation Program - Execution of Grant
Agreement with Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
I. Background
Rental Rehabilitation Program is a cooperative program among (HUD),
the City, and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA),
to encourage rehabilitation of privately-owned rental property in
targeted neighborhoods.
HUD Program funds pay a portion of the rehabilitation cost of substan-
dard houses, with the balance of the rehabilitation paid from other
sources.
Co
Roanoke's allocations from HUD for the previous five years of the
Rental Rehabilitation Program totalled $671,300 for rehabilitation sub-
sidies. These allocations will have provided renovation to approxima-
tely 131 dwelling units in approximately 70 buildings at a cost of
approximately $2~161~000 (combined public and private funds).
Roanoke's Program designs have varied over recent years, depending on
available financing for the non-HUD funded rehabilitation·
For the first ~ years of the Program (198#-87) City's allocations
from HUD paid one-third of rehabilitation costs, but because
property-owners had to rely on conventional financing for the
balance, the HUD funds were not expected to be repaid.
1988 Program design (subject of separate report) includes supple-
mental financing from VHDA 0 7% interest over 10 years. This
allows the HUD funds to be provided for one-third of the cost as a
0% interest loan with a lump sum repayment to the City after 10
years.
3. 1989 Program design, submitted to HUD in January (Attachment A) is
based on obtaining supplemental funds from the Virginia Housing
Partnership Fund, generally at 6% interest over 15 years. Such an
allocation of funds, which will be applied for later this spring,
will allow the HUD funds to be loaned for up to one-half of the
rehabilitation costs [a 0% interest repayable monthly over 10 years.
(See Attachment A, Section II A, "Form of Rehabilitation Subsidy".)
II. Current Situation
A. Roanoke's 1989 Program allocation from HUD is $106~000.
May 1, 1989
Page 2
Ce
City's application for 1989 Program funds has been approved by HUD.
The City must execute the Grant Agreement with HUD to accept these
funds (Attachment B).
Memorandum of Understanding with RRHA for administration ol the 1989
Program will be required. However, this will not be necessary until
arrangements are made tot supplemental financing from the Virginia
Housing Partnership Fund.
III, Issues
A. Consistency with the recommendations of the Housing Development
Strategic Plan Task Force
B. Impact on neighborhood revitalization
C. Housing opportunities for disadvantaged citizens
D. Cost to the City
E. Timing
IV. Alternatives
Authorize the City Manager to execute the Grant Agreement with HUD,
accepting the 1989 Rental Rehabilitation Program funds in the amount of
$106,000 (Attachment B), the Agreement to be approved as to form by the
City Attorney. Any additional agreements required of the City for the
Rental Rehabilitation Program will be presented separately for
Council's consideration at the appropriate times.
Consistency with the recommendations of the Housing Development
Strategic Plan Task Force would be achieved by matching and
multiplying available resources, and providing for long-term
funding through loan repayments (General Policy 5); and accepting
allocations to support rehabilitation of substandard rental units
(Goal 7, Objective A, Activity 1).
Impact on neighborhood revitalization would be positive. The
5106,000 allocation to Roanoke will support additional funds sought
from the State. When all funds from all sources are considered,
the Program should produce a total of approximately $318,000 of
rehabilitation. Approximately 18 substandard dwelling units will
be renovated under this phase of the Program. In addition, long-
term revitalization would be enhanced by repayment of HUD funds to
the City for reuse over 10 years to renovate other rental units or
for other uses approved by HUD.
May 1, 1989
Page 3
Housing opportunities for disadvantaged citizens would be enhanced
by the improvement of about 18 units that will be expected to be
reserved for low-income occupancy for 10 - 15 years.
Cost to the City will be nothing. The Program grant is reserved by
HUD for the City, and is drawn on by the RRHA as the administering
agent, but does not actually come to the City or appear in its
finances. No City matching funds are required. The City will
benefit from higher values of rehabilitated buildings.
Administration of the Program will be provided for by the contract
for services between the RRHA and the City with existing staff.
Timing is such that the Grant Agreement should be executed and
returned to HUD promptly. However, no implementation of the 1989
Program will occur until FY 1989-90, after completion of the 1988
funded Program and arrangements for supplemental financing are made
(I D (3) above).
Do not authorize the City Manager to execute the Grant Agreement with
HUD accepting the 1989 Rental Rehabilitation Program Funds. Direct the
City Manager to rescind the application submitted.
Consistency with the recommendations of the Housing Development
Strategic Plan Task Force would be violated by refusing federal
resources to improve the City's housing conditions and oppor-
tunities.
Impact on neighborhood revitalization would be negative. About 18
substandard rental units in 8 - 12 houses would continue to
deteriorate, have a blighting effect on neighborhoods, and pose
health and safety hazards.
Housing opportunities for disadvantaged citizens would be hindered,
in that about 18 fewer substandard units would be repaired to be
available for rent to low-income families.
Cost to the City would be increased due to lost tax revenue from
the upgraded buildings~ and to the staff attention required by
substandard housing.
5. Timing is such that HUB should be informed without further delay of
the City's decision.
V. Recommendation
Adopt Alternative A, thereby authorizing the City Manager to execute the
Grant Agreement with HUD accepting 1989 Rental Rehabilitation Program Funds
(Attachment B)~ the Agreement to be approved as to form by the City
Attorney.
May l, 1989
Page q
WRH:HDP:bc
Attachments
CC:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Building Commissioner
Housing Development Coordinator
Grants Monitoring Administrator
Executive Director, RRHA
(CR.9,.10)
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert: Herbert
City Manager
Rental Rehabilitation Pro,ram
Background
Roanoke is a city of approximately 100,000 citizens housed in ~2,500
dwelling units. Like most cities, Roanoke has had periods of rapid growth
and of stability. The last 30 years has been a time of maturation for the
City.
Compared to the Roanoke metropolitan area, the City's housing stock is
relatively old, more likely to be rental property, and more likely to be in
need of repair.
Two-thirds of all housing units in the City are more than 25 years old.
Almost half are more than 45 years old. ~/ith age comes the need for
substantial repairs or renovations and more diligent preventive main-
tenance. Because of the expense, many owners have deferred taking these
measures, without which the houses have tended to deteriorate at an acce-
lerating pace. The too frequent result of this can be seen in the figures
for vacant housing units (about 2,600) and values of single-family houses
(20% are assessed at less than $20,000; 7% at less than $10,000.)
The City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
have administered a variety of neighborhood revitalization programs over
recent years. Most of these programs and the funds allocated to them have
been targeted toward the rehabilitation of owner-occupied houses in neigh-
borhoods designated as Conservation Areas or Rehabilitation Districts under
Virginia law. This concentration has begun to have a significant positive
effect in these neighborhoods.
However, a large proportion of the housing stock in the aforementioned
areas is rental property (50%, compared to 39% City-wide), of which a
sizable percentage are in fair to poor condition. The incentive for pri-
vate investments to be made in owner-occupied homes in these neighborhoods
is weakened by nearby rental units in disrepair. It is obvious that the
upgrading of deteriorated rental property must be a critical element of
overall neighborhood revitalization.
Past and current programs for rehabilitation of rental property have con-
sisted of Section S/Moderate Rehabilitation and Substantial Rehabilitation/
Public Housing. ~/hile each of these programs has contributed to the improve-
ment of housing stock, neither is designed to encourage a strong role by
the private, unsubsidized rental market in neighborhood revitalization.
The Rental Rehabilitation Program described herein is designed to attract
private investment while maintaining flexibility in an area's housing
market, by the direct rehabilitation of approximately 15 rental housing
units that may be occupied by lower income families. Indirectly, the
improvement of these units will encourage maintenance and repair to other
rental and owner-occupied buildings nearby.
Rental Rehabilitation Program
Page 2
II. Program Design
A. Form of Rehabilitation Subsidy
The City's Rental Rehabilitation Program will offer a complete financing
package, blending Rental Rehabilitation Program funds with loan funds made
available by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development
from the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund. Specifically, the arrangements
will be as follows:
Loans from allocations to Roanoke from the Virginia Housing
Partnership Fund will be the source of up to two-thirds of the
rehabilitaion funds, and possibly for purchase if one is involved,
the financial figures allow, and the applicant wishes. At this
time, the limits of this funding are 510,000 for a one-bedroom
unit, 512,500 for a 2-Bedroom, and $15,000 for a 3-bedroom.
Financing of those repairs determined to be energy-conserving
will be in the form of a 0% loan forgiven over an 8-year term.
Other repairs will be financed (a 6% interest over 15 years.
Rental Rehabilitation Program funds from HUD's program allocation
will finance the balance of the rehabilitation, up to one-half of
the total rehabilitation costs or the per-unit maximum HUD allows.
This supplement will be in the form of a 0% interest loan amortized
over a 10-year term.
Following are examples of the financing package based on a duplex
of 2-bedroom units:
Scenario A (Maximum subsidies allowed):
540,000 total rehabilitation, including $5,000 energy-conserving
5 5,000 forgiveable loan for energy conserving $ 0
$20,000 loan from state funds (~ 6%, 15-yr. $169/month
515,000 loan from HUD Funds 0 0%, 10-yr. 5125/month
$29#/month
After 10 years, payment goes to $169/month for 5 years.
Scenario B:
530,000 total rehabilitation, including $2,500 energy-conserving
5 2,500 forgiveable loan for energy-conserving 5 0
517,500 loan from state funds ~ 6%, 15=yr. 51#8/month
$10,000 loan from HUD funds (~ 0%, 10-yr. 5 83/month
$231/month
After 10 years, payment goes to $1~8/month for 5 years.
With this financing package, Rental Rehabilitation Program funds
from HUD revolve back into the City for reuse over a 10-year
period, allowing the future rehabilitation of more substandard ren-
tal properties.
R.ental Rehabilitation Program
Page 3
General Conditions
Each unit subsidized must be located in an area designated as eli-
gible for the Program (see Section IIC following).
Each unit subsidized under the Program must be substandard
according to either Section 8 Housing Quality Standards (HQS) or
the City's Building Code.
Minimum loan underwriting criteria will be established for pro-
jects to be financed under the Program, relating to:
--Loan-to-Value ratios
--Income and cash flow
--Personal financial condition of the applicant.
Each unit subsidized under the Program must be renovated to at
least Section 8 HQS and be certified by the City Building
Department to be safe to occupy according to the Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code (USBC). As part of the rehabilitation,
improvement of the exterior appearance of the building will be con-
sidered a priority.
10.
Any unit rehabilitated under the Program must receive work costing
at least $6,000.
Each unit must be maintained at least to Section 8 HQS and USBC
standards for the term of the financing, whether occupied by
Section 8 tenants or not.
A portion of the units in each project will be required to be
reserved for low-income tenants according to the requirements of
the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund.
No unit rehabilitated under the Program may be converted to a con-
dominium or cooperative for the term of the financing.
There may be no discrimination against a prospective tenant because
of receipt of or eligibility for housing assistance, or because of
residence with a minor child, for the term of the financing.
Each property owner will agree to comply with applicable require-
ments for nondiscrimination and "affirmative marketing" of units
rehabilitated under the Program for the term of the financing. Guide-
lines and procedures for property-owners will be developed jointly
by the City and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, to
insure that each owner is aware of his/her obligations in this
regard. (See Attachments to this Program Description.)
Rental Rehabilitation Program
· Page ~
C. Areas of Eligibility
The
the
Rental Rehabihtat~on Program ,v~,~ u~ o..ereo ~l ~fl~
attached map, including the following neighborhoods:
~dlJboFo Conservation Area
Gdmer ~veDue Conservation Area
Harrison Avenue Conservation Area
Hurt Park ConservatLon Area
Betmont Conservanon Area
n,~ntan~ Park Conservation Area
Loudon Avenue RehaNtitation District
Metrose Rehabilitation District
Fallon Park Rehabititat~on District
Morningside Rehabilitation District
Kenwood Rehabilitation District
· ashington Park Neighborhood
In general, each of these neighborhoods has a significant degree of
housing deterioration, especially of rental property. The Rental
Rehabilitation Program is expected to make a valuable contribution to
the preservation and improvement of these older neighborhoods.
Each of these areas meets the criteria established by program regula-
tions, as follows:
Median incomes not exceeding 80% of median income for the Roanoke
area. According to the 1980 census, the median household income in
the Roanoke SMSA was 516,119, of which 80% was 512,895. The median
income of each of these neighborhoods was below this figure and
ranged from $6,51t~ to $11,750.
Rents affordable to lower income families. The 1980 Census reports
that these neighborhoods had median contract rents between 578 and
5136, compared to city-wide median of $150. Gross rents,
including estimated costs of utilities, ranged from 5155 to 52~0.
At the same time, the Section 8 Fair Market Rents, including uti-
lity allowances, were 5265 for a two-bedroom unit, and $306 for a
three-bedroom unit. At this time, the prevailing rents, with uti-
lities, in these areas are in the $250-5t+00 range, with few beyond
this range.
Expected rent stability. While each of the eligible neighborhoods
has experienced rehabilitation of some buildings in recent years,
there is no evidence of significant "gentrification" or rapidly
rising property values or rents, or displacement that might be
associated. There are no known significant developments planned in
any of these areas that would cause the rents to increase dramati-
cally in the next five years.
Rental Rehabilitation Program
Page 5
D. Selection Criteria
Program applicants satisfying the basic general conditions listed
earlier will be selected competitively based on a number of con-
siderations. The 100-point evaluation scale, outlined below, will give
priority to projects involving lower income or very low income tenants,
larger apartments, small buildings, and units accessible to and usable
by handicapped individuals.
Evaluation Scale
Factor
Current Occupancy:
Very low income iamilies
Lower income tenant
Vacant
Tenant not of lower income
Size of Unit(s):
Three bedrooms or more
Two bedrooms
One bedroom
Score
(15)
(15)
15
10
I0
0
15
10
0
Number of Units in Building:
Two to four units
Single unit building
Five to seven units
(15)
15
5
0
Loan to Value Ratio (with rehabilitation financing): (t5)
60% or less 15
61% - 85% 10
86% - 95% 0
Cash Flow--The proportion of debt service payments as a part
of the projected feasible rental income (15)
Less than 60% 15
60% - 70% 10
71% - 80% 0
General Desirability (considering impact on
community revitalization, consistency with
program goals, etc.)
Handicapped Accessibility
20
5
100
In some cases, the scoring of some factors will have to be "prorated." For
example, a triplex with two two-bedroom units and one single bedroom unit
would be rated 7 in the Size of Units category.
· ReBtal Rehabilitation Program
~age 6
The Evaluation Scale will be applied as long as it is effective in meeting
the requirements of program regulations. However, if it appears that some
requirements will' not be met, e.g. 70% of the units assisted being of two
or more bedrooms, or that a high-rated application just is not suitable for
the Program, application of the scale may be compromised to insure
compliance with Program requirements and objectives.
This scale will be applied to those applications received during the ini-
tial application period and is based on the expectation that more applica-
tions will be received than can be funded. If this does not prove to be
the case, a minimum acceptable score will be established (e.g. a score of
50) and applications meeting or exceeding this minimum score will be pro-
cessed and qualified as they are received, consistent with the intent of the
program.
The Program design and use of the Evaluation Scale address several of the
mandates of the Program, as follows:
Lower income benefit: The Current Occupancy factor gives priority to units
occupied by low or very low income tenants, or vacant units into which
lower income tenants might locate after rehabilitation. In addition, this
will be monitored through the processing of applications to insure maximum
feasible benefit to lower income. However, it is expected that some
buildings whose rehabilitation would be valuable to the community as well
as low income tenants may also have some units occupied by tenants not of
lower income. The displacement of such tenants is to be avoided in the
interest of neighborhood stability as well as fairness to the individual.
To deal with such instances of high priority to a neighborhood and to allow
for unforeseeable circumstances, the City requests reduction of the 100%
lower income benefit standard to 70%. This request is pursuant to infor-
mation and input received from resident organizations of affected neigh-
borhoods, apartment owners, and agencies serving lower income clientele.
(See also Section [V A.)
Housing for families: The Size of Unit(s) factor gives heavy priority to
projects with two, three, or more bedrooms. This item too will be moni-
tored as applications are processed, to insure that at least 70% of rehabi-
litation funds are used for large units. Characteristics of rental housing
stock in the eligible neighborhoods indicate this standard will be met
easily.
Substandard units occupied by very iow-income families: All units
receiving assistance under the Program must be substandard. Those
currently occupied by families of very low income are afforded greater
weight by the Evaluation Scale (see "Lower income benefit" above in this
section).
Efficient use of Program funds: The Program design is expected to leverage
at least two dollars of non-HUD funds for rehabilitation from the Virginia
Housing Partnership Fund for every dollar of HUD rental Rehabilitation sub-
sidy. In addition HUD Program funds will revolve back to the City over 10
years, for reuse for rehabilitation of rental property or other eligible
purposes. The terms of the financing package are expected to be attractive
to investor owners.
Rental Rehabilitation Program
Page 7
Financial feasibility: Each part of the rehabilitation financing package
provided by the Program will be secured by a deed of trust on the property
The total of all indebtedness against the property, may not exceed 95% of
the appraised after rehab value. All approved projects must also show a
positive cash flow with a margin :[or maintenance~ vacancy loss and con-
tingencies. Priority will be given to properties with lower loan-to-value
ratios and more comfortable cash :[low margins, thereby showing stronger
:[inancial feasibility and greater incentive to the property owner to abide
by the terms of the Program (e.g. maintenance of the property to Section 8
standards).
Each applicant will be counseled that the Program design is such that the
feasibility of the rehabilitation must be based on market, unsubsidized
rents, and that if projected cash :[low is not sufficient without subsidized
rents, the rehabilitation may not be feasible.
Handicapped Accessibility: Projects resulting in units that will include
features making them accessible to and usable by handicapped persons will
be given additional weight over those projects not doing so. The criteria
for such accessibility is as provided in 24 CFR 8. Also as provided,
priority to handicapped-accessible units is given less weight than that
given to other mandated aspects under the Program (e.g. unit size).
III. Administrative Organization and Procedures:
The Rental Rehabilitation Program will be administered jointly by the City
and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA), possibly with
the assistance o:[ the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development and the Virginia Housing Development Authority. The RRHA has
agreed to cooperate with the City in the administration of the Program,
through the administration of the financing package as well as Housing
Voucher and/or the Section 8 rent subsidies that may be required by federal
guidelines to assist tenants of selected units. A program management team
will be formed to include at least the following:
H. Wesley White, Jr., Land Planning/Subsidized Housing Director
¢oanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
P.O. Box 6359
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
703-983-9204
Dan Pollock, Housing Development Coordinator
Room 170, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue,
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
703-981-2221
RRHA Rehabilitation Inspector
Rental Rehabilitation Program
Page 8
The program management team will be responsible for general program admi-
nistration and assignment of specific tasks, including:
Program Publicity~ Marketing~ and Outreach: The principal point of
contact for Program information will be the RRHA.
Receipt and Initial Screening of Preliminary Proposals: Preliminary
proposals will contain basic information about the project, such as
location, number and size of units to be rehabilitated, general
description and estimation of cost of repairs, current indebtedness
that will remain on the property, projected rental income and expenses,
characteristics of current occupants, etc. These basic proposals will
be submitted to the RRHA, who will immediately review each upon its
receipt to determine completeness and basic eligibility.
Preliminary Property Inspection: The rehabilitation inspector will
perform a cursory inspection of each unit proposed to be rehabilitated
under the Program, to verify that the units are substandard and in need
of repair.
Prioritization: If sufficient proposals are received after advertise-
ment of the Program to require competitive ranking, the program manage-
ment team will apply the Evaluation Scale to determine which proposals
appear to be best suited to the intent of the Program. If there are
not enough eligible proposals to exhaust the funds allocated, the team
will determine whether each proposal meets minimum requirements.
Tentative commitments will be issued to those receiving the highest
rankings or meeting minimum standards, contingent on verifications of
information presented. The RRHA then will request the necessary finan-
cial verifications and direct the applicant to obtain an appraisal of
after-rehab value and a complete detailed set of plans, specifications,
and contractor's bids.
Final Review and Selection: The program management team will review
the application packages to verify the eligibility and feasibility of
the project. This review will include the rehabilitation inspector
verifying that the rehabilitation work specified in the proposal is
appropriate and sufficient to meet Building Code and Section HQS stan-
dards. When determined that the proposal meets the criteria for the
Program, arrangements will be made to close the loans, escrow the reha-
bilitation linancing~ and begin the rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation: Arrangement for rehabilitation work to be performed
will primarily be the responsibility of the applicant property owner.
Periodic in-progress inspections will be made by the rehabilitation
inspector, relative to compliance with the work write-up and work-
manship standards, and by City building inspector(s), to assure
compliance with code requirements. Final inspections will be performed
by a Section 8 housing inspector (to verify compliance with Section 8
Housing Quality Standards), a City building inspector (to confirm
Building Code Compliance), and the rehabilitation inspector.
· ~ntal Rehabilitation Program
Page 9
Post-Rehabilitation Monitoring: Property owners will be asked to sub-
mit brief periodic reports of the status of each project, especially
concerning rents and tenants. Blank report forms will be sent by the
RRHA to the owner for completion and return. In addition, on at least
an annual basis, a Section 8 housing inspector, rehabilitation inspec-
tot, or City building inspector will perform an on-site inspection to
verify that each unit is maintained in accordance with the terms of the
financing package.
The tentative timetable for the Program is as follows:
Approval of Program funding
Approval of Virginia Housing
Parnership Fund allocation
for Program
by mid March
Advertise for proposals
by end of June
Screen proposals and perform
initial inspections
by end of July
Select first high priority projects per
Evaluation Scale; request financial
verifications, etc.
Verifications received and first
financing packages approved
by end of August
by mid September
Hold first loan closings
Begin first rehabilitation
by mid October
by end of October
November 1989
It is expected the Program subsidy funds will be committed to specified
projects according to the following schedule:
First Quarter (April- June 1989)
Second Quarter (July - September 1989)
$ 10,000
Third Quarter (October - December 1989) 96,000
Fourth Quarter (January - March 1989)
$106,000
Rental Rehabilitation Program
· Page lO
IV. Certifications:
A. PubBc Consultation:
The proposed Rental Rehabilitation Program has been presented and
discussed with representatives of resident organizations of neigh-
borhoods affected, public and private non-profit agencies concerned
with housing issues of lower income tenants, and organizations of ren-
tal property owners, as well as many individuals. This Program design
reflects concerns, attitudes, and expectations expressed from these
quarters. Also as a result of these public consultations, the City
requests reduction of the lower income benefit standard to 70%, in
order to avoid displacement of tenants in otherwise high priority pro-
jects, to provide for unexpected contingencies that cannot be foreseen
in the rental property markets of eligible neighborhoods, and to allow
for unexpectedly low rehabilitation expenses resulting in more units
rehabilitated than Housing Vouchers or Section 8 certificates awarded.
B. Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity:
rhe City and the RRHA will provide detailed guidelines to applicant
owners describing their obligations for fair housing practices. These
may include procedures to notify the RRHA and other community or ser-
vice agencies of vacancies, posting of Equal Housing Opportunity logo-
type of premises, public advertisement of vacancies, etc. These
requirements will be conditions of the deed of trust for the DPC.
Evidence of compliance will be examined by the RRHA at least annually,
at the time of on-site inspection. Violation of fair housing and non-
discrimination provisions will be grounds for requiring payment of the
DPL as specified in the deed of trust.
C. Tenant Assistance Policy:
All reasonable efforts will be made to avoid involuntary displacement
of tenants due to rent increases~ especially tenants of lower income.
Tenants who would have to pay more than 30% of their adjusted income
for rent alter rehab will be offered rental assistance. In no case
will a very low income family be displaced involuntarily by a tenant
not of very low income. Any low-income tenant who is eligible for
Section 8 or Housing Voucher assistance will be given preference for
such assistance to stay in the renovated unit or to find adequate
housing elsewhere.
Each tenant in a unit to be rehabilitated under the Program will be
counseled about the effect of the rehabilitation on him/her. The RRHA
will insure that information is provided to all tenants, and individual
counseling afforded to all those in jeopardy of being displaced invo-
luntarily. This counseling will at least include descriptions of
alternative housing opportunities, ways to search for suitable
alternative arrangements, and tenant rights under the Federal Fair
Housing law. Direct referrals to other apartments also may be made.
No tenant offered decent, safe, and sanitary housing at an affordable
rent (as defined in 2t, CFR 511.10[hill) will be considered to be
displaced. Any tenant displaced involuntarily by the Rental
Rehabilitation Program shall receive priority consideration for
available 5ection 8 Certificates, Housing Vouchers and public housing
units administered by the RRHA.
R~ntal Rehabilitation Program
Page 1 1
D. Neighborhood Preservation:
Rehabilitation of rental property without displacement ol current resi-
dents will enhance the preservation and revitalization of affected
neighborhoods. The improvement of rental properties will supplement
substantial investments made in owner-occupied homes over the last few
years.
Rehabilitation proposed in parts of the Hurt Park and Highland Park
Conservation Areas designated the Southwest Historic District will be
reviewed for sensitivity to historic preservation, in accordance with
the Memorandum of Agreement with the Virginia Division of Historic
Landmarks.
E. Compliance with Applicable Regulations:
Administration of the Rental Rehabilitation Program will comply with
all applicable federal regulations and requirements, including but not
limited to those concerning nondiscrimination and equal opportunity, as
identified in 20 CFR 511.10(m).
F. Authority to Apply:
The City and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority are
legally authorized to develop and administer housing rehabilitation and
rent subsidy programs within the City, such as this Rental
Rehabilitation Program.
RENTAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND NONDISCRIMINATION POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
General Policy: It ts the Policy of the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) to administer the Rental
Rehabilitation Program so that individuals of similar income have similar
available housing choices, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, or handicap. Each property owner applying for participation in the
Rental Rehabilitation Program shall agree to avoid any discrimination on the
basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or handicap, and shall
agree to market their vacant rental units in good faith to inform and attract
eligible tenants from all racial, ethnic, and gender groups.
A. The RRHA shall give a copy of these Policies and Guidelines to the
following:
1. Applicant property owners.
2. Current tenants and tenants applying to the RRHA for housing
rehabilitated under the Program.
Social service agencies, including Total Action Against Poverty
(TAP), League of Older Americans (LOA), Legal Aid Society, and
Roanoke Neighborhood Alliance.
~. Resident organizations of affected/eligible neighborhoods.
5. General public, upon request.
In addition, all advertisements, press releases, inlormation packages,
application forms, and written communications prepared by the RRHA
relative to the Rental Rehabilitation Program shall include the Equal
Housing Opportunity logo or statement.
If the participating property owner wishes, the RRHA shall refer
holders of Section 8 certificates or housing vouchers to the rehabili-
tated property for possible occupancy. As provided in 2t~ CFR
511.10(m)(2), to the extent rent-subsidized tenants occupy Rental
Rehabilitation units, other affirmative marketing procedures will not
be required of the property owner. For any occupancy other than by
tenants holding rental subsidy authorizations, the property owner must
follow the procedures established in Section C (infra).
Other than as allowed in Section B (supra), each participating property
owner shall seek to attract tenants regardless of race, color, reli-
gion, sex, national origin, or handicap, of all minority and majority
groups, especially those unlikely to apply without special outreach, to
units vacant after rehabilitation or that later become vacant. These
marketing efforts shall include, at a minimum, the following:
Advertisement of any and all vacancies in the Roanoke Times and
World News and the Roanoke Tribune, such advertisement to include
the Equal Housing Opportunity lo§o or statement. Such adver-
tisements will specify that vacant units are available for, but not
limited to, Section $ tenants.
Notification to the RRHA and TAP of any and all vacancies. This
notice will be forwarded by the RRHA to other service agencies and
organizations. The RRHA may notify people on the Section ~,
Housing Voucher, and public housing waiting lists of the vacancy.
3. Posting of Equal Housing Opportunity poster, provided by the RRHA,
on vacant premises and rental offices, ii existing·
Documentation: Each participating property owner shall document affir-
mative marketing, such records to include the following:
1. Copies of all advertisements, notices, and other outreach for all
vacancies.
2. A log of all contacts with potential tenants, including race, sex,
approximate age, and reasons for not accepting as tenants.
Quarterly reports to the RRHA, in a format provided by the RRHA,
regarding the occupancy of all assisted units and marketing
activities for any vacancies.
The RRHA shall keep records including the following:
1. A log of vacancies reported by owners.
2. Copies or other evidence of notices regarding the Program and
vacancies sent to agencies and/or organizations by the RRHA.
3. A log of referrals made to vacant units, including race, sex, and
approximate age.
Copies of advertisements placed by owners.
Records of characteristics of tenants occupying units, including
race, sex, and approximate age.
Assessment: The RRHA shall use the quarterly reports filed by property
owners to verify compliance with affirmative marketing and Equal
Housing Opportunity requirements. In addition, the RRHA and/or the
City may make other periodic inspections of the property owner's
records concerning tenants and marketing activities, or ask for other
information about the same.
Violations: Failure to comply with Equal Opportunity, Nondiscrimina-
tion, or Affirmative Marketing requirements will result in a written
notice from the RRHA to the property owner that specific provisions of
the Deed of Trust between the two parties have been violated, defining
what corrective actions, if any, are to be taken, and advising that
further violations or failure to take the prescribed actions may
require repayment of the Deferred Payment Loan and/or other financing
provided.
U.S. Department of Housing end Urban Development
Richmond Office, Region Ill
P.O. Box 10170
400 N. 8th Street, 1st Floor
Richmond, VA 23240-9998
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
City of Roanoke
P. O. Box 1220
F~oanoke, VA 24011
Dear
We are pleased to inform you of the approval of your 1989 Rental Rehabilitation
Program Description. You are now authorized to receive $106,000 in Rental
Rehabilitation funds for your program activities. This obligation, of course, is subject to
your execution of the Grant Agreement and compliance with other applicable
requirements for use of the funds.
Three copies of the Funding Approval Form (HUD-A001 $) and the Grant Agreement
(HUD-A0015.1) are enclosed for your signature. Please sign each copy and return two of
them to our Office.
If I can be of further assistance to you, please call me. Should your staff need any
technical advice, Mr. Leroy Brown at 804/771-2853 will be happy to help them.
Very sincerely yours,
G. William Thomas, Jr.
Manager
Richmond Field Office
Enclosures
Funding Approval
Rental Rehabilitation Program
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Community Pranning
HI-00527R and Development
Under Section 17 of The United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C, 1437o)
1. Name of Grantee 2, Grant No.
ROANOKE R-89-MC-51-0207
3, Grantee's Address
P. O. Box 1220
Roanoke, VA 24011
6.~ Original Funding Approval
[] Amendment (No.)
4. HUD Geographic Locator Code No.
03-36-51-760
5. a) Date of HUD Receipt of Program Description 1/20/89
b) Date Grantee Notified of Approval
c) Fiscal Year 1989
?. Category of Rental Rehabilitation Program Grant for this Funding Action (Check Only One)
a. Direct Formula Grantee [] City over 50,000 [] Urban County [] Consortium
b. ~ State Grantee
c. [] HUD-Administered Rental Rehabllitation Program Small City Grantee
d. [] HUD-Administered City Grantee
8. Amount of Rental Rehabilitation Program (RRP) Grant FY: 89
a. Amount of RRP funds previously obligated for this grantee -O-
b. Amount of RRP funds currently being obligated for this grantee $106 ~000
c. Amount of RRP funds currently being deobligated for this grantee -O-
d. New total of RRP funds now obligated for this grantee
9. Special conditions (Check applicable box)
a. ~ Not applicable
b. [] Attached
F°r: U~~et/H_o n~ U rban/~velopmen,
~ G. WILLI~ ~O~S~ ~. - / ~ ' / Date:
~er, Ric~ond Field Offic~ MAR ~ 7 ~989
~S ~ifion {8-~) is obsolete ~ HUD-~15(11 -,4)24 CFR Pan 511
Grant Agreement
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning
and Development
This Grant Agreement is made by and between the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and
R0~0[<~ VIRGTNIA (the Grantee)
pursuant to the authority of Section 17 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 USC 14370). The Grantee's approved
Program Description and the HUD regulations at 24 CFR
Part 511 (as now in effect and as may be amended from
time to time), which are incorporated by reference, together
with the HUD Funding Approval Form 40015 and any special
conditions, which are hereto attached, constitute part of this
Agreement.
In reliance upon and in consideration of the mutual
representations and obligations hereunder, HUD and the
Grantee agree as follows:
1. Subject to the provisions of this Grant Agreement, HUD
will make the funding assistance for Fiscal Year 19
specified in the attached HUD Funding Approval Form
40015 available to the Grantee upon execution of the
Agreement by the parties.
2. The obligation and utilization of the funding assistance
provided is subject to the requirements of the regulations
and any special conditions set forth in the HUD Funding
Approval Form 40015, including the requirement for a
release of funds by HUD under the Environmental Review
Procedures at 24 CFR Part 58 for any activities requiring
such release.
3. HUD's payment of funds under this Grant is also subject
to the Grantee's compliance with HUD's electronic funds
transfer and information reporting procedures issued
pursuant to 24 CFR 511.74.
4. To the extent authorized by the HUD regulations at 24
CFR Part 511.33 and 511.82, HUD may, by its execution of
an amendment to the HUD Funding Approval Form 40015
deobligate funds previously awarded to the grantee
without the Grantee's execution of such form or other
consent. Such a deobltgation of Rental Rehabilitation
Program grant funds may also cause a recapture of a
commensurate amount of Section 8 Existing Certificate or
voucher contract authority.
The Grantee further agrees to accept responsibility for
adherence to the Agreement by subrecipient entities and
property owners to which it makes funding assistance
hereunder available.
G~RLLIAM THOMAS, .J~. /~" Manager, Richmond Field Offic~MAR
B~ralltee / Title: Date:
HUD-40015.1 (11-84)
24 CFR Part 511
Funding Approval
Re- tal Rehabilitation Program
U.S. Department of H~using
and Urban D~wlopment
Comfllunity ~ecntng
and Development
HI-00527R
Under Section 17 of The United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437o)
1. Name of Grantee 2. Grant No.
ROANOKE R-89-MC-51-0207
4. HUO Geographic Locator Co~e No.
03-36-_51-760
3. Grantee's Address
P. O. Box 1220
Roanoke, VA 24011
6. X~ Original Funding Approval
~- Amendment (No.)
,5. a) Date of HUD Receipt Of Program Deecdption 1/2.0/89
b) Date Grantee Notified of Approval
c) Fiscal Year 1989
7. Category of Rental Rehabilitation Program Grant for this Funding Action (Checl( Only One)
a. Direct Formula Grantee I~I City over 50,000 [] Urban County r~ Conan¢dum
b. [] State Grantee
c. [] HUD-Administere(S Rental Rehabilitation Program Small City Grantee
d. [] HUD-Administered City Grantee
8. Amount of Rental Rehabilitation Program (RRP) Grant FY: 89
a. Amount of RRP funds previously obligated for this grantee -0-
b, Amount of RRP funds currently being obligated for this grantee $~.06 ~000
c. Amount of RRP funds currently being deobligated for this grantee -'0-
d. New total of RRP funds now obligated for this grantee $106~000
9. Special conditions (Check applicable box)
a. [~ Not applicable
b. [] Attached
MAR '~ ? ]989
Grant Agreement
U.S. Oeparlmm~ of Housing
and Urban [3e~mlof3ment
Office ot Community Planning
and Developmem
This Grant Agreement is made by and between the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and
ROA.N~[(]~ VIRGINIA (the Grantee)
pursuant to the authority of Section 17 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 USC 1437o). The Grantee's aoproved
Program Description and the HUD regulations at 24 CFR
Part 511 (as now in effect and as may be amended from
time to time), which are incorporated by reference, together
with the HUD Funding Approval Form 40015 and any special
conditions, which are hereto attached, constitute part of this
Agreement.
In reliance upon and in consideration of the mutual
representations and obligations hereunder, HUD and the
Grantee agree as follows:
1. Subject to the provisions of this Grant Agreement, HUD
will make the funding assistance for Fiscal Year 19
specified in the attached HUD Funding Approval Form
40015 available to the Grantee upon execution of the
Agreement by the parties.
2. The obligation and utilization of the funding assistance
provided is subject to the requirements of the regulations
and any special conditions set forth in the HUD Funding
Approval Form 40015, including the requirement for a
release of funds by HUD under the Environmental Review
Procedures at 24 CFR Part 58 for any activities requiring
such release.
HUD's payment of funds under this Grant is also subject
to the Grantee's combliance with HUD's electrenic funds
transfer and information reporting procedures issued
pursuant to 24 CFR 511.74.
To the extent authorized by the HUD regulations at 24
CFR Part 511.33 and 511.82, HUD may, by its execution of
an amendment to the HUD Funding Approval Form 40015
decbligate funds previously awarded to the grantee
without the Grantee's execution of such form or other
consent. Such a deebligation of Rental Rehabilitation
Program grant funds may also cause a recapture of a
commensurate amount of Section 8 Existing Certificate or
voucher contract authority.
The Grantee further agrees to accept responsibility for
adherence to the Agreement by subrecipient entities and
property owners to which it makes funding assistance
hereunder available,
C..,U?]LTAM THOMAS, JR. /'" M~na~er~ Richmond Field Offic*'%~AR
£; !~89
Funding Approval
.R[-~tel Rehabilitation Program
U.S. Department of HouMng
and Urban D~v~lopm~t
Community Planning
and Development
HI-00527R
Under Section 17 of The United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437o)
1. Name of Grantee 2. Grant No.
ROANOKE R-89-MC-51-0207
4. HUD Geographic Locator Cocle No.
03-36-51-760
Grantee's Addmss
P. O. Box 1220
Roanoke, VA 24011
6. X.~ Original Funding Approval --~ Amendment (No.)
5. a) Data of HUD Receipt of Program Description 1/20/89
b) Date Grat~tee Notified of Approval
c) ~scal Year 1989
7. Category of Rental Rehabilitation Program Grant for this Funding Action (Check Only One)
a, Direct Formula Grantee ~] City over 50,000 ~ Urban County ~ Ceeso~um
b. ~ State Grantee
c. ~ HUD-Administered Rental Rehabilltation Program Small City Grantee
d. ~ HUO-Administm'ed City Grantee
8. Amount of Rental Rehabilitation Program (RRP) Grant FY: 89
a. Amount of RRP funds previously obligated for this grantee -0-
b. Amount of RRP funds currently being obligated for this grantee $106 t000
c. Amount of RRP funds currently being deobligated fo~ this grantee
d. New total of RRP funds now obligated for this grantee
$206,000
9. Special conditions (Cbecl< applicable box)
a. [~ Not applicable
b. ~ Attached
Offic~ UAR
~-~G. WTLT.IAbl 'I'HOMAS~ JR. /' -- IManager, Richmond Field Z ? 1§8§
Grant Agreement
U.S. Depa~ment of Housing
and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning
ancl Development
This Grant Agreement is made by and between the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA (the Grantee)
pursuant to the authority of Section 17 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 USC 14370). The Grantee's approved
Program Description and the HUD regulations at 24 CFR
Part 511 (as now in effect and as may be amended from
time to time), which are incorborated by reference, together
with the HUD Funding Approval Form 40015 and any special
conditions, which are hereto attached, constitute part of this
Agreement.
In reliance upon and in consideration of the mutual
representations and obligations hereunder, HUD and the
Grantee agree as follows:
1. Subject to the provisions of this Grant Agreement, HUD
will make the funding assistance for Fiscal Year 19
sbecified in the attached HUD Funding Apbroval Form
40015 available to the Grantee upon execution of the
Agreement by the parties.
2. The obligation and utilization of the funding assistance
provided is sul)ject to the requirements of the regulations
and any special conditions set forth in the HUD Funding
Approval Form 40015, inctuding the requirement for a
release of funds by HUD under the Environmental Review
Procedures at 24 CFR Part 58 for any activities requiring
such release.
HUD's payment of funds under this Grant is also subject
to the Grantee's compliance with HUD's electronic funds
transfer and information redortlng procedures issued
pursuant to 24 CFR 511.74.
To the extent authorized by the HUD regulations at 24
CFR Part 511.33 and 511.82, HUD may, by its execution of
an amendment to the HUD Funding Approval Form 40015
deobligate funds previously awarded to the grantee
without the Grantee's execution of such form or other
consent. Such a decbligation of Rental Rehabilitation
Program grant funds may also cause a recapture of a
commensurate amount of Section 8 Existing Certificate or
voucher contract authority.
5. The Grantee further agrees to accept responsibility for
adherence to the Agreement by subrecipient entitles and
property owners to which it makes funding assistance
hereunder available.
Date:
Richmond Field Offic~
Date:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
May 1, 1989
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
W. Robert Herbert and Joel M. Schlanger
Cost of Living Raise for Retirees
We have evaluated the request of the City of Roanoke's
retirees and this letter will serve as our recommendation to you
to be considered for budget study.
Certain members of the City of Roanoke Pension Plan
have not received a permanent cost-of-living adjustment since July
1, 1987, as Ordinance No.
supplemental benefits be
payment effective July 1,
1, 1988.
28641, dated May 11, 1987, provided that
provided as a permanent cost-of-living
1987, and a lump sum payment as of July
As you are aware, certain retirees have requested that
future COLA's be made permanent as they felt that a one-time
payment is good for one year but does not help them for future
years. However, other retirees have informed us that they like
the one-time payments as that provides them with a lump sum that
would be spent for a major purchase or they have the alternative
of budgeting the amount over the twelve month period.
After much study and consideration, we recommend the
following to you:
Honorable Mayor and Members of
Page 2
May 1, 1989
City Council
That effective July 1, 1989, and payable July 31, 1989,
a 3% permanent increase shall be made to a member's or surviving
spouse's annual retirement allowance that meets the following
criteria:
1. Any member retired under normal service with at
least 10 years of creditable service; or
2. Any member retired on non-occupational disability
with at least 10 years of creditable service or any
member retired on occupational disability, regardless
of service; or
3. Any member retired under early service retirement,
vested service retirement; or
4. Any surviving spouse of a member who was entitled
to a benefit, provided that the deceased member would
have qualified under (1), (2), or (3) above, or
5. Any member retired under Chapter 2, Police and Fire
Pensions prior to January 1, 1946, or the surviving
spouse of any such member.
On January 25, 1989, Mr. Ralph J. Akers, a former city
employee, spoke to your Board of Trustees for the City of Roanoke
Pension Plan and requested that those retirees on non-occupational
disability with less than ten years of creditable service should
be included in any cost-of-living raise provided to retirees by
City Council.
We strongly believe that a member of the System must
have at least ten years of service to be eligible for any
adjustments to their pension. We have followed this policy for
over eight years and it has proven to be the most effective
method.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Page 3
May 1, 1989
Out of a total number of 960 receiving benefits as of
April 30, 1988, 836 general employees, or 87%, would be eligible
for this increase under the above guidelines. The total annual
increase in retirement allowances would be $122,360, or an average
annual retirement allowance increase of $146.
A 3% permanent COLA is estimated to cost $990,000
funded actuarially over 20 years. We have also received our
actuarial rate for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1989. The
rate has increased from last year's rate of 12.07% to 12.61%.
Following is a history of our actuarial rates for the past few
years.
July 1, 1983 14.10%
July 1, 1984 14.89%
July 1, 1985 14.85%
July 1, 1986 13.69%
July 1, 1987 13.15%
July 1, 1988 12.07%
July 1, 1989 12.61%
We recommend that a one-time lump sum payment of
$250,000 be paid directly into the Pension Plan from any year end
balances prior to determination of the CMERP Fund at the end of
fiscal year 1989 in order to partially address funding the
permanent COLA for eligible members beginning July 1, 1989.
We also recommend that for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 1990, that a 3--% lump sum payment be made July 31, 1990, to
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Page 4
May 1, 1989
certain members of the City of Roanoke Pension Plan who meet the
same above criteria. This 3% lump sum payment will be based on
their new monthly benefit effective July 1, 1989. This increase
will cost approximately $128,000 and would be funded from any year
end balance at the end of fiscal year 1990 before any CMERP funds
are designated.
City Manager
WRH:JMS:dp
C~¢~ of ~e City
May 3, 1989
File #2?
Structures & Utilities Company,
P. O. Box 2218
Christiansburg, Virginia 24068
Inc.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29535 accepting your bid for
necessary repairs and improvements to alum tanks at the Water
Pollution Control Plant, upon certain terms and conditions, in
the total amount of $44,500.00, which Ordinance No. 29535 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on rdonday, May I, 1989.
Sincerely, ~..~..._.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enco
pc:
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Steven L. Walker, Manager, Water Pollution Control
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Charles ~. Huffine, City Engineer
Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Dolores C. Daniels, Citizens' Request for Service
Plant
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 C~urch Av~'~u~ S.W. Roclnc~e Virginia 24011 (703) 98t-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 1st day of May, 1989.
No. 29535.
AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of Structures & Utilities Co.,
Inc., for necessary repairs and improvements to Alum Tanks at the
Water Pollution Control Plant upon certain terms and conditions, and
awarding a contract therefor; authorizing the proper City officials to
execute the requisite contract for such work; and providing for an
emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The bid of Structures & Utilities Co., Inc., made to the City
in the total amount of $44,500.00 for necessary repairs and improve-
ments to Alum Tanks at the Water Pollution Control Plant, 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 specifica-
tions 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, execution
of such contract to be subject to approval of the appropriate sup-
porting documents.
3. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordi-
nance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
May 1, 1989
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Bid Committee Report
Alum Tank Work
Water Pollution Control Plant
Roanoke, Virginia
I concur with the recommendations of the attached Bid Committee Report.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/LBC/mm
Attachment: Bid Committee Report
Cc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Utilities & Operations
Director of Public Works
Manager, Water Pollution Control Plant
City Engineer
Citizens' Request for Service
Construction Cost Technician
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Bid Committee Report
Alum Tank Work
Water Pollution Control Plant
Roanoke, Virginia
Roanoke, Virginia
May 1, 1989
I. Background:
Cit~ Council, at its April 10, 1989 meeting, publicly opened
and read aloud the bid received for the Alum Tank Work at the
Water Pollution Control Plant, Roanoke, Virginia.
Bo
One (1) bid was received with Structures & Utilities Co.,
Inc. submitting a total bid of $44,500.00. Time of comple-
tion is 90 consecutive calendar days.
Co
Work shall include the removal of the inside coating from one
present chemical storage tank, the repair of the walls in two
tanks and the application of an impermeable coating system
(fiberglas lining) to two (2) tanks, all in accordance with
the Contract Documents as prepared by Clean Water Engineers,
Inc.
II. Issues in order of importance are:
A. Compliance of the bidder with the requirements of the
Contract Documents.
B. Amount of the low bid.
C. Funding of the project.
D. Time of completion.
III. Alternatives are:
mo
Award a lump sum contract to Structures & Utilities Co., Inc.
in the amount of $44,500.00 and 90 consecutive calendar days
for an impermeable coating system in two Chemical Storage
Tanks at the Water Pollution Control Plant in accordance with
the Contract Documents as prepared by Clean Water Engineers,
Inc.
1. Compliance of the bidder with the requirements of the
Contract Documents was met.
Page 2
Bid Committee Report
Alum Tank Work
2. Amount of the low bid is within 5% of the engineer's
estimate and is acceptable.
o
Fundin~ of the project is available in Account No.
003-056-3155-2050, Maintenance of Buildings and Property
of the Water Pollution Control Plant.
4. Time of completion is quoted as 90 consecutive calendar
days which is acceptable.
B. Reject the bid and do not award a contract at this time.
1. Compliance of the bidder with the requirements of the
Contract Documents would not be an issue.
2. Amount of the bid would probably change if re-bid at a
later date.
3. Fundin~ would not be encumbered at this time.
Time of completion would be extended. The present tank
linings are in very poor condition and need to be
replaced as soon as possible. Structures & Utilities
Co., Inc. has just completed the Bar Screens at the
Water Pollution Control Plant. Their work was satisfac-
tory and was done in a timely manner.
IV. Recommendation is that City Council take the following action:
A. Concur with the implementation of Alternative "A".
Bo
Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with
Structures & Utilities Co., Inc. in the amount of $44~500.00
and 90 consecutive calendar days to reline two Chemical
Storage Tanks at the Water Pollution Control Plant in accord-
ance with the requirements of the Contract Documents as pre-
pared by Clean Water Engineers.
Appropriate the sum of $49~000.00 from the Water Pollution
Control Plant Account No. 003-056-3155-2050, Maintenance of
Buildings and Property, as follows:
Contract Amount
Project Contingency
$44,500.00
4,500.00
Total $49,000.00
D. Authorize the Director of Finance to establish a Capital
Account for this project entitled "Alum Tank Repairs - WPCP".
Page 3
Bid Committee Report
Alum Tank Work
Respectfully submitted,
Kit B. Kiser
RAG/LBC/mm
Attachment:
CC:
Tabulation of Bids
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Manager, Water Pollution Control Plant
City Engineer
Citizen Request for Service
Construction Cost Technician
William F. Clark
TABULATION OF BIDS
ALUM TANK WORK
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Bids opened before City Council on April 10, 1989 at 7:30 p.m.
Mobilization Repair and Coatin8 BID
BIDDER Insurance~etc Tank 1 Tank 2 TOTAL BID BOND
Structures &
Utilities Co., Inc. $8,000.00 $22,504.00 $14,000.00 $44,500.00 YES
Construction time is quoted as 90 consecutive calendar days.
Engineer's Estimate: $42,500.00
Robert A. Garlad~, Chairman
Kit B. Kiser
William F. Clark
Clean Water Engineers, Inc
7 East Main Street
Fincastle, Virginia
Office of City Engineer
Roanoke, Virginia
May 1, 1989
Office of the City Clerk
April 12, 1989
File #468
Mr. Robert A. Garland, Chairman )
Mr. William F. Clark ) Cort~nittee
Mr. Kit B. Kiser )
Gentlemen:
The following bid for coating system removal and replacement for
chemical storage tanks at the Roanoke Water Pollution Control
Facility was opened and read before the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 10, 1989:
BIDDER
Structures & Utilities Co., Inc.
Item One $ 8,000
Item Two 14,500
Item Three 5,000
Item Four 9,000
Item Five 8,000
On motion,
for study,
duly seconded and adopted,
report and reco.~nendation
the bid was referred to you
to Council.
Sincerely, ?g~,,~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
pc: Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Room 4.56 Muni¢il:~l Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W P.4)anoke. Virginia 240t ~t (703) 981-254'1
Office of the City Cler~
May 3, 1989
File #27
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 29536 amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1988-89 Water Fund
Appropriations, providing for the transfer of $38,000.00 from
Water Fund - Retained Earnings to Water Purification Other
Charges, in order to cover an over-expenditure and to provide
necessary funds for estimated electric costs for operating the
Carvins Cove Filter Plant, Falling Creek Filter Plant and Carvins
Cove Low Lift Pump Station through the current fiscal year, which
Ordinance No. 29536 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, May I, 1989.
Sincerely, ,~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
.~FP:ra
~nc.
pc: Mr.
Mr.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Steven L. Walker, Manager, Water Pollution Control
Plant
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 C~urch Avenue SW Roano~,.,e Virginia 240t t (703) 981-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 1st day of May, 1989.
No. 29536.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 1988-89 Water Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1988-89 Water Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Water Purification
Other Charges (1) ..................................
Fund Balance
Retained Earnings - Unrestricted (2) ...............
1) Electric (002-056-2170-2022) $ 38,000
2) Retained Earnings
- Unrestricted (002-3336) (38,000)
$ 787,860
258,234
$14,928,617
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
CITY
Roanoke, Virginia
May 1, 1989
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Water Fund Appropriation for Water Purification -
Electric
The attached staff report was considered by the Water Resources
Committee at its regularly scheduled meeting on April 24, 1989. The
Committee recon~nends that Council authorize the appropriation of
$38,000 from the Water Fund retained earnings to Water Department
Account No. 002-056-2170-2022.
ETB:KBK:afm
Attachment
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Utilities & Operations
Manager, Water Department
Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman
Water Resources Committee
INTERDEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
DATE: April 24, 1989
TO: Mrs. Bowles and Members, Water Resources Cormmittee thru
' ~ . Her~e.rt
Subject: Water Fund Appropriation for Water Purification-Electric
I. Background:
City Council approved funds in the FY88-89 Budget in the amount of
$25,000.00 for Water Fund Account 002-056-2170-2022, Water Purification-
Electric. This was an estimate of funds needed to cover the electric
costs for operating Carvins Cove Filter Plant, Falling Creek Filter
Plant and Carvins Cove Low Lift Pump Station.
Raw Water normally flows by gravity from the Carvins Cove Reservoir
Dam to the Carvins Cove Filter Plant when the reservoir is full. Raw
water must be pumped by the Low Lift Pump Station when the water level
drops 4 to 8 feet below the spillway dependent upon seasonal demand.
Many years the low lift pumps are never used.
Drought conditions starting in early 1988 caused the level of the
reservoir to drop and required the operation of the low lift pump
station continuously on a 24-hour a day basis from July 7, 1988 to
the present.
II. Current Situation:
A. April 7, 1989 financial status of Water Fund Account Water Purification
Electric shows expenditures of $45,999.82 for an over-expenditure of
$20,999.82. The over-expenditure has resulted from the requirement to
operate the Carvins Cove Low Lift Pump Station continuously since July 7,
1988.
Appropriation of $38,000.00 from Water Fund retained earnings is needed
to cover the over-expenditure and to provide necessary funding for
Water Purification-Electric 002-056-2170-2022 through June 30, 1989
based on best available estimate of electric costs.
III. Issues in order of priority are:
A. Need.
B. Funding.
C. Timing.
Page 2
IV. Alternatives:
Ao
Committee recommend Council authorize the appropriation of $38,000.00
from the Water Fund retained earnings to Water Department Account
No. 002-056-2170-2022.
1. Need for the funding to cover required electric costs of the
water purification system will be met.
2. Funding is available in Water Fund retained earnings.
3. Timing of funds requirement through the current fiscal year
will be met.
Committee not recommend Council authorize the appropriation of
$38,000.00 from the Water Fund retained earnings to Water Department
Account No. 002-056-2170-2022.
1. Need for funding would not be met.
2. Fundin~ source would not matter.
3. Timin~ of funds requirement through the current fiscal year would
not be met and payment of electric bills would be delayed.
V. Recommendation:
Implement Alternative "A" by recommending appropriating $38,000.00 from
Water Fund retained earnings to Water Department Account No. 002-056-2170-2022
Water Purification Electric.
KBK:MCS:je
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Office of the City Clerk
May 3, 1989
File #27-169
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 29538 authorizing the
appropriate City officials to enter into an agreement allowing
Roanoke County to connect to the City's storm drainage system
near the intersection of Williamson Road and Hildebrand Avenue,
N. W., and extend pipes to drain the area near Helms Lane and
Malvern Road, N. W., upon certain terms and conditions, which
Ordinance No. 29538 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, Nay I, 1989.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker. CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
pc: Mr. Elmer C. godge. Roanoke County Administrator. P. 0. Box
29800, Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
Mr. Fred C. Altizer, Resident Engineer, Virginia Department
of Transportation, 714 South Broad Street, Salem, Virginia
24153
Hr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 C~urch Avenue SW Roanoke Virginia 24~1 t (703) 98%2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 1st day of May, 1989.
No. 29538.
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the appropriate City officials to
enter into an agreement allowing Roanoke County to connect to the
City's storm drainage system near the intersection of Williamson
Road and Hildebrand Avenue, upon certain terms and conditions and
providing for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City Manager and City Clerk are authorized to exe-
cute and attest, respectively, in form approved by the City
Attorney the appropriate agreement permitting Roanoke County to
connect to the City's storm drainage system near the intersection
of ~illiamson Road and Hildebrand Avenue and extend pipes to
drain the area near Nelms Lane and Malvern Road, as more par-
ticularly set forth and upon the terms and conditions contained
in the report to this Council dated May 1, 1989.
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.
Roanoke, Virginia
May 1, 1989
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Roanoke County Storm Drainage Project - Nelms Lane
The attached staff report, revised from a draft Council report
format to a Committee report format, was considered by the Water
Resources Committee at its regularly scheduled meeting on April 24,
1989. The Committee recon~ends that Council authorize the City Manager
to enter into an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney,
between the City, Roanoke County, and the Virginia Department of
Transportation for storm drainage improvements in the vicinity of
Williamson Road and Nelms Lane, N.W.
ETB:KBK:afm
Attachment
CC:
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman
Water Resources Committee
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Roanoke County Administrator
Director of Utilities & Operations
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
Fred A. Altizer, Resident Engineer, VDOT
DA~:
TO:
FROM:
April 24, 1989 ~
Water Resources Con~alttee thru Mr. Herbert
SlII~-RCT: Roanoke County Storm Drainage Project - Nelms Lane
The attached draft report to City Council is for your
consideration. I recommend approval of the report. This is a policy
matter that appropriately should be considered by this committee.
KBK:afm
Attachment
INTERDEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
DATE: April 24, 1989
TO:
FROM:
Mrs. Bowles and Members, Water Resources Committee thru
Mr. Herbert
K. B. Kiser
Subject: Roanoke County Storm Drainage Project -
Nelms Lane
I. Background:
Drainage problem has existed for years in a low area on
Nelms Lane at the intersection of Malvern Road. This is
just west of Williamson Road at the Roanoke corporate limits
in Roanoke County.
City of Roanoke owns and maintains a storm drain system in
Williamson Road and Hildebrand Avenue. This was built by
the developers of Crossroads Mall and drains that area to
Tinker Creek.
II. Current Situation:
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has recognized
the undesirable situation at the Nelms Lane and Malvern
Road intersection and proposed a storm sewer extension from
the City's system to drain this low area.
Bo
Roanoke County has requested permission to connect to the
City's drainage facilities in order to implement this
proposal.
III. Issues:
City storm sewer capacity to accept the additional drainage
flow.
B. Cost to the City.
C. Addressing Strategic Issues.
IV. Alternatives:
Committee recom, nend that City Council authorize the City
Manager to enter into an agreement similar to the attached
proposal which will allow Roanoke County to connect to the
City's storm drain system near the intersection of
Williamson Road and Hildebrand Avenue and extend pipes to
drain the area near Nelms Lane and Malvern Road.
Mrs. Bowles and Members,
Water Resources Committee
Page 2
City storm sewer capacity is adequate to serve this
relatively small drainage area. The City retains
authority to approve the project plans and can limit
the system from being further extended beyond the
problem drainage area which is the subject of this
proposal.
Cost to the City is nothin~ in that the County and VDOT
are sharing equally in the estimated $121,870 total
cost of the project. This will include all costs
associated with the survey and plan preparation, with
the acquisition of the necessary right-of-way or
easements, relocation of utilities, preparation of
contract documents, advertising and award of contract,
administration of the contract, and payments to the
contractor. No City utilities are affected by the
proposed construction.
Addressin8 Strategic Issues. Will support one of City
Council's Strategic Issues - "Regional Approaches" by
helping Roanoke County solve a neighborhood drainage
problem. VDOT would also benefit as the cost of
maintaining those portions of Nelms Lane and Malvern
Road would be reduced.
Committee not recommend that City Council authoriz~ the City
Manager to enter into agreement with Roanoke County and the
Virginia Department of Transportation in regard to this
drainage situation.
1. City storm sewer capacity would be moot.
2. Cost to the City would still be nothing.
Addressin8 Strategic Issues. Would be contrary to one
City Council's Strategic Issues - "Regional
Approaches," in that the City would not be assisting
Roanoke County in the solution of a neighborhood
problem. VDOT would continue to face increased
maintenanc~ costs associated with these road segments
being periodically flooded.
Mrs. Bowles and Members,
Water Resources Committee
Page 3
V. Recommendation:
Committee recommend that City Council approve Alternative "A~"
and authorize the City Manager to enter into agreement, in a form
approved by the City Attorney, between the City, Roanoke County,
and the Virginia Department of Transportation for storm drainage
improvements in the vicinity of Williamson Road and Nelms Lane,
N. W.
WRH:WFC:pr
pc:
Elmer C. Hodge, Roanoke County Administrator
Fred A. Altizer, Resident Engineer, VDOT, Salem, Virginia
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities & Operations
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
A B~aut~/ulBegz.ning ENG[NEErlNG DEPARTMENT
March 8, 1989
PHILLiP T HENRY, PE
Mr. William f. Clark
Public Works Director
City of Roanoke
Room 354
Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Re: Storm Drainage Improvements - Nelms Lane
Dear Mr. Clark:
Enclosed for your review and consideration is the proposed
agreement for the completion of the referenced project between
Roanoke City, Roanoke County, and the Virginia Department of
Transportation. This agreement has been revised from the 1986
draft agreement to provide for the funding mechanism by Roanoke
County and for Roanoke County to administer the project.
Please let me know of any questions or concerns you may have.
We hope to finalized the agreement and have it executed within the
next four to six weeks.
Yours truly,
Phillip T. Henry, P.E.
Director of Engineering
PTh/lh
pc:
Bob L. Johnson, Hollins District Supervisor
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator
John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator of Community
Services and Development
P.O. BOX 29800 o ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 · (703) 772-2080
City of Roanoke/County of Roanoke
Virginia Department of Transportation
Route 840, Nelms Lane
Project 80-0840-5607-008
This agreement made this __ day of , 1989, by and between
the ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL, hereinafter referred to as the "City," party of the
first part; the ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, hereinafter referred to
as the "County," party of the second part; and the VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter referred to as the "Department," party of the
WI TNE S SETH
THAT WHEREAS, the City, the County, and the Department have recognized
an undesirable situation existing in the vicinity of the intersection of
Nelms Lane and Malvern Drive in Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the City, the County, and the Department desire to participate
in the improvement of this undesirable drainage situation and to establish
Iresponsibility for the cost of said improvement, it becomes necessary to
state the premises and mutual covenants and agreements to carry out this
desire and the parties hereto agree as follows:
A. The City will:
1. Permit connection to their storm sewer system at intersection of
Hildebrand Road and Williamson Road as shown on the approved
plan for Project 80-0840-5607-008;
2. Provide proper maintenance of storm sewer and outfall from con-
necting point in A.1. above at no cost to the County or the De-
partment;
3. Approve plans prepared for Project 80-0840-5607-008 which are
hereafter a part of this agreement; and
third part.
Be
4. Reserve the right to approve any further extensions of this
drainage system into the County.
The County will:
1. Provide the survey and complete plans for Project 80-0840-5607-
008;
2. Acquire the right-of-way and easements as indicated on the
approved plans in accordance with all applicable state and local
laws, regulations, and standards so as to qualify the expense of
said acquisition as a portion of the County's eligible participa-
tion costs;
3. Provide for complete construction of Project 80-0840-5607-008
including obtaining approval of construction documents by the
City and Department.
4. Pay one-half of total project expenses incurred in carrying out
the provisions of this agreement. This obligation shall not
exceed $60,935.00 and is subject to the Board of Supervisors
appropriating funds in FY 1989-90 budget year. (The total pro-
ject expense shall include all costs associated with the survey
and plan preparation, with the acquisition of the necessary
right-of-way or easements, relocation of utilities, preparation
of contract documents, advertising and awarding the contract,
administration of the contract, payment to the contractor, and
any and all costs incurred by the County in carrying out the
provisions of this agreement and the approved plans for Project
80-0840-5607-008.)
5. Use good offices as provided in statute and law to require all
future development considered a part of this outfall to honor
existing drainage divides.
C. The Department will:
1. Pay to the County one-half of the total project expense incurred
by the County in carrying out the provisions of this agreement
within sixty (60) days of receiving a properly-documented bill.
Funding of the Department's share of the total expenses shall
come from the Secondary Road Improvement Fund allocated to Roa-
noke County's secondary road system and shall not exceed
$60,935.00.
2. Approve plans prepared by the County for Project 80-0804-5607-
008 which are made a part of this agreement.
Approved as to Form and Substance:
tFiscal Division
Legal Division
<VDH&T)
Date:
County of Roanoke
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
Mary H. Allen
Deputy Clerk
City of Roanoke
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Mary F. Parker
Clerk
3
State of Virginia,
County of Roanoke, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this__day of
, 1989, by Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator of Roanoke
County, Virginia, and Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk.
commission expires:
Notary Public
State of Virginia,
City of Roanoke, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this__day of
, 1989, by W. Robert Herbert, City Manager of the City of Roa-
noke, and Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
State of Virginia,
City/County of Roanoke, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this__day of
, 1989, by on behalf of the Fiscal
Division of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
State of Virginia,
City/County of Roanoke, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this__day of
, 1989, by on behalf of the Legal
Division of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
D OA H~~
DS