HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 02-01-88Bowie4
(28970)
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ...... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
February 1, 1988
2:00 p.m.
AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
Call to Order -- Roll Call.
The invocation wi l l be delivered by the Reverend Robert
Ingrain, Pastor. lIoliness Church of God. Pre~e,X.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America will be led by Mayor Noel C. Taylor.
The Ci~q Manager i~oduced Beverly Bu~y, City ~br~n.
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 ~D CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
A communication from Mayor Noel C. Taylor requesting an
Executive Session to discuss personnel matters relating to
vacancies on various authorities, boa~'ds, commissions and com-
mittees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a)
(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Concur in request for Council to convene in
Executive Session to discuss personnel mat-
ters relating to vacancies on various
authorities, boards, commissions and com-
mittees appointed by Council, pursuant to
Section 2.1-344 {a) (1), Code of Virjinia
(1950), as amended.
A co~nunication from Mr. ~. W. Langheim, Vice President
General Manager, Cox Cable Roanoke, transmitting a summary of
Cox Cable Roanoke's status as of December 31, 1987.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
Qualification of Henry B. Boynton as a member of
Architectural Review Board for a term ending October 1, 1991.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
A list of items pending from July lO, 1978, through
January 25, 1988.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
(1)
REGULAR AGENDA
Hearing of Citizens Upon Public Matters:
a· Presentation of the final report of the Emergency Medical
Services Advisory Council. Carol M. Gilbert, M. D.,
Chairman, Spokesman. Ref~ed to the City Manager for study,
report and recommendation.
Petitions and Communications: None·
5. Reports of Officers:
a. City Manager:
Briefings:
i. A report regarding the Housing Strategy Task Force.
Rec~ved and filed.
Items Recommended_loc Action:
*See bottom of page.
2. A report recommending that Council authorize the City
Manager to accept a grant award, in the amount of
$25,000.00, from the Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development under the Virginia Shelter Grants
Prod,am, and execute a subgrant agreement with Total
Action Against Poverty, Inc., to administer said funds.
Adopted 0~dinance No. 28970 and R~olu~on Ne· 28971. (7-0)
3. A report concarring in a report of the Bid Comrait tee
recommending acceptance of the bid submitted by
Mountcastle Ford Tractor Sales, Inc., to furnish three
new low profile tractors, in the total amount of
$34,257.00; and appropriation of funds therefor.
Adopted Ordinance No. 28972 and Ordinance No. 28973. (7-0)
4. A report concurring in a report of the Bid Committee
recommending acceptance of the bid submitted by Kay
Uniforms to furnish station uniform shirts and trousers
for the Fire Department, in the total amount of
$45,333.00; and appropriation of funds therefor.
Adopted Ordinance No. 28974 and Ordinance No. 28975. {7-0)
Reports of Committees:
A report of the Water Resources Commit tee recommending that
Council authorize the City Manager to initiate and lead
negotiations with other affected Valley governments
relating ta capacity allocation and new construction cost
for joint use sewerage facilities. Mrs. Elizabeth T.
Bowles, Chairman. Concu~ed in recommend~on.
7. Unfinished Business: None·
8. Introduction and Consideration of Ordinances and Resolutions:
None.
9. Motions and Miscellaneous Business:
*Pr~ent~on by the C~ty Manager and the Sup~in~ende~ of School~ with reg~d to
St~e funding of local school systems.
Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and members of City
Council.
Vacancies on various authorities, boards, corr~nissians and
corr~nittees appointed by Council.
10. Other Hearings of Citizens:
Appointed or reappointed the following persons:
Terry N. Grimes
James D. ~Ltchie
David A. Bowers
James G. Harvey, II
Flood Plain Comm~ee
Adv~ory Committee, League of Old~ Americans
Honsing Strategy Ta~k Force
Office of the Mayor
February 1, 1988
Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
I wish to request an Executive Session to discuss personnel
matters relating to vacancies on various authorities, boards,
cor~nissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to
Section 2.1-344 (a) (1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Sincerely,
Noel C. Tayl
Mayor
NCT: se
I~om 452 Municipal Building 215 ~urch Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 2401 t (703) 981-2444
Office of fne Or,/Oen~
February 3, 1988
File #448
Mr. B. W. Langheim
Vice President and General
Cox Cable Roanoke
P. 0. Box 13726
Roanoke, Virginia 24036
Manager
Dear Mr. Langheim:
Your co,,~,unication transmitting a summary of Cox Cable Roanoke's
status as of December 31, 1987, was before the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, February 1,
1988.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the com-
munication was received and filed.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP: ra
Room456 MunlcipalBuildtng 215Chur~hAv~'~ue, S,W. Roanc~e,'~rgmta24011 (703)981-25~.1
Cox Cable Roanoke
1909 Salem Avenue S.W.
P.O. Box 13726
Roanoke, Virginia 24036
Cox Cable
Roanoke
January 19, 1988
The Honorable Mayor and Council
City of Roanoke
Municipal Building
215 Church Ave.
Roanoke, Va. 24011
Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
Attached is a summary of Cox Cable Roanoke~s
December 31, 1987.
Should you have any questions or comments on
feel free to contact me at any time.
Sincerely,
B. W. Langheim
Vice President and General Manager
BWL/ep
Attachment
Status as of
this subject, please
REC~iV'ED
MAYOR'S OFFICE
A. Total Miles Plant
Bo Approximate Number of
Residences Passed
C. Basic Customers
D. Tier Customers
COX CABLE ROANOKE
DECEMBER 31, 1987
Roanoke City
438.6
43,544
26,197
Roanoke County
351.7
18,335
14,111
24,888
13,581
Vinton
36
4,979
3,249
3,160
Total
826.3
66,858
43,557
41,629
E. Pay Customers 23,493 12,666 2,755 38,914
CX~ce o~ fne O~ (3en~
February 3, 1988
File #15-249
Mr. W. L. Whitwell, Chairman
Architectural Review Board
1255 Keffield Street, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Dear Mr. Whitwell:
This is to advise you that Henry B.
member of the Architectural Review
October 1, 1991.
Boynton has qualified as a
Board for a term ending
Sincerely, ~-~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
pc: Ms. Evelyn S. Gunter, Secretary, Architectural Review Board
Room 456 Munici~al Building 215 C~ur~ Avenue. S.W. Roonc~e, Vlrgln~ 24011 (703) 98t-2541
0-2
ot Virginia, C, it~ of Roanoke, to
I, Henry ~. Boynton , do solemnly ~wear (or ~) that
sup~rt the Constitution of the United ~te~. and the Constitution of the fitate of Virginia, and that
faithfully and impa~iMly discharge and perfo~ all the duties incumbent u~n me
~;~mber of the Architectural Review 8oard For a term ending October 1, 1921.
according to the best of my ability. So help me God.
Subscribed and sworn ~ ~ _day of
to before me, this _
~'~ ?~~--- , Deputy Clerk
January 21, 1988
File #15-249-200
Mr. Henry B. Boynton
3227 White Oak Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Boynton:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held
on Tuesday, January 19, 1988, you were reelected as a member of
the Architectural Review Board for a term ending October 1, 1991.
Enclosed you will find a certificate of your reelection 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 reelected.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
pc: Mr. W. L. Whitwell, Chairman, Architectural Review Board,
1255 Keffietd Street, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Ms. Evelyn S. Gunter, Secretary, Architectural Review Board
456 Municipal Buildtr~ 2t5 Chul'a~ Av~.~ue, $.W. Rocinc~e, Virg~la 240t I (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 19th day of January, 1988, HENRY B. BOYNTON was reelected as
a member of the Architectural Review Board for a term ending
October 1, 1991.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this
21st day of January, 1988.
City Clerk
Pending Items from July 10, 1978, through January 25, 1988.
iteferrat l~ate Referred To Item
7/10/78
8/12/85
2/23/87
City Manager
City Manager
Regional Cable Television
Corrmittee
Recorr~ndation No. 11 contained
in the Mayor's 1978 State of the
City Message. (Developr~nt of
Mill M~untain - hotel.)
Mayor's 1985 State of the City
recorrrr~ndation No. I - establish-
ment of a working relationship
with the volunteer rescue squads
and theRoanoke Historical
Society for the purpose of
establishing a ~ruse~rn and
national headquarters for
volunteer rescue squads in the
City.
Request of Cox Cable Roanoke for
a renewal of their franchise
agreement in order to sirr~lify
and clarify language, rr~ke cer-
tain additions a~d deletions, and
extend the term.
4/27/87
6/1/87
6/22/87
City Manager
City Manager
Rebert A. Garland
WilliamF. Clark
Kit B. Kiser
Report of the City Planning Corrt-
mission recommending the renaming
of the Kimball Avenue/Bollins
Road, N. E. and Hollins/Read
Road, N. E. Thoroughfares.
Report regarding the homeless.
Bids for 1987 Roof Replacement
No. 2 - Roanoke Regional Airport
Terminal Building - Roof Levels
G and H.
7/27/87
City Manager
Recorrm~ndations of the Youth
Services Citizen Board contained
in the Board's Annual Report/
Annual Plan.
8/10/87
City Manager
Mayor's 1987 State of the City
Recorm~ndation No. 1 - develop-
ment of a five-year strategic
plan for the City of Roanoke.
Pending Items from July 10, 1978, through January 25, 1988.
Referral Date Referred To Item
8/10/87
City Manager
Request of K~nneth R. Sharp that
an alley running between
Montclair Avenue c~d Kenwood
Boulevard, S. E., rrvre specifi-
cally running between Lots 19 and
20, Block 16, and approximately
128.1 feet in length, be per-
manently vacated, discontinued
and closed.
8/10/87
10/12/87
City Manager
City Manager
Matter regarding status and
funding of the Peters Creek Road
project.
Matter regarding a safety problem
on Tillett Road, S. W.
1/4/88
City Manager
Director of Finance
Report of Laventhol and Horwath
regarding a trade and convention
center.
1/25/88
1/25/88
Robert A. Garland
Kit B. Kiser
William F. Clark
City Manager
Bids for the Williamson Road
Storm Drain, Phase 2, Contract
IIB, Middle Segment and William-
son Road West Sanitary Sewer
Project.
Matter with regard to permitting
children to use the ballfields in
the Sports Corr~lex in South
Roanoke Park vfnen the ballfields
are not being used for League
gaffes.
1/25/88
City Manager
Matter regarding the unsightly
condition of property located at
2606 BrooksideRoad, S. E.
-2-
Office c~ the 0~/Oe~
February 3, 1988
File #354
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
At the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held
on Monday, February 1, 1988, Carol M. Gilbert, M. D., Chairman,
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Corrgnittee, presented the
final report of the Advisory Committee, and reviewed, in detail,
six specific recommendations.
On motion, duly
referred to you
seconded and unanimously adopted, the report was
for study, report and recommendation to Council.
Sincerely, /f~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
pc;
Dr. Carol M. Gilbert, Chairman, Emerjency Medical Services
Advisory Committee, Roanoke Memorial Hospitals, Belleview at
Jefferson Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24033
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Ghurch A~,,nue, S.W. Roanoke, Virgr~la 24011 (703) 981-2541
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY, 1988
I. Background
A. In February~ 1987~ the City Emergency Medical Services
Advisory Committee Submitted a Report to City Council which
Evaluated the Status of the refined aggreement between the
city and the rescue squads. In that report, the following
recommendations were made:
1. The association between the volunteer rescue squads
and the City of Roanoke, with integration of career and
volunteer personnel, is a beneficial one and should con-
tinue.
2. Efforts towards the volunteer system within the city
should continue.
3. The development of the city paid ALS program should con-
tinue.
a. The program and its employees should be made
permanent.
b. A formal orientation and continuing education
program should be developed.
c. A career ladder should be developed.
d. Supervision of individual shifts should be
increased.
PAGE TWO
e
w
The role of the public in delivery of pre-hospital
care should be encouraged.
a. There should be education regarding medical
emergencies and appropriate use of emergency
medical services.
b. Street addresses in the city should be clearly
marked.
c. The public should be encouraged to participate
in the volunteer effort.
Hunton Life Saving Crew should have time to re-
organize and revitalize its crew, and should demon-
strate compliance with the Driver/EMT provision of
the refined agreement no less than 85% of the time.
If this could not be accomplished, council had three
options:
a. To continue to accept suboptimal care in the
territory covered by the crew.
b. To terminate the relationship with Hunton,
and ask the remaining two crews to take over.
c. To terminate the relationship and provide an
additional technician to supplement the staf-
fing at Station Four.
PAGE THREE
6. Operating procedures for dispatchers should be studied
and considered for revision with attention to the
following:
a. MS training and orientation.
b. Collection of sufficient information from callers
to permit categorization of calls to ALS or BLS.
c. Provision of advice to callers when essential.
d. Screening and prioritization of calls.
7. The Peer Review process should be revised to provide
regular feedback and to include volunteers as well as
paid personnel.
8. A single report should be submitted to Council on an
annual basis which provides for the review and evalua-
tion of the system as it exists, as well as projection
of future needs with recommendations.
In order to determine interim chanses between Februar~ 1987,
and the present~ the Committee requested each of the volunteer
rescue squads and the city administration to supply any of the
information they felt pertinent to recommendations in the
February report. Mr. Herbert (City Manager) provided a written
response. Hunton Life Saving Crew also provided information
regarding their progress, but suspended operations in July, 1987,
and permanently closed in December, 1987. No other participant
in the refined agreement responded.
PAGE FOUR
C. In addition to reviewing the information provided by
ticipan~s in the asreement~ the co~nittee continued to
sather statistics on the system as it had previously.
D. In developin$ its conclusions~ the committee found that
having a general understandin$ of emersency medical care
delivery is essential. A short background about EMS com-
ponents is appended to this report for your convenience.
(Appendix 1)
II. Current Status
In July~ 1987~ Hunton Life Saving Crew suspended operations~
and in December~ 1987~ they closed permanently. The city
has been supportive and provided some basic funding for the
crew from July to December, as well as some guidelines for
re-entering the system. The decision to close was made by
the crew after substantial efforts at reorganization were
unsuccessful.
The city has demonstrated written support of the recommenda-
tions of the city EMSAC report~ but is unable to provide
additional funding necessary for pro~ram improvement and
maintenance. (Appendix 2)
The city's reply to the request for information from
this committee indicated that the implementation of the
E9-1-1/CAD system in October, 1987, would mandate review
of dispatching procedures and would require further educa-
tion of the public with regard to the appropriate use of
PAGE FIVE
emergency medical services. Orientation for the city ALS
techs and peer ~eview have not appreciably changed. The
concept of an annual EMS report is endorsed by the city,
but there is no specific proposal for implementation.
The city manager stated that at present there are in-
sufficient funds to make the program and its employees
permanent, to provide a career ladder, or to increase
supervision. If the city is unable to meet the basic needs
of the currently existing program it is unlikely that funds
would be available to provide coverage for understaffed lo-
cations or to meet increased demands upon the system should
those needs arise.
Statistics gathered suggest that the resources of the inte-
grated program are becoming strained to a level below that
determined acceptable by the committee. Station Four was
without a volunteer driver/EMT over fifty per cent of the
time for the four months from July through October, 1987.
This figure has varied between 10 and 20% for the other
stations during the same period. Increases since July
appear to be due to the larger number of responses required
by each of them. Volunteer manning of Station Four by the
two crews, which is not required by agreement, is deficient
under the terms of the existing refined agreement.
PAGE SIX
III. Sun~ary and Conclusions
A strong, flexible, thoughtfully developed Emergency Medical
Services program is essential to any community. It is necessary
for the well-being of its citizens.
Our current evaluation suggests that the status of prehospital
care in the City of Roanoke is fragile. It lacks sufficient re-
serves of personnel and management to meet extraordinary demands.
There is no long term planning, career orientation, or development.
Although system components are present, there is insufficient
integration of them. The people in the system are dedicated. The
manpower they provide, however, is inefficiently managed.
The remedy to these problems will require:
1. developing a lead agency
2. integration of system elements (i.e., communications,
personnel, equipment, agencies, etc.)
3. continuing financial support by the city
4. annual review and report by the system to identify
needs and evaluate results
5. ongoing re-evaluation of system performance criteria
6. a revised approach and renewed committment to emergency
medical and rescue services
* The city should identify the degree to which it
wishes to participate in the delivery of this
service and clearly commit itself to this role.
Failure to do so will lead to further delays in
system development.
PAGE SEVEN
* Emphasis should be on integration of participants
for best resource urilization.
* Integration should permit individual organizations
to retain their identity while identifying an um-
brella agency (REMS in the recommendation below).
* Further system development should be planned on the
basis of ongoing evaluation and gathered information,
rather than in reaction to past events.
IV.
Recommendations
Implementation will require:
me
That Roanoke's historic committment to a primarily volunteer
system of emergency medical service be preserved by all means
possible and should be the basis for future operations.
That the provision of supplemental paid ALS personnel provided
by the cit~ since January 1, 1985~ be continued for now~ and
the program be strensthened by putting into effect the recom-
mendations in the Februar~ 1987~ report of the committee.
1. That paid rescue personnel become permanent employees.
2. That a formal orientation and continuing education
program be established.
3. A career ladder should be established.
4. Peer review should be strengthened and structured
to reflect the integration of volunteer and paid
prehospital care providers.
5. Supervision of individual shifts should be increased.
PAGE EIGHT
Ct
That an integrated system be established to coordinat~
the three disparate entities involved in the delivery
of emergency medical service - the two rescue squads
and the City of Roanoke ~ while preserving the individual
identities and volunteer nature of the crews.
The plan for consolidation of the currently active
crews is now well advanced, and implementation is pro-
gressing. The resulting organization is referred to as
REMS (Roanoke Emergency Medical System). This umbrella
organization will include representation from the active
crews and the city government's emergency services. The
resulting board may require a small staff for effective
operation.
1. REMS should act as the lead agency for emergency medical
services in the City of Roanoke and should assume the
following duties and responsibilities:
* to develop uniform policies, procedures and protocols
for crew operations, dispatch operations, and delivery
of emergency medical services.
* to continuously monitor and evaluate the appropriateness
and the quality of emergency medical services in the city.
* to report regularly to city council on the status of
emergency medical services in ~anoke.
PAGE NINE
* to project future needs for EMS as the demands on
the system increase; to devise plans for meeting
these needs
* to consolidate and undertake fund raising~ budgeting
and purchasing for the participating crews.
* to develop peer review for volunteer and paid personnel
* to develop uniform volunteer personnel practices
* to act as an advocate for agencies participating in
EMS care
The REM's governing board should also have the following
duties:
* receiving and disbursing funds allocated by the city
for EMS
* selection assignment and supervision of paid ALS
technicians
De
Two level triase of calls throush dispatchin~ should be implemented.
The current approach leads to inefficient and inconsistent dis-
tribution of advanced and Basic Life Support resources.
1. Emergency medical services dispatching should be con-
verted to a call screening system from which an appro-
priate ALS or BLS response is initiated. Using our
EMS resources wisely will require that dispatchers be
trained in simple screening procedures to distinguish
when possible between ALS, BLS, and non-emergent calls.
PAGE TEN
ge
2. Protocols should be designed to function within the
911 system.
3. Protocol development and training of dispatchers
should begin promptly.
4. Dispatching should be done on a crew (by crew name
or designation), service specific (ALS/BLS), and
closest responder basis through dispatch centers.
This procedure should replace the current procedure
of permitting any available rescue responder to take
the call.
5. Valley-wide standardization of screening for emergency
medical calls is necessary. Each of the political
jurisdictions are implementing the 911 system; there
will be four independent control centers. Standardi-
zation of dispatch procedures at the outset and keeping
them within uniform guidelines will enhance the ability
to coordinate responses, provide mutual aid when necessary,
and to react to a valley-wide disaster should one occur.
6. Contingency cormnunications with non-emergency providers
should be implemented.
Private ambulance transportation enterprises licensed to
operate within the City of Roanoke should be formally inte-
grated into the Emergency Medical Services pro~ram~ and their
participation should be a requirement of licensure.
PAGE ELEVEN
1. Private agencies should act as a back-up on those
occasions when the usual emergency response resources
are overwhelmed, such as multiple calls, mass casualty,
or disaster.
2. These agencies should be available for non-emergent
transportation. Protocols should be developed to de-
fine and to provide reimbursement for those situations
where non-emergent transport of patients is necessary.
The city should actively support the development of a broad
base of basic first aid and CPR capability. Studies confirm
that survival rates in out of hospital cardiac arrest is im-
proved by provision of prior CPR with prompt arrival of EMS
personnel.
1. Public safety agency personnel should be trained in
basic CPR.
2. The general public should be educated with regard to
why CPR is necessary and where this training can be
obtained.
Respectfully Submitted,
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee
Carol M. Gilbert, M.D., Chairman
SUBMITTED: January 19, 1988
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY, 1988
APPE/qD IX 1
The city Council and administration for Roanoke have taken an
active part in the Emergency Medical Services system during the last
several years. City council requested the administration to study
and report on the system, and has commissioned two citizen committees
to evaluate the system and report their findings.
Emergency medical services in this city have traditionally been
provided through volunteer efforts. The history of volunteerism in
Roanoke is long and distinguished. Roanoke Life Saving Crew, founded
in 1928, is the world's first volunteer rescue squad.
Presently the system is under stress, as it is in many locales.
This is a time of increasingly sophisticated medical care and heightened
public expectations. Call volumes and required training have increased.
The City of Roanoke responded to these stresses with funds for the volun-
teer squads, paid advanced life support technicians, and by providing
dispatch for emergency medical services.
Several issues apply to the delivery of emergency medical services
in Roanoke.
munications;
manpower.
These are: 1) recognition of medical emergencies; 2) com-
3) transportation; 4) system management; 5) training and
APPENDIX, PAGE TWO
1. Recognition of Medical Emergencies
The first Jtep in the delivery of pre-hospital care is identifi-
cation of a medical emergency. Distinguishing between a situation which
is a medical emergency, and one which is not is a central issue in EMS.
Failure to identify a critical medical situation can result in serious
morbidity or mortality. However, demands to respond to trivial problems
waste valuable system resources. Review of statistics for Roanoke paral-
lel studies from other areas which indicate that up to one-third of EMS
responses are to calls for which the medical condition of the patient
does not warrant emergency transportation.
The cause of this problem is two-fold. The citizen caller may be
unable to identify what constitutes a medical emergency. Alternatively,
the c~ller may not have access to any other means of getting to the hospi-
tal even if he perceives that the condition is not emergent.
2. Communications
Radio and telephone communications provide the information link of the
EMS system. Three stages are of concern here: 1) Access to the system -
The caller communicates his request for assistance. Recent addition of the
911 system has improved access to all public safety agencies in Roanoke.
2) Dispatch - Appropriate service and equipment are sent to the location
of the incident. 3) Medical communication en route - Prehospital care
providers contact the hospital with patient information and requests for
medical treatment orders.
APPENDIX, PAGE THREE
Traditionally jurisdictions have addressed the technical aspects
of communications, necessary equipment and frequencies. More recently
focus is on the role of the dispatcher. It is recognized that the
dispatcher is essential in establishing priority of calls, and the
resulting distribution of resources.
In Roanoke, the present system is Advanced Life Support oriented.
Ail calls are dispatched through the City's dispatch center, on a
closest crew basis, and for which no screening is accomplished to deter-
mine the nature of the call. Theoretically, all calls are dispatched
as Advanced Life Support; in fact many are run as Basic Life Support.
This is because informal screening does occur at the crew hall where
the decision is based upon what kind of response the crew perceives the
call to require, or upon interest in the nature of the call. Information
upon which these decisions are made is not precisely or consistently
collected.
3. Transportation
Two volunteer rescue squads - Roanoke and Williamson Road - provide
24-hour emergency ground transportation based from their own stations.
A third location, Station Four, is staffed by a cooperative effort be-
tween both squads and the city. Most heavy equipment is owned and main-
tained by the squads; the city owns a fast response car, but no ambulances
or crash trucks. Hunton Rescue Squad previously participated in the
system, but has publicly announced termination of its operations.
Statistics on responses from all squads and locations are found in re-
ports to council on EMS.
APPENDIX, PAGE FOUR
Private non-emergent ground transportation is available through
one 24-hour agency, Roanoke Valley Ambulance Service, Inc. Roanoke
Memorial Hospitals provides non-emergent ground transport on a more
limited basis. An air ambulance, Life Guard 10, is available for
emergencies, but proximity of hospitals makes ground transportation
the method of choice for most problems within the city.
4. Manpower/Training
Most of the manpower for EMS in Roanoke is provided by the volun-
teers. Since 1985, the city has provided paid personnel to supplement
the volunteer response with 24-hour Advanced Life Support technicians
for each station. While police and fire departments take an active role
in many EMS systems, this is not the case in the City of Roanoke.
A key element to our system is the volunteer rescue squad person.
Recruiting, training, motivating, and retaining these key persons is
becoming an increasingly difficult task. Many areas have experienced
this downturn in volunteerism. Some have chosen to completely equip and
staff a public sector EMS system, while others are providing increased
funding and support to supplement the volunteer system.
The value of volunteers to the city is significant. If one assumes
an average cost of $100.00 per call (actually an underestimate) the cur-
rent call load of 897 calls per month represents an overall cost of
1.07 million dollars per year, only a fraction of which is provided by
the city government. Our recommendations are intended to address the
decline in volunteerism by easing the load on the squad. The committee
feels that volunteers should continue their active participation in the
system.
APPENDIX, PAGE FIVE
Another aspect of prehospital care is the level of training pro-
vided to those responding to an emergency. In Virginia, levels of care
are divided into First Responder, Basic, and Advanced Life Support (BLS
and ALS). Advanced Life Support is further divided into Shock Trauma,
Cardiac Technician, and Paramedic. The number of hours and cost of
training required rises with more advanced levels of care. While Ad-
vanced Life Support training is essential in some emergencies, Basic
Life Support forms the backbone of an EMS system. Many areas have de-
creased the time for first availability of initial care by providing a
system of trained first responders through existing public safety agencies
such as the fire department. At present the city provides 24-hour coverage
by paid ALS technicians for all stations. The squads provide both ALS
andBLS coverage. There is no formal First Responder program.
5. System Management
Managing personnel, funds and equipment, coordinating and scheduling,
providing training and coordinating record keeping, disaster linkage and
mutual aid, are important functions of local EMS system management.
Presently there is no lead agency responsible for EMS services in
Roanoke. Functions essential to management are performed by various indi-
vidual agencies, but there is no coordination. The separate entities do
not perceive themselves or function as part of a whole system. The rescue
squads have embarked into an effort to combine their efforts through con-
solidation. This organization, REMS, may provide a much needed lead for
system management.
APPENDIX, PAGE SIX
The EMS system has no overall financial strategy or plan. The City
of Roanoke budgets approximately $400,000 a year for emergency medical
service, but has declined to accept the committee recommendations,
citing budgetary constraints. Independent fund raising continues to be
the source of funding for the Roanoke EMS system. These activities
place further demands upon the volunteers. The different squads have
achieved financial independence with varying degrees of success.
Planning and evaluation, vital to any system, have traditionally
been in reaction to individual events or perceived needs. Optimal
emergency medical service planning requires ongoing analysis and evalua-
tion. Delivery of prehospital care is a complex and vital process in-
volving the use of substantial resources. Anticipation of needs and
trends is essential for the most effective development of the system
and use of resources. This is best performed through a process of regular
reporting.
APPENDIX 2
Office of the Cit~ M~n~ge~
June 11, 1987
Dr. Carol M. Gilbert, Chairman
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Dr. Gilbert:
On February 23, 1987, you, the Emergency Medical Services
Advisory Committee, provided City Council and the City adminis-
tration a comprehensive report on the Emergency Medical program
in the City of Roanoke. Both City Council and I were sincerely
impressed with the quality of this report, the tremendous amount
of data contained in the report and the clarity of its' presen-
tation by the Committee Chairman.
Council referred the report to me for review and analysis.
Your report has been reviewed in depth by the Office of Emergency
Services and Emergency Medical Services and components of that
department's supplemental budget requests were formulated around
the report's recommendations.
During a very difficult budget process, supplemental
requests were reviewed carefully. I submitted a balanced re-
commended Basic Budget to Council for their consideration. The
Basic Budget was balanced by cutting City programs by $567,386
and by reducing the City's local allocation to the school admin-
istration by $288,000. Thankfully, City Council did approve my
recommended Supplemental Budget which was based upon revenue
which would come from an increase in the existing cigarette tax
as well as the imposition of a 4% tax on prepared foods and
alcoholic beverages. This new revenue, however, will not provide
funds to reinstate any of the programs which I eliminated from
the City's Basic Budget or provide funds for new program re-
quests. I wish to reassure you that the decision to fund no
supplemental request pertaining to the Emergency Medical Services
Program was difficult for both City Council and myself. This
decision in no way reflects negatively on the invaluable work
of the Emergency Medical Services Committee.
Although this response is not as timely as I would wish, I
provide the following as City's management comments in support of
the recommendations placed before Council in your February 23
Committee report. These responses refer to the corresponding
recommendation in your report.
Integrated Career/Volunteer ~S Progra-- - The City
administration will continue to support efforts to
strengthen and enhance the partnership between the
City and the volunteer rescue squads in providing
pre-hospital care for residents of this community.
Room 364 Municipal Building 215 Churct~ Avenue, 5W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2333
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee
Page 2
Consolidation of Volunteer Effort - Efforts towards
consolidation of the three volunteer EMS agencies in
the City are being actively pursued. The realization
of this effort may strengthen the volunteer component
of the pre-hospital care system.
Development of City Career ALS Program - Several items
were requested in the Emergency Services Supplemental
budget to implement the recommendations outlined in
your report; i.e., make permanent the status of the
program and its' employees, career ladder should be
developed and supervision of shifts should be in-
creased. These items required the expenditure of
funds and n__o supplemental projects were funded. As the
program is developed and refined, the City will take
into serious consideration the issue of a more well-
defined career ladder because of its' importance to the
program and the positive motivation of forces derived
from promotional opportunities. A formal orientation
program for all new EMS employees has been initiated
which addresses standard operating procedures, medical
protocols and dispatch procedures. Funding was in-
creased in the FY87/88 budget to permit additional on-
going continuing education.
Public Education and Information - Role of Public -
1) Education with regard to nature of medical emer-
gencies and appropriate use of emergency medical
services. A public education and information
program will be developed and implemented along
with the E-9-1-1 system on how to access the system
and it's proper use.
2) Permanent Identification of Street Names and
Numbers - The City Code and the Statewide Uniform
Standards Building Code require proper display of
assigned street names and building numbers. Upon
report of a missing street sign, our Street
Department replaces the missing sign within two
days. In the very near future, our Building De-
partment will begin mailing letters to occupants
who have been reported as not properly identifying
their building/residence to notify them of the re-
quirement. Also, we will emphasize the importance
of clear identification in our Public Information
program associated with implementation of the
E9-1-1 system.
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee
Page 3
3) Encourage CPR, First Res~onder and Basic First Aid
courses, with consideration for required inclusion
in curriculum for public schools - The City goes
on record encouraging all citizens to take the
initiative in being personally trained to handle
basic medical emergencies. At present, ninth grade
students in the City's public school system are
being certified in CPR and basic first aid.
4)
Public education regarding necessity for contri-
butions of time, skills and funds to volunteer
rescue squads within the City - The City adminis-
tration supports the solicitation for new members
for the rescue squads and will assist if requested.
Hunton Life Saving Crew - The City administration
believes that compliance with the "Refined Agreement"
is of paramount importance; and, in particular, it is
of utmost importance to have an EMT/driver available
to assist the career personnel if this partnership
between the City and the Crews is to work effectively.
Ail citizens of Roanoke deserve equal and timely
delivery of pre-hospital care.
Dispatch Operating Procedures - The Virginia Department
of Transportation and the State EMS Advisory Board
Communications Task Force are currently reviewing EMS
training and procedural matters within Virginia. The
impact of these studies and implementation of the
E9-1-1/CAD system will necessitate the City's communi-
cations management to re-evaluate the City's policies
and procedures relative this segment of our Public
Safety dispatching responsibility. The recommendations
as outlined in your report will be a part of that
review.
Peer Review/~ualit~ Assurance - It is essential that
the medical community work closely with pre-hospital
care providers in order to insure the highest quality
of patient care. The City staff is currently revising
their peer review procedures as well as developing
a quality assurance program for it's employees.
Annual ENS Re~ort - We support the recommendation that
City Council receive on an annual basis, a review and
evaluation of its emergency medical services program.
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee
Page 4
Continued review and evaluation, through a Committee
such as your own, made up of representatives of the
medical community, rescue squads, concerned citizens
and City staff is important in order to offer
an objective perspective on the program.
The Emergency Services staff will continue to provide your
Committee with information and statistics necessary to formulate
your final report.
I realize that each of you have given a great deal of your own
personal time and energy to this Committee. Both my staff and
I feel that the improvements being made in this volunteer/
City partnership, to a great degree, have been possible because
of your knowledge and commitment to a quality pre-hospital
care system for every citizen of this community.
I wish to personally thank each of you and particularly
Dr. Gilbert and Mr. King for their leadership of this Committee.
Please feel free to call upon my office if I can be of further
assistance to you.
Sincerely,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/r
CC: City Council Members
Office of the City C]e~
February 3, 1988
File #178
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
Your report regarding the Housing Strategy Task Force, was before
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, February 1, 1988.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the report was
received and filed. The Mayor appointed Council members David A.
Bowers and James G. Harvey, II, as City Council's representatives
to the Task Force.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
pc: Mr.
Mr.
Mro
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Administrator
Mr. H. Daniel
David A. Bowers, Council Member
James G. Harvey, II, Council Member
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner/Zoning
Pollock, Housing Development Coordinator
Roor~456 MunlcipatBuildlng 2150~,.xchAve~ue, S,W. Roonoke, Vlrglnla24011 (703)981-2541
Roanoke, Virginia
February 1, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Housing Strategy Task Force
I. Background:
A. City's Housing initiatives have had two primary objectives:
1. To encourage and provide for safe and healthy shelter for its
citizens, and
2. To strengthen the fabric and image of the City and its
neighborhoods for continued stability and viability.
City-wide Housing Rehabilitation Task Force was established in 1979 to
consider the best means of assuring that the City has a safe and
adequate supply of housing for its current and future residents. This
Task Force produced its action plan in 1980.
C. Results of this Task Force are, in part, as follows:
Established the objective of reducing sub-standard housing units
from 2,000 to 1,000 by 1985. The City presently has approximately
1,200 such seriously substandard units.
Created Private Rehabilitation Loan Program a partnership between
the Housing Authority, the City and local lenders, to sell tax
exempt bonds to provide iow-interest purchase/rehab loans for
homebuyers.
Recommended adoption of a model Property Maintenance Code which
would address the level at which existing housing must be
maintained. The Code was subsequently adopted by Council and has
resulted in the improvement of many sub-standards units by their
owners.
Recommended a Tax Exemption program for rehabilitation work. This
program, offering a 5-year tax exemption on the increased value of
a structure due to rehabilitaton, was adopted by Council.
Housing programs designed to encourage rehabilitation and neighbor-
hood revitalization activities have improved almost 400 houses in
the last three years at an investment of $5 million.
Page 2
February 1, 1988
II. Current Situation:
A. In the seven years since the previous task force issued its report,
major changes have taken place in the national and local economy;
in federal programs and funding levels; and in public attitudes,
priorities and perceptions about housing. Some of the specific
changes include:
Number of new housing units being added each year has declined
steadily from 6500 new units in the 1970's, to 2300 thus far in
the !980's.
2. Federal subsidies for housing have been cut dramatically.
a. Overall, federal housing assistance has dropped by 70% since
I981.
City's CDBG Entitlement has dropped from $2.38 million in
1980-8! to $1.56 million in !987-88. Not adjusted for
inflation, this represents a loss of #0% of the federal
program which has been the major source of housing programs.
Real estate market is very different now from what it was in I980, e.g.
a. new financing formats i.e. adjustable rate mortgages.
b. uncertain interest rates (16-18% in 1982-83)
c. slower appreciation of property values
#. Task Force on Homelessness found that Roanoke has a growing number
of homeless and persons at risk of becoming homeless.
5. A growing awareness of the importance of housing is taking place at
all levels of government.
a. The inter-dependency between housing and economic growth and
development has become widely recognized.
b. The Virginia General Assembly is considering appropriating
$t~5 million for housing this year.
c. Congress is examining a new comprehensive housing bill at the
national level.
These changes necessitate a reconsideration of housing policies,
objectives and programs which will serve to guide the City's housing
activities through the rest of the 1980's and into the 1990's.
Page 3
February 1, 1988
C. Roanoke Vision calls for development of a joint public/private housing
strategy plan.
The City Manager has directed that a new Housing Development Strategy
be prepared, and has appointed a Task Force to prepare such a plan.
The Task Force will be asked to develop recommendation regarding
housing concerns such as, availability of affordable housing,
homeownership opportunities, safe rental housing, enhanced property
values and community aesthetics, etc:
I. The City's general policy and role
2. Goals and objectives to be pursued
3. Methods (programs and actions) to attain objectives
#. Scheduling (priorities, phasing~ program/project scheduling)
5. Financing approaches (resources, budgeting)
6. Organizational arrangements
The end result of the Task Force will be an action plan covering
approximately a £ive-year time span recommending policies, goals, and
objectives.
Go
Attachment describes in more detail the purpose of the plan; the role
of the Task Force, the members of the Task Force and the schedule for
the study.
III. Conclusion:
This report is being submitted for your information and requires no
action.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:CMH:cmh
CC:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Building Commissioner
Housing Development Coordinator
HOUSING STRATEGY
PROPOSAL FOR PLANNING PROCESS
I. INTRODUCTION
Roanoke's housing inventory is a critical element of the City's
identity.
Shelter (i.e. housing) is a basic human need. The provision and main-
tenance of that housing is a vital part of the local and national economy.
Housing styles and conditions are among the most important determinants of
a cityTs image and identity, both to itself and to outsiders (e.g. San
Francisco, Charleston, the Bronx). The same is true for that city's indi-
vidual neighborhoods. On the human scale, one's shelter has always been
important to that person's self-concept and stability. Homeownership
historically has been a critical element of a person's wealth and estate.
Generally the City has two primary purposes for its involvement with
housing: First and foremost, to encourage and provide for safe and healthy
shelter for its citizens; and second, to strengthen the fabric and image of
the City and its neighborhoods for continued stability and viability.
Ingredients of this latter purpose include the need for the City to main-
tain its population, revenue base, supply of employees to the local eco-
nomy, citizenry of diverse characteristics, and quality of occupied
buildings through maintenance, rehabilitation, and replenishment of obso-
lete and deteriorated housing.
In 1979, the City Manager appointed a Housing Rehabilitation Task
Force, which produced its action plan in 1980. This plan called for a
broad range of initiatives and formed the framework for the community revi-
talization programs implemented over recent years. However, in the seven
years since, there have been major changes in the national and local eco-
nomy, in federal programs and funding levels for community development, and
in the public attitudes and perceptions of housing rehabilitation and older
neighborhoods. These changes direct that a fundamental reconsideration of
housing policies, objectives, and mechanisms is due to guide the City's
housing activities through the rest of the 1980's and into the 1990's.
Roanoke Vision also calls lot development of a joint public/private housing
strategy plan.
This proposal outlines in some detail a process by which such a new
housing strategy may be achieved. If this approach is endorsed, tactical
work should begin at once to bring the mechanism into existence, so
substantive work may begin shortly after the new year.
II. GENERAL APPROACH
The vehicle for development of the housing strategy will be a task
force with members representing a broad base of housing and community revi-
talization interest and expertise. For the successful work of the Task
Force, this initial knowledge and understanding of housing generally is
critical. The members of the Task Force will be appointed by the City
Manager, as was the recent task force on the homeless, with a request to
the Mayor to appoint one or two Council members to participate. The Task
Force will be moderate-sized, 20-24 members, including some able to repre-
sent the consumer's viewpoint.
The planning process will build on the groundwork of Roanoke Vision.
Relevant goals identified by Vision are to I) provide for orderly growth
and revitalization for the City, and 2) ensure pleasant, safe and suitable
living environments in each neighborhood. Beyond these, Vision identifies
four "residential development objectives":
1) Encourage expansion of Roanoke's population base
2) Encourage variety of housing choices in existing neighborhoods
through a balance of preservation, rehabilitation, and new
development
3) Encourage quality construction and attractive design
#) Discourage insensitive new construction and demolition of
usable units.
These goals and objectives concentrate on the physical, tangible
aspects of housing stock. The Housing Development Strategy to be developed
as proposed here should temper this perspective by recognizing that
"housing" is, first and foremost, the place where people live and are
sheltered. As such, housing or the "housing problem" must be analyzed and
addressed more comprehensively than has been typical in the past.
The task force will begin work with the conceptual goals and objec-
tives from Vision, and through a fairly intense series of work sessions,
refine and define them, and move through
-methods (programs and actions)
-scheduling (priorities, phasing, program/project scheduling to
the extent possible)
-financing approaches (resources, budgeting), and
-organizational arrangements.
Permeating this process will be concerns regarding affordable housing,
homeownership opportunities, safe rental housing, enhanced property values,
and community aesthetics.
The scope of the task force's concern will extend to housing concerns
City-wide, including all types and conditions of housing and ali income
levels of consumption. However, its attention will naturally tend to con-
centrate on older existing buildings, especially those substandardl in
areas already designated as Conservation Areas and Rehabilitation
Districtsl and on lower income, financially weak housing consumers.
The product of the Task Force's work will be an action plan for
approximately a five-year period, grounded on recommended policies, goals,
and objectives. Yet the plan will be specific enough to identify programs
or program concepts, timetables, methods of implementation, resource
requirements, and priorities for resource allocation. The plan's use-
fulness should be analagous to a capital improvement program or the 5-year
Gainsboro housing strategy developed several years ago. In order for the
actions of the City to be as effective as possible, the plan will identify
the significant roles to be played by the private sector for coordination
with those of the governmental sectors.
The task force will meet four times, at approximately two-week inter-
va]s, over a two month period (2anuary and February). This fast-track,
intensive approach will require significant staff work between meetings,
but is likely to keep the interest and dedication of the task force mem-
bers, knowing that the process will be short-term.
III. PROCEDURE
A. Prior to first meeting, the Housing Development Office, in con-
sultation with other City departments, will prepare a package of background
reading material (12-15 pages, with attachments) for the appointed Task
Force members. This material will establish a sort of common basis for all
members to bring to the work sessions. The reading package will detail:
-current housing conditions
-current housing programs and projects, especially as outgrowth
of 1980 Task Force report, and their performance
-housing and community revitalization issues, considerations, and
trade-offs
-purpose of the Housing Development Strategy and the Task Force.
requests,
following
to afford
generally
Public Hearing will be held by the Task Force to solicit comments~
and suggestions from all interested parties. Immediately
the hearing~ the Task Force will be taken on a tour of the City,
the opportunity to become acquainted with housing issues
and some of the points offered at the hearing.
C. First Meeting will be held shortly after the hearing and the tour,
possibly that same evening. This meeting will be devoted to general
discussion of information provided in the background reading package and
the tour, but specifically housing conditions in the City, past and current
activities, philosophy, etc. The end product of this session is intended
to be a general sense of refined:
-philosophy and policy
-goals
-objectives (applied to specific issues, opportunities~ or problems).
-approaches (concentration of effort, deep subsidies, etc.),
with objectives and approaches applied to specific issues, opportunities or
problems.
After this first meeting, the staff of the Housing Development
Office will refine the discussion into clear statements for consideration
and endorsement by the Task Force and mail it to the members.
D. Second Meeting will deal first with affirmation or adjustment of
the statements developed by staff pursuant to the first meeting. Ihen,
building on these resolutions, the Task Force will engage in general
discussion of approaches (concentration of effort, deep subsidies,
revolving funds, leveraging, etc.) and program concepts and activities,
e.g. rehab grants/loans, vacant house homesteading, purchase assistance,
homeownership counseling, code enforcement on rental property, infill
construction, minimal-cost new construction, congregate living facilities,
etc. The end product of this session in intended to be an array of
programs and activities, in general conceptual terms, applied to identified
specific issues.
After this second meeting, the staff will refine these proposals
into a catalog or "fabric" of program and activity concepts, for endorse-
ment by the Task Force.
E. Third Meeting will first seek an affirmation of the approaches,
programs and activities as refined after the second meeting. Then, the
Task Force will develop recommended priorities, schedules, and allocation
of resources (funds and staff) for the conceptual programs and activities.
As with a capital improvement plan, these recommendations will be more spe-
cific for the first two years, but more general for later years due to
increased uncertainty of future conditions and resources.
After this third meeting, the staff will draft a complete report
of the Task Force's findings and recommendations. This draft will also be
sent to the Task Force membership for their consideration.
F. Fourth Meeting will be specifically for the adjustment and appro-
val of the Task Force's report, prior to its submission to the City Manager
IV. TIMETABLE (optimal)
Approval of proposal by City Manager
Recruit Task Force members
Brief City Council on intent
Public Hearing and Tour
First Meeting
Second Meeting
Third Meeting
Fourth Meeting--Draft report review
Present Report to City Manager
Brief City Council
January 6
January 12
February 1
February 2
February #
February 17
March 2
March 16
March 23
March 28
V. TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP
Sector
City Council
Planning Commission
City Administration
Redevelopment and Housing
Authority
Neighborhoods
Real Estate sales
Banking/Lending
Law
Rental Property Owners/
Contractors/Developers
Agencies
Citizens at large (Consumers)
Member or Organization
2 members appointed by Mayor
Susan Goode, Chairwoman
Earl Reynolds, Assistant City Manager
William Clark, Director of Public Works
James Ritchie, Director of Human Resources
Ron Crawford~ Member of Board of
Commissioners; Sherertz Franklin
Crawford Shaffner
Gwen Knight, Neighborhood Partnership;
Allstate Insurance
William Rand, Neighborhood Partnership;
Richardson-Wayland Electrical Corp.
Ed Hall, President~ Board of Realtors;
Hall and Associates
Steve Hoover, Realtor~ 1979 Rehabilitation
Task Force; Mastin, Kirkland, Bolling
Wallace Allen, Virginia Housing Study
Commission; Dominion Bankshares
Ina Wheeler~ President, Mortgage Lenders
Association; First Federal Savings &
Loan
3ack Place, Jolly Place Eralin dc Prillaman
Henry Woodward~ Legal Aide Society
Jim Beavers~ 1979 Rehabilitation Task Force;
Fralin & Waldron
William Lavin, contractor, rental property
owner; Town and Country Construction
Robert Fetzer~ Homebuilding Association~
rental property owner; Building
Specialists ~ Inc.
Glenn McKibbin, League of Older Americans
Ted Edlich~ Total Action Against Poverty
Ivory Morton
Reverend Frank Feather, Homelessness Task
Force
R. K el ley j"~,, J~'"~
January 25, 1988
FACT SHEET
Subject: State SOQ and Categorical Funding, FY88-90
On January 21 Secretary of Education Finley released figures that showed Roanoke
City would receive $27,011,243 in state funds for FY89, an increase of approximately
$11,000 over FY88. An analysis of Basic Aid SOQ and categorical funding accounts
shows the following differences from FY88 to FY89:
A. Basic Aid - A statewide SOQ cost of $2,400 was used for FY88, while in
'FY89 the actual SOQ cost for the locality as computed in the JLARC II
report is utilized. Roanoke City's Basic Aid SOQ cost per pupil for FY89 is
$2,397, a decline of $3 ,from FY88. Roanoke City's SOQ per pupil cost is
lower than every county's cost except one (98 counties) and ranks 24th
lowest amon9 cities (43 cities}. The primary reason for Roanoke City's Iow
SOQ cost is its relative efficiency in terms of its actual per pupil cost
compared to other localities. Administration, transportation, operation and
maintenance of school plant costs are significantly lower than statewide
averages.
For FY89 the state has included the cost of the followin9 items in computing
Basic Aid SOQ costs:
I. Ir~structional Staffing - Roanoke City's required teaching positions per
1,000 students increased from an actual 63.1 to 64,2 funded. Roanoke
City was one of 16 localities (136 total localities) and the only urban
locality that showed an increase in funded teaching positions from actual
positions. Roanoke City must employ a minimum of 838 teachers* with
881 employed in FY88.
2. Health insurance costs for the full payment of the individual premium by
the employee are included In Basic Aid SOQ costs - total additional cost
for FY89 is $184,485 ($44,100 is in Maintenance of Services budget).
3. School nurse costs are included in Basic Aid SOQ' costs - school nurse
costs of $72,500 must be eliminated from the Chapter I budget.
4. A portion of regular pupil transportation costs are included in Basic Aid
SOQ costs - actual state aid amount is unknown.
5. Teacher salary cost to provide the state share of an 8% annual increase
in the average teacher salary is included in Basic Aid SOQ costs
additional cost of $2.089 million for FY89.
Duty-Free Lunch - Roanoke City will receive $49,151 in FY89 to provide all
teachers with a duty-free lunch - total FYi~9 cost of this mandate is $81,300.
Education of the Gifted - FY89 allocation increased by $2 per student and
'Roanoke City will receive $13,524 in additional funds.
*Does not include 25 required remediation teachers; but includes 13 required
elementary guidance counselors, 7.5 actually employed in FY88.
Page;
De
Ee
Vocational Education - Roanoke City's cost of $90 per pupil ($49 in state
fbnds after application of composite index) is 23rd highest statewide (136
localities) and the total amount of state aid is $622,471, which approximates
FY88 state aid of $627,529. Roanoke~s higher cost is the result of more
diverse programs for students.
Special Education - the per pupil cost is $107 of which Roanoke will receive
$57 in state aid. The per pupil cost is 29th lowest in the state (136 local-
ities) primarily because Roanoke City's special education class size is near
state maximum (lower per pupil cost) and geographical centralization of
classes reduces costs.
Remedial Education - 9 teachers must be employed for every 1,000 students
needing remediation (25 teachers in Roanoke City for 2,850 students). Total
cost for mandate is $897,500 with additional cost of $220,000 in FY89 and
$240,000 in FY90. Roanoke received $446,037 in FY88 and will receive
$364,650 in FY89 or a decline of $82,000.
Pupil Transportation - Roanoke City is classified as a small land area with a
medium number of pupils transported which results in FY89 state aid of
· $225,043 for the cost of transportation operations and 12-year bus
replacement costs. State aid will decline by $205,000 for FY88, while FY89
operating costs are anticipated to be $I .8 million and bus replacement costs
using a 12-year replacement schedule are $270,000.
Fringe Benefits - s. tate aid for fringe benefits will decline from $#.1 million
in FY88 to $3.85 million in FY89. The decline is the result of ~he state now
paying 95% instead of 100% of fringe benefit costs for teachers and the
payment of benefits on an average state teacher salary that is $2,275 lower
than Roanoke's mandated average salary for FY89.
No Loss - Roanoke City will receive $262,288 in "no loss" funds for FY89 so
tota--~89 state aid will equal total FY88 state aid. No loss funds will be
reduced for pupil enrollment increases that exceed state estimate but not
enrollment declines. Roanoke City's actual pupil enrollment would have to-b--~
180 students higher than state estimate to override the no loss provision in
order for enrollment increases to actually increase state aid in FY89.
Composite Index - Roanoke City's .composite index for FY89 declined by .0289
for FY88 as a result of Roanoke City becoming less wealthy relative to other
localities and the state changing its share of the composite index from .50 to
.51 (indicating the state's share of SOQ cost would increase from .50 to .51
but actual total state share will decrease because of state sales tax revenue
growth). State aid increase for FY89 because of composite index change is
$417,600 but this is offset by an increase in state sales tax revenue of
$638,242. ~.
Remedial Summer School State aid of $19,440 for new remedial summer
school mandate will be received in FY89 - minimum additional cost of $40,000.
Middle Sch,ool Pro~lrams - no additional state funds are included for middle
school programs but Governor's budget is "oriented" toward middle school
organization. Local cost ~in FY89 for a seven-period day at senior high
schools and middle school planning/inservice is $630,000.
rg
ROANOKE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Minimum Mandate Costs
Increases for FY89-FY90
FY89
Ae
Fe
He
Teacher Salaries
(Average Salary Raise of 7.3%)
Teacher Duty-Free Lunch
Health Insurance Payment
(Full Payment = $140,385;
7.3% Increase = $64,400)
Remedial Teachers
(6 FTE In FY89 and FYg0)
Academically Marginal Schools
(FY89 - 2 FTE Guidance Counselors,
1 FTE Remedial Teacher, 2 FTE School
Nurses, FYgO- 3 FTE Guidance
Counselors, 1 FTE Remedial Teacher,
1 FTE Psychologist)
Remedial Summer School
(Teachers and Transportation)
Middle School Organization
(FY89 - 7-Period Day for High Schools)
(FYg0 - Start of Moving 9th Grade to
Senior High School and 6th Grade Out
of Elementary School)
Reduce Primary Grade Class Size By One
(FYg0 - 4 FTE)
(FY91 - 5 FTE)
I. Alternative Education
(Outdoor Experience Program)
Other Requirements:
A. Maintenance of Services Budget
(Reduction of 23 Positions In
Each FY, Teacher Tier Raises Included
in Salary Mandate, Closing of One
School for Renovation)
B. Administrative/Classified Salary Raise
(3% Top of Scale)
$2.089 Million
.081 Million
.064 Million
.221 Million
,195 Million
.040 Million
.630 Million
-0-
-0-
.085 Million
.145 Million
Total Expenditures
$3.550 Million
FYg0
$2.218 Million
.005 Million
.069 Million
.240 Million
.200 Million
.045 Million
.060 Million
.168 Million
.050 Million
.150 Million
.150 Million
$3.355 Million
Revenue Increases:
State
Other/Federal
Sub Total
Local Funds
Total Revenue
rg
$ .001 Million
.002 Million
$ .003 Million
3.5q7 Million
$3.550 Million
Page 2
$1.000 Million
.003 Million
$I.003 Million
2.352 Million
$3.355 Million
Richmond Times-Dispatch, Sunday, January 31, 1988
'Modern math' brings grumbles
By Frank Douglas and Mike Allen
Del. A. Victor Thomas, D-Roanoke,
was chatting with a collmagea during
a budget hearing last weak, shortly
after the governor had released a
budget many thought was a bonanza
for education.
"Some of them thought they were
getting on like gang basters," Thomas
recalled. "This superintendent was up
there praising the budget. I tofd.[the
delegate] to take a closor look:
called him hack crying."
Lately, there's been quite a bit of
growling and grumbling by superin-
they're likely to get from the state.
A numerical illusion sent hopes
skyrocketing two weaks ago. Last
weak, detailed figures grounded those
expectations.
In reality, no local school system
will get less money than last year, but
mozt will not get much more, either.
This may be a good budget for educa-
tion, but it is not a windfall.
Ralph J. Sbotweli, research direc-
ter of the Virginia Education Associa-
much less than the superintendents
were expecting.
The result, Shetwell said, could be
local tax increases.
Since reality struck, Education
Secretary Donald J. Finley has been
trythg to put ont the fire b~* having his
staff hem a so,es of r~ briof-
ings for supet~m~n~ t~ He's ulea
had one-on-oneM~tVith about 20
~ ~le~s_'_ lator~
~ He explained that some supertnteo.
d~nts heve gotten used to what he
calle~*~dranmtic inc~ms~'* th
amount they've gctt~n from the state.
Tho~ ioc~onass are over, he said.
Chesapeake Superintendent C.
Fred Bat*man pat it a different way.
"For me, the new budget is a dieas-
.ter,'* he saM. "We're in a crisis
He 5guras he'll haw to cut $5 mil-
lion or M million in current peaitions
and programs to halanea next year's
Batemml, superintendent for eight
years, called the Education Depart-
ment's initial release "a PR
"It appeacud th~ gev~ucr was do-
in~ great things for education, but
when it filtered down, it was very
little," he said. "We have dealt with
thesc biennial budgets before, but this
is the first time we have had this kind
of a misleading presentation by the
state."
Finley said he doesn't know what
he could have done differently,
"I can't deal with the misunder-
standing of mathematics," he said.
Finley said the confusion arose
when the superintendents tried to
traasinte the "big picture" ioforma-
Continued on page 8, col. 1
Here's how the budget does it
fusion occurred:
Say a school suporthtandant rn-
eaived ~0 million frem the state in
1987 and E~5 million in 1988.
He attends the meeting i~ Rich*
moed where th~ gevemor's budget is
exptsine~L Th~ state imdgmin two
years ut a timm, with unch perind
called a biea~ Theater-
dent is told that du~ the 1~-~
bthuninm, he reeaived $4~ million.
The superintendent can m that
easily eunugK Just add the $30 mil-
liun and $~5 million. Thon he*s told
that during the next two years, he~l
r~zeive $65 million. ~t's ~ ~lli~
~ ~ ~ ~e 1~ ~.
He I~v~ ~ppy, th~k~g a ~
milliofl ~ ~ ~ g~.
H~ m~ ~o~ mo~ ~ y~
~ln~ he'~ g~ ~ y~?
mmj~ m~ ~e ~t ~, b~
~mMMit ~-
lion to $35 million.
H you add two years together.
the total is million -- exactly
what the state ofilcinis said. But the
increases, when viewed annually in-
stead of bionn~l~ly, are $5 million a
y~ar, unt $10 minir~ a y~ar.
That very problem has confounded
some superintondents around the
state since last week's meeting and
they're concerned it's also confusing
the school boards, supervisors and
residents they serve.
[~'B Richmond Times-Dispatch, Snnday, January 31, 1988 ~
Budget math bnngs grumbles
.Continued from first page
tion he gave them at the flret budget
briefing into dollars for theh' schools,
"As much as we admonished them
[not to], they did it anyway," he said.
"I can't change the state budget proc-
ess to address these people's
Irodically, the session was an effort
to give them a preview of what was
comic, someth~g Finley says has
never been done.
'~ffany've had moro information
sooner -- some of winch they may
have misinterpreted -- than ever be-
fore," he said.
Associate Superintendent Myron E.
Cale, who this week met with uboot
half of them to an effort to quell the
controversy, said, "l'd say the super-
inteudants almost unanimously mis-
understood. There's jest oo question
there's bi~ new money in this budget.
There's unt es much theco as the me-
dia reperted."
The uumbu~ givun initially were
compartsom from the inst two.yunr
budget period to the next That made
the ammal tocreasos look much lar~-
In the p~t, the sopartotoudanta ro-
neived their ~ numbers ut the
there w~s little cbuaun of co~fuaian.
This year, they had to wait a week.
Richard L Kelley, e Roanoke
school aamini~rator, said the two-
seem deceptively large.
"It's a kind of double counting," he
said. "It's like I give you a $1 raise
this year and say yo~ really ~ot a ~
raise because I gave you a $1 raise
last yunr."
Bateman added that somewhere
betwean R,'h,,~ad and Chesapeake,
"You can tell Batoman that the
money didn't fall off in Henrico Coun-
ty,'' said Superintendent William
Bosher Jr.
In Hunrico, $12 million in increases
were expected, but Dr. B~bur told
his School Board on Thursday that
next year's increase will be only $1.5
million. The year after that, another
$4.5 million increase is expected.
"That still only adds up to ~6 mil-
lion," he said.
Than he laughed and said he should
use the smnc method to give pay
raises to teachers: "If a teacher made
~9,000 last year and $22,000 this year,
I'll say she made $42,000 during the
last two years and that I'll give her
LS0,0~0 for the next two."
The teacher nJlght think she's get-
ting $8,000 in raises, thun Dr. B~her
would give her a ~,000 raise the first
C1Msin~eld Comity Superinton*
dent E~E. Davis and Hanover Coun-
ty's Stephen Baker have also pointed
Out that increases an some charts
showing more state money per pupil
just don't tell the whole story.
In past year~, there's aiso buena
special payment to help with 10 per-
cent pay ralsea the state wanted for
This year, the state wants 7.3 per-
cent raises but isn't making thc sepa-
rate payments. The money for the
special payments is simply included
in the original pie, Finley said.
For instance, in Hanover, the state
paid {813 per pupil during the 1986-87
school year, then another $71 per pu-
pil in the special payments. That to-
The next year, it paid $912 per pu-
pil, than $7'2 in special payments. That
totals ~84 a pupil.
Next year, the state will pay,S979
per pupil and no separate payment.
That is $5 less per pupil than the year
before.
In Chesterfield, the same analysis
shows a decrease of almost $100 per
pupil.
On top of it, Dr. Davis has I:~n told
the amount he gets for traeaperllng
his pupils will drop more than $1
million at the same time his enroll-
merit is likely to grow by 1,300.
"The reason we are here this late,"
Dr. Davis said long after office hours
one day last week, "is that we have a
budget to present to our School Board
Tuesday. We have taken our budget
projections an what we were getting
from the state and dropped them in
the wastebasket."
February 3, 1988
File #236-226-72-178
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 28971, authorizing the
acceptance of a grant from the Department of Housing and
Corr~nunity Development through the Virginia Shelter Grants
Program II, authorizing the execution of a subgrant agreement
with Total Action Against Poverty, Inc., for administration and
use of the funds, in connection with the rehabilitation of
existing structures for emergency shelter space, which Resolution
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, February 1, 1988.
Sincerely, ~l~b%J~--
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
pc: Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources
Ms. Donna S. Norvelle, Staff Coordinator
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator
Roocn456 MuntcipalBulldlng 2150~urchAv~'~ue, S.W. Roanc~,~,Vlrgr~lo24011 (703)981-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 1st day of February, 1988.
No. 28971.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a grant from the
Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) through
the Virginia Shelter Grants Program (VSGP) II, authorizing the exe-
cution of a subgrant agreement with Total Action Against Poverty,
Inc. (TAP), for the administration and use of the funds.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The offer made to the City by the Department of Housing
and Community Development (DHCD) through the Virginia Shelter
Grants Program (VSGP) II of a grant to assist service providers
with the rehabilitation of existing structures for emergency
shelter space, in an amount and subject to such terms as are
described in the grant agreement attached to the City Manager's
report to this Council dated February 1, 1988, is hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City Manager, W. Robert Herbert, or the Assistant
City Manager, Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., is hereby authorized to
accept, execute and file on behalf of the City the proper forms
required by the Department of Housing and Community Development
for the aforementioned grant. The City Manager is further auth-
orized to execute a subgrant agreement with Total Action Against
Poverty, Inc. (TAP), for the administration and use of the funds.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
February 3, 1988
File #60-236-226-72-178
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28970, amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1987-88 Grant Fund
Appropriations, providing for the appropriation of $25,000.00 to
the Virginia Shelter Grants Program II, in connection with the
acceptance of a grant award of $25,000.00 from the Virginia
Department of Housing and Corr~nunity Development under the
Virginia Shelter Grants Program, which Ordinance was adopted by
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, February 1, 1988.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP: ra
Enc ·
pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources
Ms. Donna S. Norvelle, Staff Coordinator
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator
Room 456 MunIcI!Dol Building 215 O~urch Av~',ue, S.W. Roclnoke, Virgr, la 240t ~ (703) 981-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 1st day of February, 1988.
No. 28970.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1987-88 Grant Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1987-88 Grant Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained, to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Community Development
Virginia Shelter Grants Program II
Revenue
Community Development
Virginia Shelter Grants Program II
1)
2)
(1) .............
Capital Outlay
State Grant
Revenue
(2) .............
(035-054-5116-9000) $25,000
(035-035-1234-7057) 25,000
58,345
25,000
58,345
25,000
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
REC[!i i5
Roanoke, Virginia
Honorable Mayor, Noel Taylor, and Members of Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Virginia Shelter Grants Program (VSGP) II Allocation
I. BACKGROUND
The City Manager's Task Force on Homelessness studied
the homeless and low-income housing situation in
Roanoke and presented their findings and recommenda-
tions in a comprehensive report titled, No Place To
Call Home, in April, 1987. --
The Task Force recommended that emergency bed space b__e
expanded to meet demand for shelter and that these fa-
cilities meet health and safety codes.
Total Actioq Against Poverty, Inc. (TAP) proposes to
open a Transitional Living Center that would provide
100 additional shelter beds for the homeless.
Virginia Shelter Grants Program (VSGP) II funds were
made available in December, 1987 to localities to as-
sist service providers with the rehabilitation of ex-
isting structures to meet building code standards for
emergency shelter space.
II. CURRENT SITUATION
A. VSGP guidelines require that the grant recipient must
be a local governing body.
B. TAP has a project that is ready t__o go and has express-
ed a need for the grant funds.
The City o_~f Roanoke has been selected to receive a
grant award of $25,000 for the purpose of providing
funding for this project.
III.
ISSUES
A. Impact on Services in the City.
B. Funding.
C. Timing.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Authorize the City Manager to accept the grant, a copy
of which is attached, in the amount of 25,000 from the
Department of Housing and Community Development, Vir-
ginia Shelter Grants Program, and execute the attached
subgrant agreement with Total Action Against Poverty,
Inc., to administer these funds.
Impact o__n services in the City would b__e positive,
increasing number o~--shelter beds available to the
homeless.
2. Timing is important since funds must be obligated
promptly.
3. Funding. Necessary local matching funds will be
provided by TAP. No City funds are required.
B. Do not authorize the City Manager to accept the grant
in the amount of $25,000.
Impact on services in the City could be negative
if plans to increase the number of shelter beds
are delayed or abandoned.
Funding would not be an issue. However, a valu-
able source of funds for the City would be lost.
3. Timing would not be an issue.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council authorize the City
Manager to accept the grant award of $25,000 from the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Develop-
ment under the Virginia Shelter Grants Program and
authorize the City Manager to execute a subgrant
agreement with TAP.
B. Appropriate $25,000 to Grant Fund accounts to be
established by the Director of Finance.
C. Establish a revenue estimate of $25,000 in the Grant
Fund.
Respectfully submitted
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:VLP
cc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Human Resources
Grants Monitoring Administrator
Staff Coordinator
GRANT AGREEMENT
Virginia Shelter Grants Program (VSGP) Il
#87-SG-2E
This Grant Agreement is made by and between the Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Grantee, the City
of Roanoke.
The grant which is the subject of this agreement is authorized by the Governor of the
Commonwealth under the Virginia Shelter Grants Program (VSGP), round two, and is funded
through an allocation from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for
fiscal year 1987. The Grant is subject to the terms, guidelines and regulations set forth
in the VSGP Grant Application Manual (1987) and HUD's regulations at 24 CFR Part 575, as
now in effect and as may be amended from time to time, which are incorporated by reference
as part of this Agreement.
Also incorporated as a part of this agreement are 1) the application, including
certifications, resolutions and agreements contained therein, and 2) the Project Descrip-
tion/Performance Schedule and Special Conditions.
In reliance upon the VSGP grant application and associated documents, the Department
agrees, upon execution of the GRANT AGREEMENT, to provide the Grantee the amount of
$25,000 to undertake the project activities approved and set forth herewith.
The Grantee agrees that VSGP grant funds will be matched through local sources.
The Grantee further agrees to monitor, oversee and report on the use of funds under
this agreement by all sub-grantees.
Project Description/Performance Schedule and Special Conditions
Project Description/Performance Schedule (Approved Activities):
TAAP Transitional Living Center/Shelter Project: VSGP-II funds totalling $25,000 and
local matching funds totalling at least $25,000 shall be used for the rehabilitation
and repair of building to be acquired by subgrantee for use as a homeless shelter
facility. Project budget, cost summary and time schedule are herewith approved. All
VSGP-II rehabilitation expenditures shall end no later than 6/30/88.
II.
Special Conditions:
1) A subgrantee agreement with provider (TAAP), which describes the
conditions of this grant, shall be signed by 2/15/88.
2) Purchase transaction for shelter building shall be completed by 2/1/88.
terms and
The GRANT AGREEMENT is hereby executed by the Parties on the
below their respective signatures as follows:
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
AND CO~qUNITY D~OPMENT
(Sig~ture)
Neal J. Barber
(Name)
Director
(Title)
January 5, 1988
(Date)
City of Roanoke
(Grantee)
(Signature)
(Name)
(Title)
(Date)
date set forth
Attachment I
Authority and Scope:
The Virginia Shelter Grants Program (VSGP) was authorized
in December 1986 by Governor Baiiles to respond to the shelter needs of
the State's homeless. The program will distribute federal Emergency
Shelter Grant funds received from the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) to local units of government to address the
needs of homeless persons in Virginia.
This section establishes guidelines, procedures and regulations which
will govern the operation of VSGP.
Definitions:
"Acquisition" means the purchase of real property (buildings, structures).
"Conversion', means the alteration of a building or structure for use as a
safe, sanitary and energy efficient shelter for the homeless where such
alterations exceed 75% of the pre-rehabilitation value.
"Department" or "DHCD" means the Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development.
"Expansion" means increasing the number of shelter beds and/or usable
physical space at a shelter.
"Governing Body" means the local government legislative board or council.
"Grant~ means a grant made under VSGP and "Grantee" means a grant
recipient local government.
"Homeless" means persons or families that are without and cannot afford
permanent living accommodations.
"HUD" means the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
"Maintenance,, means repairs tca shelter facility to assure its continued
safe, sanitary and energy-efficient use.
-8-
"Program" means the Virginia Shelter Grants Program (VSGP) as
authorized by Governor Baliles.
"Provider" means a non-profit organization which provides shelter services
under sub-grantee agreement with the local government.
"Rehabilitation" means substantial repairs to a shelter facility which will
secure it structurally, correct building code related defects, improve its
energy efficiency, provide additional usable space andlor assure continued
safe and sanitary operation.
"State" means the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development
"Shelter" means a building or structure operated by a local government or
provider for primary use as temporary accommodations and/or essential
services for homeless persons, provided on a non-discrimination basis.
Allocation of Funds
Funds under this program will be distributed to local governments
on a competitive basis. Only local governments are eligible to apply for
VSGP funds and must submit an application to DHCD (see Sections I-C
and I-D of this Manual). Local government grantees can sub-grant
these funds to shelter providers to undertake grant activities.
State Grant Agreements will be finalized between the Department
and locality within 45 days of grant approval. If the locality will use a
non-profit organization to carry out funded activities, the funds must be
obligated to the non-profit organization by sub-grant agreement within 90
days of execution of their Grant Agreement.
-9-
D. Reallocation:
If any locality falls to enter into a grant agreement with the State
within the specified time period, the State may reallocate those funds to
another jurisdiction. Also, should any locality fall to obligate the grant
funds within the specified time period, the state may reallocate these
funds to another locality.
E. Eligibility Requirements
In order to receive funds under this program units of general local
government (counties, cities and towns) in ~ooperation with providers,
where they exist, must show that there is a significant local need for
providing assistance to homeless
provided on a non-discrimination
regulations and federal law.
persons. Shelter services must be
basis and comply with applicable HUD
Any building i'or ~vhich VSGP funds are used must be maintained as
a shelter for at least three years or for ten years if VSGP funds are
used for major rehabilitation or conversion. For the purpose of this
program major rehabilitation and conversion involve total costs in excess
of 75% of the building's value before this work.
F. Eligible Activities
Grants shall only be used for maintaining, expanding or otherwise
improving homeless shelter facilities and/or services. This includes the
following activities:
1) Rehabilitation of shelters. Allowable costs for rehabilitation
are materials and labor.
2) E. xpansion of shelters. Allowable costs for shelter expansion
are materials, labor, and equipment.
-10-
3) Conversion
Allowable costs
ment.
of buildings or structures to shelter.~.
for conversion are materials, labor and equip-
4) Maintenance and operation. Allowable costs are repairs
(labor and materials), insurance, utility expenses (such as
heating fuel, waste disposal), and
(except staff), such as fixtures,
water service, electricity,
other operating expenses
furnishings and supplies.
5) Essential social services. Costs for such services will only
be allowed if the local government did not provide them during
the prior 12 month period, and their costs amount to not more
than 15 percent of the grant amount. Examples of such ser-
vices are substance abuse counseling, job or classroom train-
ing, and health screening and care.
G. Ineligible Activities
Grantees shall not use VSGP funds for any of the following activi-
ties or for any activity that is in violation of federal law or the laws of
the Commonwealth of Virginia:
1) To acquire real property (buildings structures);
2) To pay fees for professional services or permits associated
with building conversion or shelte~- renovation/rehabiLitation,
such as but not limited to architectural design work, inspec-
tions, building permits, loan processing, appraisals and speci-
fication write-ups;
3) To rent commercial transient accommodations for homeless
persons (such as hotel or motel rooms);
-11-
Hw
4) To pay back-rent on behalf of a person or family to avoid
eviction or maintain rental occupancy;
5) To assist a shelter which requires a fee or other compensa-
tion as a requirement for receiving shelter;
6) To assist a shelter which requires participation in religious
or philosophical rites; services, meetings or rituals as a re-
quirement for receiving shelter;
7) To pay for any otherwise eligible costs that were incurred
prior to the State and locality entering into a Grant Agree-
ment; or
8) To pay salaries or expenses of persons administering this
grant.
Funding Priorities
Priority for funding will be given to t~ose applications which pro-
pose 1) the rehabilitation/renovation, repair or expansion of existing
shelters, or 2) the conversion of buildings or structures to shelters or
other eligible activities that increase the number of shelter beds available
for homeless persons. The Department will first review, rank and select
projects in Project Category A as indicated below. It will then make
selections of projects from Project Category B.
Applications ~vill be grouped according to the purpose of the
majority (51%) of the proposed expenditures as follows:
PROJECT CATEGORY A -- shelter repair, physical improve-
ment, expansion, building/structure conversion to a shelter
PROJECT CATEGORY B -- shelter maintenance, operation,
social services
-12-
in a way
Terms of Grants
Grantees must commence project activities funded under the grant
within 90 days of finalizing their Grant Agreement with the State.
Grantees that will use a non-profit provider to undertake project activi-
ties must obligate funds by sub-grantee agreements within 90 days of
finalizing their Grant Agreement. Grant activities must be completed
within 12 months of agreement date.
Grant A~reements
1) The Department will enter into a Grant Agreement with each
grantee;
2) Grant Agreements shall be finalized within 45 days of grant
approval notification;
3) Grant Agreements will require that grantees comply with the
following terms and conditions. A grantee shall:
a) Administer the grant in compliance with all terms, re-
quirements, and condition of this Section, the Grant Agree-
ment, and applicable federal, state and local law.
b) Comply with the performance schedule incorporated into
the Grant Agreement.
c) Monitor all grant funded activities and submit reports on
progress as required under the Grant Agreement.
d) Submit requests for disbursements subject to the terms
of the Grant Agreement.
Operating Standards
Shelter assistance provided under this program shall be administered
which promotes human dignity and respects individual needs.
-13-
Lo
Shelters shall provide a clean, safe, and healthy environment for homeless
persons and families. Residents of shelters assisted under this program
shall not be required to pay a fee or other compensation in order to
receive shelter.
Reporting
VSGP grantees are required to submit to the Department a quarterly
progress report on each project beginning 30 days after they obligate the
funds or incur project costs. Reports shall include information on the
expenditure of program funds.
-14-
I-C
APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS (PART I)
A. Application Form
The VSGP application form is in two parts. Part I is required for all
applicants and requests information on the 1) applicant, 2) local need and
homalessness, 3) project for which funds are sought, and 4) project's
budget (how funds will be spent and source of the local match). Part II
of the application must be submitted only by applicants who wish to re-
({uest building acquisition financing from the Virginia Housin~ DeveloDmen~
Authority (VHDA) along with grant funding through this program.
B. Recluired Documents
Each applicant is required to submit the follow documents when
applying for VSGP funding:
1) A completed VSGP Application Form Part I, (Part II if
applicable);
2) Governing Body Resolutions Form
3) Local Government Certifications Form
Local governments that intend to use shelter
required to submit the following:
O
O
provider)
%Vhen and Where to S~lbmit the ADDlication
VSGP applications must be postmarked
Applications are to be sent to:
providers are also
"Verification of Non-profit Status of Shelter Provider"
Letter of Agreement (between local government and shelter
no later than May 1, 1987.
-15-
-VA Department of Housing and Community Development
Office of Housing Services
205 North Fourth Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Completing the Application
Although the application for VSGP funding is not complex, care
should be taken to include all information necessary for presenting an
accurate accounting of local needs, conditions, resources and your pro-
posed project. The application should be concise and show that your
project can be completed in a reasonably short period (up to one year).
Grant applications must:
1) Describe current local conditions which show a need for homeless
shelter assistance; e.g. number of persons unemployed, number of
persons unable to afford the cost of available housing, number of
persons regularly turned away from existing shelters due to limited
space or other factors. An applicant should use any available local
or regional reports, surveys, or studies which serve to document
homelessness and/or other factors which create economic or social
distress and dislocation. (Ap~)licants must state the method used for
determining need).
2) Describe the project that funding is sought for;
3) Indicate the level of experience on the part of the local
government and/or provider as it relates to effectively
conducting/overseeing the proposed project; and
4) Include a project budget itemizing how funds will be spent with
the amount and source of the local match.
-16-
If you have questions concerning completion of the application or
other program matters call: Warren C. Smith at (804) 225-4296 or
786-7891.
When Do Grantees Get the Money
It will take up to a month and a half from the grant noti~cation date
for Grant Agreements to be finalized and signed. No project expenses may
be incurred before the Grant Agreement is finalized and signed by the
grantee and Department. The Department will discuss disbursement proce-
dures with each grantee, including expected dates for receiving funds.
-17-
Attachmem~ II
pro, eec. ~ ned b~, ~ p~ue 'r~er~ fLuuc~ uo~s~ance' ~uc~udes
may gem of loin, piu~, Mr~W, tuo~naee Po~u~, table, sub,dy,
islet uo~sti~ce ~oiu or ~anL, or any ot~r gem of dtrsoL or ~trso~
It possesses legal authority to apply for th grant; that ·
r·solution, ua·leu or olu~l·r action h~s beau duly adopted or
· l an offLcial Ice of the Iovernin~ body, ·uthorlslu~ the f/lief
of the application, tucludtns all understaudinfe and aesurnacas
coal·Lead Lhorein, and directius and ·uthortzl.f the person
identified as Lhe officia! reWsoeutitiv~ of the ·pplicaut tn
connection With the applies·leu and to provide euch additional
data as My he re~uired.
(F,L, 88-352, &2 USC 2000-d), v~lch prohiblLe diecrl-fnatiou
on Lhe basis of race, color, or uatural or~lu, ~u profrms a~
acLlvl~te8 receiving Federal financial assioLsoce. OLber ad~-
~on~ requir~eu~s
The Age OiecrC-ination AcL of 1975, ··acted as an ahead-
nsnt Lo the Older ABcric&n ACL (P.L. 9&-135), u~leh pro-
hib~te unreaeouable diecrluinatiou based au ale la the
delivery of services and I~tniflLe supported by Federal
funds:
' Title ZX of the Y. ducatiou AfiendueuLe of 1972 (20 USC 1681,
et seq.) v~ich prohibits diocrLuAnatiou on the basis
sex lu education prosrme ·nd ·ctivitiso receiviu8 Federal
financial assista~ce (v~eLhor or uae the program or
iv·eisa ara offered or ·ponsornd by an educational lnsti-
tutiou),
3. Should the reeipieuL*e aetioue result tn the relocation of persons
Porevaut Lo the Uuifo~u itelocetion dMeletauea end Real Property
&equleitiouA~t of 1970 (P.L. 91-6&6, &2 USC &601 ·L ecq.) ~hich
provides for fair ·nd equitable treatment of Persons displaced
· s · result of fnder&l iud federally aes/eLnd progrnae aa required
by the act. .-
&. It will emnpl7 v~th the provisions of the Batch A~t vhieh l~nl~
thc political activity of SLaLe and local govcrmmnt employees.
5. It will cmnply v~th the uLaLuusu vase end u&zc-.~ hours provisions
of the Federal Pair Labor Stanchrde Act, as they apply to -uployee~.
10.
Il.
Zt vial establish eofeluarda to proh/biL euployees frae
of bi~ ~L~vat~ by a desire for ~/va~e loin foe thmelveo
o~ ochers, ~teu~a~y L~oe ~b ~ they ~e
Wt will Lunge that the focll/tias under 1ts ovueFohip, lease or
oupe~vision ubich shell be utLltznd Lu t~ aee~p~Ls~nt of ~be
pro3ec~ ere uo~ lLs~ on ~ hv~romuL~ Pro,to, Leu qeflcy (~A)
ILI~ of violating facilities and ~h~ Lt
roceLp~ of Shy cmu~cs~Lou rrm ~b Director of ~b ~A Office
of Federal ~iv~les ind~ca~L~ that a facility
~he proJec~ Lo ~der co~Ldari~tou for ZLs~L~
It viA1 eouply, to the 'extent applicable, vith all the require-
lents of Section Il& of the Cleon A~r ACt, os m~ed (&2 U.S.C.
1857, e~. seq.), is rended by Pub~e ~v 91~0~) end oec~Lon
308 of Lbs FedeF~ VaLet Pollution ~u~Fo~ AcL (33. U.S.C.
eL. oeq** ss muded by Public hv 02-500), reo~c=~ve~,
section 308 of the ~r ~t a~ ~b Vazer ~t, resistively,
and ~ reguZiC~ous and g~daZ~nes tasued Z~er~der.
It rill cunply vith tho flood Luuroucs purchase requir--snts
of Section 102(e) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,
Public Lay 93-23&, 8? Stet. 975, upprovsd Deco-bar 13, 1976.
Section 102(o) requires, on end after Hatch 2, 1975, tho p~choss
of flood.iniu:anes in cauu~itLns v~ero ouch insurance is avail-
able os · condition for the receipt of uny Fsdarel fiuincial
assistance for come,ructIon or'orqu~sitton purposes for use iQ
any ores that bee been identified by the SecreLsry of tho Deport-
tent of Housing end Urban Developuent es on ifil hlv~.ng special
flood
It will easier I~D iu.tLs cunplionco with Section 106 of the
National Ristoric Preservation Act of 1966 as lunudad (16 U.S.C.
&70), ExeCutive Order 11593, iud the Accbeologicel and Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 669o-1 et. asq.) by (o)
consulting ~Lth the SLots Historic Preservation Officer au tbs
conduct of iuveetila~ious, os IICIIIOZ?o tO identify properties
listed in or eligible for inclusion in the Nstionel Infester of
RistoFic Pieces that ire subject to adverse effects (see 36 CFR
Part 800.8) by the octivity notifying the Federal grantor qency
of the exAsteuce of ouy ouch properties, and by (b) eunplling
with ell requirments established by IPJD to avoid or uLtilate
adverse effects upon ouch properties. -
The Applicant qrees Lbet it rill couply vith Section $0& of
the Iohabilitation Act of 1973, os muded (20 U.S.C. ?9&,
P.L. 93-112), and ell requirements Luposed by or pereu~nt to
the relulatioas of Lhe Deportasnt of iieelLh end H.~n Services
(SS C.F.I. Pez~e 80, 81, and 8&)~ prunelfated under tbs forefoing
statute. The applicant asFees that, in accordance vith the
12,
12,
la.
15,
16,
17.
18.
19.
foregoing requirmnts, us othervise qualified hendLcapped person,
by reason of handicap, shall be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefice of, or be subjected to diecrLuinet~on under
any progrm or activity receiving Federal financial exeietaucs, and
assures that It Will ~aha any measures necessary ~o effeetuete ~his
agreement,
Zt Will comply v~th P.L, 93-348 as ~pleuentnd by Part &6 of Title
C,F,R. ~6) regardiuf the protection of human subjects involved In re-
search; development, and related activities supported by Federal
financial assistance.
X~ Will cexply v~th the Laboratory Amine! Velfare Act of 1966 (P.L,
89-$44; as amended; 7 V.S.¢. 231 eL. seq.) and regulations promulgated
thereunder by the bcretary'o! A~riculLure (9 D,F.R, Subchap~er H)
pertainin~ to the care. h~ndllng, and treatment of warm blooded animals
held or used for research, teachXni or other activities supported bM
Federal avards.
lt.~will coupl7 With'the provisions o! Executive Order 11990, relatlu~
protection of wtlands.
Zt Will ccupl~ With provlstord o! execut/ve order 11988, relaLtuI
to floodplain nenafeuenL.
It viii comply With the I~sndsrds for eeviroraental quality control
that uny be preecribed pursuin~ to repoustbllities of the federal
revetment m~der the Nstional Envtror~ental Act of 1969 (P.L. 9~-19:)
and ~xecuttve Order IISI&, Protection and Enhenceuent of ~nviroumautal
Quality as mm~nded by Executive Order 11991.
It vlll five the Federal grantor or the Comptroller General through
any auther~aed repreasnLit~ve the access to end the r~ght to ex-
amine all records, books, pspere, or doctments related to the grant
includinl the records o~ con,rectors or subcontractors perforuin8
under the franc.
It viii comply'with the equil opportunity clause prescribed by
Executive Order 11246, es mended, and ~Lll require that lie eub-
ubich have or are expected to have an qfrefate value Within a
~velve month period -~ceedin~ SI0,000, in accordance vlth th
Deportment of Idbor regulations at 41 CPi Part 60,
It will include, and will require that its subrecipieuts Include
the provision set forth ~n 29 CFR ~.$(c) pertaining to overtime
involves the neploFuent of mechanics and lobsters Lf the contract'
exceeds S2,500,
~t' The Program is designed to help improve tho quelity
lng emergency shelters for the homeless, to help make
avail·bls additional emergency shelters, and to help meet the
costs of operating emergency shelters ·nd of providing certain
essential ooct·l services to homeless individuals, so that
these persons have access not only to safe ·nd sanit·ry
shelter, but also to the supportive services and others kinds
of ·ssistanom they need to improve their situations.
J575.3 Definiticus.
(a)
Conversion means · change in the use of · building to an
emergency shelter for the homeless under this part, where the
cost of conversion and any reh·bilitation coats exceed ?S
percent of the value of the building before conversion.
Grantee means the entity that executes a grant ·greement with
~er this part. For purposes of this part, 'grantee' is
(a) any State, metropolitan city, or urban county that receives
· grant allocation under §S?S.31~ (b) any unit of gener·l local
~overn~ent that receives a grant based on a realloc·tion under
$75.41(b)(1)~ (c) any private nonprofit organization that
receives · grant based on a reallocation under §$75.41(b)(2)~
(d) any entity that receives · grant hazed on a reallocation
under ISTS.41(b)(3).
Homeless means families and individuals who are poor and have
no access to either traditional or permanent housing.
means the Department o~ Housing and Urban Development.
Major rehabilitation means rehabilitation that involves costs
in excess o£ 75 percent of the value of the building ba~ore
rehabilitation.
~means a city that wes classi~ied as ·
under section 102(a)(4) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 for the fiscal year
immediately before the fiscal year for which emergency shelter
grant amounts are made available.
~emeans any private nonprofit organization
to the homeless, to which · unit of.
general local government distributes emergency shelter grant
~ounte.
Obli~ate~ se&ne that the grantee or State recipient, as
i~ropr~ltl, hal pllCl~ ordlrl~ awardtd co~traCtl, rlCliVid
lervicll o~ entlrld lililir tralaCtione that require p~y~ent
~ st genera~ ~a~ gove~an~ ~o a private nonprofi~
org~iza~ion providing assis~ance ~o ~he hoRe~eoo are
oblige~ed.
Private nonprofit or~anization aeons a secular or'religious
organization described in section S01(c) of the Xnternal
Revenue Code of 1054 which (a) is exempt from taxation under
subtitle A of the Code, (b) has an accounting system and a
voluntary board, and (c) practices nondiscrimination in the
provision of assistance.
Rehabilitation means labor, materials, tools, and other costs
o£ improving buildings, including repair directed toward an
accumulation of de£erred maintenance~ replaceeent of principal
fixtures and components of existing buildings~ installation of
security devices~ and improvement through alterations or
additions to, or enhancement of, existing buildings, including
improvements to increase the e[ficient use of energy in
buildings.
Renovation means rehabilitation that involves costs of 75
percent or less of the value of the building before
rehabilitation.
State means any of the several States, the District of
~la, or tho Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
State recipient means any unit of general local government to
which a State makes &vailable emergency shelter grant amounts.
Unit of general local 9averment means any city, county, town,
township, parish, village, or other general purpose political
subdivision of a State.
Urban county means a county that was classified as an urban
county under section 102(a)(6) of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 for the fiscal year immediately before
the fiscal year for which emergency shelter grant amounts are
mede available.
~nmeans the monetary value assigned to a
dent reel aerate appraiser, or as
otherwise reasonably established by the grantee or the State
recipient.
J57S.5 Waivers.
The Secretary of HUD may waive any requirement of this part
that is not required by law, whenever it is determined that undue
hardship will result from applying the requirement, or where
application of the requirement would adversely affect the purposes
of the Emergency Shelter ~rante Program.
8UBPARTB-- Eligible Activiti#
JS75. H Eligible and ineligible motivitiea.
(a)
Eli ibleactivities. Emergency shelter grant amounts may be
used Esr one or more of the following activities relating to
emergency shelter for the homeless=
(1) Renovation, major rehabilitation, or conversion of
buildings for use as emergenc~ shelters for the homeless.
(2)
Provision of essential services, including (but not
limited to) services concerned with employment, health,
substance abuse, education, or food. ~rant amounts
provided to a unit of general local government Ray be used
to provide an essential service only if--
(i)
The service is a new service or a quantifiable
increase in the level of a service above that which
the unit of general local government provided during
the 12 ca~.ndar months immediately before it received
the grant amounts! and
(ii) Not more than 15 percent of the grant amounts is used
for these services.
(3) Pa~nent of maintenance, operation (including rent, but
excluding staff), insurance, utilities, and furnishings.
(b) Ineligible activities.
(1)
Emergency shelter grant amounts may not be used for
activities other than those authorized under paragraph (a)
of this section. For example, grant amounts may not be
used ~or=
(i) Acquisition of an emergency shelter for the homelessr
(ii) Renting commercial, transient accommodations for the
homeless (such &s hotel or motel rooms)!
(iii)
Any administrative or stuffing costs other than those
permitted in paragraph (a) of this section
essential services, maintenance)~ or
(iv) Rehabilitation services, such as preparation of work
specifications, loan processing, or inspections.
(2) ~rant amounts may not be used to renovate, rehabilitate,
or convert buildings owned b~ primarily religious
organic·ions or entities.
JS75.23 ~no ~ay ~arry out eligible a~tivities.
(a) Gr·ntees 'and State recipients. All grantaes (axcapt States)
and State recipients may carry out activitias with emergency
shelter grant a~ounta. All of · State's formula elloc·tion
must be lade available to units of general local ~overn~ent in
the St·Se, which may include metropolitan cities or urban
counties.
(b) N?n o_ _ reci ients Units of general local government --
~fl ~en~ees amc State recipients -- may distribute all or
part of their grant amounts to nonprofit recipients to be used
for e~argency shelter grant activities.
JS75. Sl
(a)
&UuPART E--Progrm~ Requirements
Mat shins fun~.
General. Each grantee must supplement its emergency shelter
grant amounts with an equal amount of funds from sources other
than under this part. These funds must be provided after the
date of the grant award to the grantee. A grantee may co~ply
with this requirement !~ providing the supplemental funds
itself, or through lupplemental funds provided by any State
recipient or nonprofit recipient (as appropriate).
Calculatin~ the matching amount. In calculating the amount of
supplemental £t~ndl, there may be included the value of any
donated material or building; the value of any lease on a
building; &ny salary paid to staff of the grantee or to any
State or nonprofit recipient (as appropriate) in carrying out-
the emergency shelter program; and the time and sarvicss
contributed by volunteers to carry out the emergency shelter
program, determined at the rate of $5 per hour. For purposes
of this paragraph (b), the grantee will determine the value of
any donated material or building, or any lease, using any
method reasonably calculated to establish a fair market value.
S575.S3 Use &a an emergency IbeX·er.
(a)
(b)
General. Any building for which emergency shelter grant
a~ounts are used must be maintained as a shelter for the
ho~alass for not less than a three-year period, or for not less
than a 10-year period if the grant amounts are used for major
rehabilitation or conversion of aha building.
Calculating the applicable period. The three- and lO-year
periods referred to in paragraph (a) of this section begin to
run:
(1) In the case of · building that was not operated as an
energenc~ shelter ~or the homeless before rsoeil~ of gr~nt
onounts under this part, on the date of initial occupancy
as an emergency shelter for ~he ho~eless.
In the~cesm of a building that was oparste~ es an
emergency shelter before receipt of grant &mounts under
obligated on the shelter.
JS7S.SS Building standards.
Any building for which emergency shelter grant amounts are used
for renovation, conversion, or ma~or rehabilit&tiun must moot the
local govermuent standard of being safe and sanitary.
S575.57 Aisietanoa to tb homeless.
He, oleos individuals must be given assistance in obtaining~
Appropriate supportive services, including permanent housing,
medical end mental health treatment, counseling, supervision,
and other services essential for achieving independent living;
and
(b) Other Federal, Sts~s, local, and private assistance &vailable
for such individuals.
JSTS.S9 Other FoderaX requirements.
Use of emergency shelter grant amounts must comply with the
following additional requirements,
(a) .Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity.
(1)
The requirements of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. 3601-19 and implementing regulations!
Executive Order 11063 and implementing regulations at 24
CFR Part 107! and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(42 U.S.C.2OO2d-1) and implementing regulations issued at
24 CFR Part 1;
(2)
The prohibitions agsinst discrimination on the basis of
age under the Age Discrimination Act of 197S (42 U.S.C.
6101-07) and the prohibitions against discrimination
against handicapped individuals under section S04 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794);
(3)
The requirements of Executive Order 11246 end tho
regulations issued under the Order at 41 CFR Chapter 60;
and
(4)
The requirements o£ section 3 of the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1968, 12 U.S.C. 1701u (see JS70.607(~)
of this Chapter)~ and
(S) The requirements of Executive Orders l1625, 12432, and
12138. Consistent withR~J~'a responsibilities under these
OrderS, the grantee must make efforts to encourage the use
of minority and wcmen*s business enterprises in connection
with activities funded under this pert.
(b) Applicability of Ot4B Circulars. The policies, guidelines, end
requirements o~ OmB CirCUlar ~ros. ~-87 and A-l~2..~s they _
relate to the acceptance and usa sE emergency snel~sr gran~
auount~ by States and units of general local government, and
Nos. A Il0 and A-122 ns they relate to the acceptance and use
of emergency shelter grant amounts by private nonprofit
organixations.
(c) For me,or
Federal Accessibility
rehabilitation or conversion, the Uniform
Standards at 24 CFR part 40, App~ndiz A.
(d)
(e)
poisoning prevention Act (42 U.S.C. JJ4821-
4846) and implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 35.
Conflicts of interest. In addition to conflict of interest
requirements in OMB ~ircular &-102 and A-110, no person who is
an employee, agent, consultant, officer, or elected or
appointed official of the grantee, State recipient, or
nonprofit recipient (or of any designated public agency) that
receives ~mergency shelter grant amounts and who exercises or
has exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to
assisted activities or who is in a position to participate in a
decision~eking process or gain inside information with regard
to such activities, may obtain a personal or financial interest
or benefit fr~ the activity, or have an interest in any
contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or the
proceeds thereunder, either for him or herself or those with
whom ho or she has family or business ties, during his or her
tenure or for one year thereafter. HUD may grant an exception
to this exclusion as provided in tJ570.611(d) and (e) of thio
chapter.
(f) Use of debarred, suspended, or ineli~ibla contractors. The
provisions o~ 24 CFR Part 24 relating to the amplo~z~t,
engagement of services, awarding of contracts, or funding of
any contractors or subcontractors during any period of
debarment, suspension, or placement in ineligibility status.
(g) Flood insurance. No site proposed on which renovation, major
rehabilitation, or conversion of a building is to b~ assisted
under this pert, other than by grant ~ounts allocated to
State, maybe located in un area that hal been identified by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEHA) as having.
special flood hazards, unless the community in which tho area
il situated is participating in tho National Flood Insurance
AGRE~EN~
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of
, 1988 by and between the CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, a
municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as
the Grantee, and Total Action Against Poverty, Inc. (TAP)
a non-stock corporation, created and existing under the laws
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as
the Subgrantee.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Virginia Shelter Grant Program (VSGP) II funds were
made available in December, 1987 to localities to assist ser-
vice providers with the rehabilitation of existing structures
to meet building code standards for emergency shelter space;
and
WHEREAS, VSGP II guidelines require that the grant recipient
must be a local governing body and the Subgrantee has a
project ready to go and has expressed a need for the grant
funds; and
WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke has been selected to receive an
award of $25,000 for the purpose of providing funding for the
Subgrantee.
THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
1. The Subgrantee shall complete the following project
activities which provide for rehabilitation and physical
improvements to the shelter facility:
Electrical Rehabilitation
Plumbing (Remodeling and Rehab)
Smoke Detection and Fire Alarm System
TOTAL $25,000
2
2. The Subgrantee shall complete project rehabilitation and
physical improvements by
3. The Subgrantee shall receive the VSGP grant award in
payments as prescribed by the Virginia Department of Housing
and Community Development. The Grantee will be responsible
for submitting Requests for Payment to the Department of
Housing and Community Development, upon request of the Sub-
grantee. The Grantee reserves the right to withhold payment
if the Subgrantee fails to comply with the procedures out-
lined in this Agreement, and Federal and State regulations
associated with VSGP funds.
4. The Subgrantee shall submit to the Grantee monthly
progress reports regarding project activities, beginning
thirty (30) days after obligation of funds.
5. The Subgrantee acknowledges that the Grantee shall not be
responsible for any actions of employees or designated
representatives of the project. In the event of any
litigation which may arise as a result of the operation of
this project, the Subgrantee agrees to assume the risk and/or
liability for the cost of any such litigation, including but
not limited to, payment of damages or attorney fees to the
plaintiff and hold the Grantee harmless therefrom. The
Subgrantee also acknowledges and agrees that it will provide
its own legal representation and bear the cost of the same.
The Subgrantee also acknowledges and agrees that the Grantee
shall not be obligated to provide insurance coverage, either
commercially or self supplied, for the Subgrantee.
Nothing herein shall be deemed an express or implied waiver
of the sovereign immunity of the City Of Roanoke, Grantee.
6. Neither the Subgrantee, its employees, assigns or
contractors shall be deemed employees of the Grantee while
performing under this Agreement.
7. The Subgrantee agrees to abide by the terms, guidelines
and regulations set forth in the VSGP II Grant ApDlication
Manual (1987) and HUD's regulations at 24 CFR Part 575, as
set forth in Attachments I and II as if they were the Grantee
referenced therein, unless such conditions are clearly
inappropriate for the performance of particular obligations
under this Agreement.
8. During the performance of this Agreement, the Subgrantee
agrees as follows:
A. The Subgrantee will not discriminate against any sub-
contractor, employee, or applicant for employment
3
because of race, religion, color, sex. or national
origin, except where religion, sex, or national origin
is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably
necessary to the normal operation of the Subgrantee.
The Subgrantee agrees to post in conspicuous places,
available to employees and applicants for employment,
notices setting forth the provisions of this non-
discrimination clause.
The Subgrantee, in all solicitations or advertisements
for employees placed by or on behalf of the
Subgrantee, will state that the Subgrantee is an equal
opportunity employer.
Notices, advertisements, and solicitations placed in
accordance with Federal law, rule, or regulation shall
be deemed sufficient for the purpose of meeting the
requirements of A and B above.
9. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as authority
for either party to make commitments which bind the other
party beyond the scope of this Agreement.
10. This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect
until cancelled by either party giving the other party thirty
(30) days written notice of cancellation. Any such
cancellation shall be in writing and shall be sent by
certified mail.
No payment will be made for expenses incurred after receipt
of notice, except those expenses incurred prior to the date
of notice that are necessary to curtailment of operations
under this Agreement.
11. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantee and Subgrantee have
executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.
ATTEST:
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
City Clerk
City Manager
ATTEST:
Total Action Against Poverty,
Inc. (TAP)
Witness Executive Director
Office cfi the Oty Clerk
February 3, 1988
File #472-~83
Mountcastle Ford Tractor Sales,
301-11th Street, S. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24013
lnco
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 28973, accepting your bid
for three new low profile tractors, in the amount of $34,257.00,
which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting held on Monday, February I, 1988.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
pc: Mr.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration
Public Safety
Mr. Jimmie B. Layman, Manager, Parks and Recreation
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
and
Room456 MuniclpalBuilding 215C?nurchAve~ue, S.W. Roonc~e, Virg~nio24011 (703)981-2541
February 3, 1988
File #472-183
Piedmont Tractor Company, inc.
P. 0. Box 7486
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906
Baker Brothers, Inc.
1402 Williamson Road
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
C & G Tractor Company D & H Ford Tractor Sales
P. 0. Box 828 P. 0. Box 823
Halifax, Virginia 24558 Wy theville, Virginia 24382
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 28973, accepting the bid of
Mountcastle Ford Tractor Sales, Inc., for three new low profile
tractors, in the amount of $34,257.00, which Ordinance was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, February 1, 1988.
On behalf of the Council, I would like to express appreciation
for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed equipment.
Sincerely, ~.,,,~.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP : ra
Enc.
Room456 MuniclpalBuildlng 215(D'~urchAve~ue, S.W. Roanoke, Vlrg~nla24011 (703)981-254t
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
The lst day of Februacy, 1988.
No. 28973.
ROANOKE,
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE providing for the purchase of three new low profile
tractors for use by the City, upon certain terms and conditions, by
accepting a bid made to the City for furnishing and delivering such
equipment; rejecting other bids made to the City; and providing for an
emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The bid of Mountcastle Ford Tractor Sales, Inc., made to the
City offering to furnish and deliver to the City, f.o.b., Roanoke,
Virginia, three new low profile tractors for the sum of $34,257.00, is
hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City's Manager of General Services is authorized and
directed to issue the requisite purchase order therefor, incorporating
into said order the City's specifications, the terms of said bidder's
proposal, and the terms and provisions of this ordinance.
3. The other bids made to the City for the supply of such equip-
ment are hereby REJECTED, and the City Clerk is directed to notify
such other bidders and to express the City's appreciation for their
bids.
4.
municipal
nance
In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordi-
shall be in full force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
February 3, 1988
File #60-472-183
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28972, amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1987-88 General Fund
Appropriations, providing for the transfer of $34,257.00 from the
Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program to Grounds
Maintenance, to provide funds in connection with the purchase of
three new low profile trucks, which Ordinance was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, February 1, 1988.
Sincerely, ~l,..--
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP: ra
Eno.
pc:
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. George C. Snead, ,Ir., Director of Administration
Public Safety
Mr. Jimmie B. Layman, Manager, Parks and Recreation
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
and
Room456 MunlclpalBuildlng 21§C~urchAve~ue, S.W.P, oanoke, VIrg~nla2~11 (703)981-254.1
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
lhe lst day of Feb~uary, 1988.
No. 28972.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections
1987-88 General Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
emergency.
of the
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 1987-88 General Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained, to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Public Works
Grounds Maintenance (1) .............................
Fund Balance
Capital Maintenance & Equipment Replacement Program-
City Unappropriated (2) ............................
1) Other Equipment
2) CMERP - City
(001-050-4340-9015) $ 34,257
(001-3332) (34,257)
$16,816,726
2,631,550
$ 1,900,851
BE
Ordinance
IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Roanoke, Virginia
February 1, 1988
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Member of City Council:
SUBJECT:
BIDS TO PURC~L%SE
Tm~E (3) NEW LOW
PROFILE TRACTORS
BID NUMBER 87-12-83
I concur with the recommendation of the Bid Committee
relative to the above subject and recommend it to you for
appropriate action.
WRH/ry
c.c. City Attorney
Director of Finance
Respectfully Submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
February 1, 1988
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Member of Council:
S~-BJECT: BIDS
(3) NEW LOW PROFILE
T~ACTORSBIDNUMBER
87-12-83
I. BACKGROUND
November 9, 1987 City Council designated funds in
the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement
Program to purchase three (3) new low profile
tractors for Ground Maintenance.
Bid request were sent specifically to sixteen (16)
vendors currently on the City's bid list. Also a
public advertisement was published in the Roanoke,
Times and World News on December 27, 1987.
Bids were received after due and proper
advertisement, and were publicly opened and read
at 2:00 p.m. on January 6, 1988, in the Office of
Manager of General Services.
II. CURRENT SITUATION
ae
Five (5) bids responses were received.
tabulation is attached.
Bid
Ail bids received were evaluated in a consistent
manner.
Evaluation of all bids resulted in the following
determination:
The low bid, submitted by Piedmont Tractor
Co., Inc. took exception to the rear tire
size.
The second lowest bid, submitted by
Mountcastle Ford Tractor Sales, Inc.
all required specifications.
meets
III ISSUES
1. Need
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Page 2
IV
V
2. Compliance with specifications
3. Fund availability
ALTERNATIVES
A.
Council accept the lowest bid meeting
specifications, for three (3) new low profile
tractors, as submitted by Mountcastle Ford Tractor
Sales, Inc. for the total amount of $34,257.00.
Need - requested equipment is needed to
perform required Ground Maintenances duties.
Compliance with specification - the bid
recommended in this alternative meets all
required specifications.
Fund availability - funds are designated in
the Capital Maintenance and Equipment
Replacement Program for this purchase.
B. REJECT ALL BIDS
Need - required and needed equipment would
not be purchased.
Compliance with specifications - would not be
a factor in this alternative.
Fund availability - designated funds would not
be expended.
RECOmmeNDATION
Council Concur with alternative "A" - accept the
lowest bid meeting specification, on three (3) new
low profile tractors, as submitted by Mountcastle
Ford Tractor Sales, Inc., for the total amount of
$34,257.00, and reject all other bids.
ApDropriate $34,257.00 from Capital Maintenance
and Equipment Replacement Program to Grounds
Maintenance account 001-050-4340-9015 to provide
for this purchase.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Page 3
Chairman
GCS/DDR/ry
c.c. City attorney
Director of Finance
Respectfully Submitted
~. b. Layma~~
D. Darwin Roupe
Office of the City C]en~
February 3, 1988
File #70
Kay Uniforms
4142-36 Melrose Avenue, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 28975, accepting your bid
to supply station uniform shirts and trousers for the Fire
Department, in the amount of $45,333.00, which Ordinance was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, February i, 1988.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Eric.
pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration
Public Safety
Mr. Harry p. McKinney, Chief, Fire Department
Mr. D. Darwin ROupe, Manager, General Services
and
I:~n4.56 MUnlclpalBulldlncj 2'15 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virg~nlo2,4011 (703)98'~-2541
February 3, 1988
File #70
Samts on the Market
304-306 Market Street, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 28975, accepting the bid of
Kay Uniforms to supply station unifo.m shirts and trousers for
the Fire Department, in the amount of $45,333.00, which Ordinance
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, February 1, 1988.
On behalf of the Council, [ would like to express appreciation
for submitting your bid on station uniforms and trousers.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Eneo
Room 456 Municipal Ikslldlng 2'15 O~urch Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, ¥1rg~nla 24011 '(703) 981-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 1st day of February, 1988.
No. 28975.
AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of Kay Uniforms made to the City
for furnishing and delivering Station uniform shirts and trousers for
the Fire Department; rejecting all other bids made to the City; and
providing for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The bid of Kay Uniforms made to the City, offering to supply
station uniform shirts and trOusers for the Fire Department, meeting
all of the City's specifications and requirements therefor, for the
total bid price of $45,333.00, which bid is on file in the Office of
the City Clerk, be and is hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City's Manager of General Services is hereby authorized
and directed to issue the requisite purchase order therefor, incor-
porating into said order the City's specifications, the terms of said
bidder's proposal and the terms and provisions of this ordinance.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid
equipment are hereby REJECTED, and the City Clerk is directed to
notify each such bidder and to express to each the City's appreciation
for such bid.
4. In order to provide for the USual daily operation of the
municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordi-
nance shall be in full force and effect Upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
February 3, 1988
File #70-60
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28974, amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1987-88 General Fund
ApPropriations, transferring $42,000.00 from the Capital
Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program to Fire
Suppression, in COnnection with the purchase of station uniform
shirts and trousers for the Fire Department, which Ordinance was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, February 1, 1988.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP: ra
Enc.
pc:
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration
Public Safety
Mr. Harry p. McKinney, Chief, Fire Department
Mr. D. Darwin ROupe, Manager, General Services
and
Room 456 ~,~unicipal Building 2';5 C~urch Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Vlrg~nlo 240'11 (703) 981-254t
~A4
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 1st day of February, 1988.
No. 28974.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
1987-88 General Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
emergency.
the
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 1987-88 General Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained, to read as follows, in part:
A~iations
Public Safety
Fire Suppression
Fund Balance
$22,613,230
7,452,859
1)
2)
Capital Maintenance & Equipment Replacement Program -
City Unappropriated (2) ............................ $ 1,893,108
Wearing Apparel (001-050-3213-2064) $ 42,000
CMERP - City (001-3332) (42,000)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Roanoke, Virginia
February 1, 1988
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of City Council:
SUBJECT: BIDS TO PURCHASE STATION UNIFORM SHIRTS
AND TROUSERS, BID NUMBER 87-12-85
I concur with the recommendation of the bid committee
relative to the above subject and recommend it to your for
appropriate action.
WRH/DDR/ms
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
February 1, 1988
'88
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of City Council:
SUBJECT: BIDS TO PURCHASE STATION UNIFO~'4 SHIRTS AND
TROUSERS, BID NUMBER 87-12-85
I. BACKGROUND
November 9, 1988, City Council designated funds in the
Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program to
purchase station uniform shirts and trousers for the Fire
Department.
Be
Bid Request were sent specifically to five (5) vendors that
are currently listed on the City's bid list. A public
advertisement was also published in the Roanoke Times and
World News on December 27, 1987.
Bids were received, after due and proper advertisement, and
were publicly opened and read at 2:00 p.m., on January 7,
1988, in the Office of the Manager of General Services.
II. CURRENT SITUATION
ae
Two (2) bid responses were received. Bid tabulation is
attached.
Ail bids received, were evaluated in a consistent manner by
representatives of the following departments:
Fire
General Services
III. ISSUBS
A. Need
B. Compliance with Specifications
C. Fund Availability
IV. ALTERNATIVES
ae
Council accept the lowest bid for station uniform shirts and
trousers, as submitted by Kay Uniforms for the total cost of
$45,333.00.
Need - requested uniforms will provide clothing for
Fire Department personnel that complies with National
Fire Protection Association standard requirement.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Page 2
We
Compliance with Specifications - the bid submitted by
Kay Uniforms meets all required specifications.
Fund Availability - $42,000.00 is designated in the
Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program.
The remaining $3,333.00 is available thru the Fire
Department, wearing apparel account 001-050-3213-2064.
B. Reject all bids.
Need - providing Fire Department uniforms that meet
national fire standards would not be accomplished.
Compliance with Specifications - would not be a factor
in this alternative.
Fund Availability - designated funds would not be
expended.
RECO~NDATION
ae
Council concur with Alternative "A" - accept the lowest bid
for station uniform shirts and trousers, as submitted by Kay
Uniforms for the total cost of $45,333.00 and reject all
other bids.
ADpropriate $42,000.00 from Capital Maintenance and
Equipment Replacement Program to Fire Department account
001-050-3213-2064 to allow for the purchase of required
uniforms.
Respectfully submitted,
Committee: ~ ~~
eorge~ Snead
D. Darwin Roupe
GCS/DDR/ms
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Bid Tabulation
for
Station Uniform Shirts and Trousers
Bid Number 87-12-85
730 Long sleeve station
uniform shirts as per
City of Roanoke Specs.
and delivered f.o.b.
Roanoke, Virginia.
Sam's on the
Kay Uniforms Market
$ 27.60 ea. $ 32.00 ea.
730 Station uniform
trousers as per City
of Roanoke Specs. and
delivered f.o.b. Roanoke,
Virginia.
34.50 ea. $ 39.00 ea.
TO~AL *$45,333.00 $51,830.00
Delivery
45 to 90 days
45 days
*Indicates Recommendation
Committee:
D. Darwin Roupe
February 3, 1988
File #27
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending that
Council authorize you to initiate and lead negotiations with
other affected Valley governments relating to capacity allocation
and new construction cost for joint use sewerage facilities, was
before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting
held on Monday, February 1, 1988.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, Council con-
curred in the recommendation.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP: ra
pc:
Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, Roanoke County Administrator, p. O. Box
29800, Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
Mr. Randolph M. Smith, Salem City Manager, Po O. Box 869,
Salem, Virginia 24153
Mr. George W. Nester, Vinton Town Manager, 311 Pollard
Street, Vinton, Virginia 24179
Mr. John Williamson, III, Botetourt County Administrator,
P. O. Box 279, Fincastle, Virginia 24090
Mr. Robert G. Burnley, Regional Director, Cor~nonwealth of
Virginia, State Water Control Board, West Central Regional
Office, 5306-A Peters Creek Road, Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. Steven L. Walker, Manager, Sewage Treatment Plant
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Av~que, $.W. Roonoke, V~rg~la 2401 t (703) 981-2541
Roanoke, Virginia
February 1, 1988
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Initiation of Negotiations Relating to Capacity
Allocation and New Construction Cost for Joint Use
Sewerage Facilities
The attached staff report was considered by the Water Resources
Committee at its meeting on January 25, 1988. The Committee recommends
that Council authorize the City Manager to initiate and lead
negotiations for expanding our joint use sewerage facilities in
accordance with Alternative "A" of the attached staff report.
Respectfully submitted,
EliZabeth T. Bowles, Chairman
Water Resources Committee
ETB:KBK:afm
Attachment
CC:
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
STP Manager
City Engineer
Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, Roanoke County Administrator
Mr. Randolph M. Smith, Salem City Manager
Mr. George W. Nester, Vinton Town Manager
Mr. John D. Williamson, III, Botetourt County Administrator
Mr. Robert G. Burnley, Regional Director, SWCB
IN'£~DEPAR%%~T CO~9{UNICATION
DATE:
TO:
January 19, 1988
Mrs. Bowles and ~bg~rs, Water Resources Co~mmittee thru
Mr. Herber~
K. B. Kiser ~.,~. ~
S~CT: Initiation of Negotiations Relating to Capacity
Allocation and New Construction Cost for 3oint Use
Sewerage Facilities
Background:
1972 Sewage treatment contract between the City and other
Valley governments provided for the allocation of capacity in
the then existing joint use facilities and provided the cost
of new construction would be shared based on future needed
allocated capacities.
ApproachinR limits on the available capacities prompted the
City, in coordination with the other Valley governments, to
undertake the 201Wastewater Facilities Plan (Facilities Plan)
study which study was approved by Council by resolution dated
3une 8, 1987.
Facilities Plan envisions expanding the Sewage Treatment
Plant, replacing the river and Tinker Creek Interceptors and
updating certain other equipment at a 1985 cost estimate of
$31~775~000. Note the attached sun, nary regarding the
Facilities Plan.
Requested approval from the State Water Control Board
regarding the Facilities Plan has prompted a letter requesting
certain technical information and a schedule. We will respond
to the technical questions and provide a plan of action.
Eo
The first step in developing a plan of action will be to meet
with the other Valley governments to obtain:
1. Commitment on allocated capacities,
2. Negotiate for cost sharing, and
3. Negotiate an amendment to the 1972 Sewage Treatment
contracts.
Representatives of two of the other Valley governments havo
recently expressed interest in meetin~ to discuss current
capacity allocations in joint use interceptors which are
Page 2
II.
approaching the time when continued growth and development
could be adversely affected.
Current Situation: A meeting with affected local governments needs
to be scheduled and a negotiating team appointed to consider the
renovation and expansion needs for the Sewage Plant and joint
sewage interceptors with subsequent recon~nendations being referred
to City Council for approval.
III. Issues:
A. Capacity Needs
B. Costs
C. Timing
D. Contract Amendments
IV. Alternatives:
A. Committee recommend that Council:
Designate the City Manager to initiate and lead
meetings and negotiations with the other affected
Valley governments concerning the improvements
needed to our joint use sewage facilities with other
members of the negotiating team to be the City
Attorney and Director of Finance.
ii. Designate the Chairman of the Water Resource~
Committee to be Council's liaison with the
negotiating team.
iii. Designate the Water Resources Committe, to be
Council's oversight Committee regarding these
negotiations.
1. Capacity needs will be addressed and refined.
2. Costs will be identified and prorated.
Timin~ to begin negotiations, which may be protracted,
will not be delayed.
Current amendments will be dealt with by the negotiating
team and ultimately be presented to Council for approval.
Committee recommend that negotiations wait until there is a
stated need or request by another local government.
Capacity needs will eventually be addressed, however, a
joint meeting of all affected local governments will
still be needed.
Page 3
IV.
2. Costs will be allocated at a later time.
3. Timin~ will be delayed.
4. Contract amendments will still eventually be needed.
Recommendation: Committee recommend to City Council that the
City Manager initiate and lead negotiations for expanding our joint
use sewerage facilities in accordance with Alternative "A".
KBK:afm
Attachment
cc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
STP Manager
City Engineer
Administrators, Other Valley Governments