Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 06-01-8728660 REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ...... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL June I, 1987 2:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL Call to Order -- Roll Call. Mayor Taylor was absent. The invocation will be delivered by The Reverend Frank W. Feather, Pastor, Forest Park Baptist Church· Present. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America will be led by Vice-Mayor Howard E. Musser. CONSENT AGENDA Approved (5-0) (Mr. Trout had not arrived. 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 FOPJJ LISTED BELOW. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DIS- CUSSION OF THESE ITEMS· IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. C-1 C-2 Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Monday, April 20, 1987. RECOMMENDED ACTION: A list of items pending from July 10, May 26, 1987· RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. REGULAR AGENDA Dispense with the reading thereof and approve as recorded. 1978, through Hearing of Citizens Upon Public Matters: Petitions and Communications: None. Reports of Officers: None· City Manager: Briefings: A report regarding the homeless· Received with appreciation and re~erred to the City Manager for study, report and recommendation to Council. (1) Items Recommended for Action: A report recommending the transfer of $35,000.00 from Foster Care to General Relief in the Social Services Department budget, for a temporary emergency relie[ program for citizens· Adopted Ordinance ~o. 28660. 6-0) Reports a. (1) (2) of Corrgnittees: A report of the Water Resources Corr~nittee recon~nending approval of the Wast·water Facility Plan, and authori- zation to pursue approval of the plan by the State Water Control Board. Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman. Concurred in recommendation. A report of the City Planning Corrgnission recon~nending approval of the Wastewater Facility Plan. Susan S. Goode, Chairman. A report of the Water Resources Corrrnittee recommending authorization to cancel the lease of a 1,000 square foot space in the Market Square Parking Garage held by Roanoke Photo Associates, effective on or before July 1, 1987. Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman· Adopted Ordinance No. 28661. A report of the Water Resources Corr~nittee recommending issuance of a revocable permit to Roanoke Memorial Hospitals for a retaining wall encroaching into the right of way of South Jefferson Street. Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman. Adopted Ordinance No. 28662 on first reading. (6-0) de A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending the appropriation of $170,000.00 from the Water Fund to cover an over-expenditure and to provide necessary funding for new services, hydrants and lines through June 30, 1987. Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman· Adopted Ordinance No. 28663. {6-0) A report of the Water Resources Corrgnittee recommending exe- cution of a contract with Cooper Industries, to overhaul No. 6 Blower Engine at the Sewage Treatment Plant. Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman. Adopted Ordinance No. 28664. I6-0) Unfinished Business: None. Introduction and Consideration of Ordinances and Resolutions: ae Ordinance No. 28659, on second reading, providing for the purchase of two new midsize one-half ton pickup trucks for use by the City, upon certain terms and conditions, by accepting a bid made to the City for furnishing and delivering such equipment; and rejecting other bids made to the City. Adopted Ordinance No. 28659. {5-0, Mr. Bowers abstained from voting.) (2) 10. Motions and Miscellaneous Business: Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and members of City Council. Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council. Other Hearings of Citizens: Mr. John Sabean presented copy of an application submitted by St. John's Episcopal Church to HUD regarding funds for housin~ for persons with mental illness. (3) MINUTES CONSIDERED AT THIS COUNCIL MEETING MAY BE REVIEWED ON LINE IN THE "OFFICIAL MINUTES" FOLDER, OR AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Pending Items from July 10, 1978, through May 26, 1987. Referral Date Referred To Item 7/10/78 City Manager 5/6/85 City Manager 8/12/85 City Manager 8/25/86 City Manager 11/17/86 City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance 2/23/87 2/23/87 City Manager Regional Cable Television Corrmi t tee 3/16/87 Corrrnissioner of Revenue City Manager Recorrmendation No. I1 contained in the Mayor's 1978 State of the City Message. (Development of Mill Meuntain - hotel.) Corrrainication from Vice-Mayor Jaroes G. Harvey, II, in regard to a Sister City relationship with Asheville, North Carolina. Mayor's 1985 State of the City recorro~ndation No. 1 - establish- ment of a working relationship with the volunteer rescue squads and the Roanoke Historical Society for the purpose of establishing a rruse~n and national headquarters for volunteer rescue squads in the City. Mayor's 1986 State of the City reconrrendation No. 6 streng- thening the City's relationship with Virginia Tech. Question of reinstating security officers at Roanoke Regional Airport, Woodru~n Field, and Carvins Cove Reservoir, as police officers. Report of the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council. Request of Cox Cable Roanoke for a renewal of their franchise agreement in order to sirr~plify and clarify language, make cer- tain additions and deletions, and extend the term. Corrrr~nication from Larry L. Fenzel with regard to a tax freeze on property ~nich has been remodeled, Civic Center opera- tions, and refuse collection. Pending Items from July 10, 1978, through May 26, 1987. Referral Date Referred To Item 4/27/87 City Manager Report of the City Planning Com- mission recorrmending the renaming of the Kimball Avenue/Hollins Road, N. E. and Hollins/Read Road, N. E. Thoroughfares. 5/4/87 Robert A. Garland Kit B. Kiser WilliamF. Clark Bids for cleaning and painting the interior and exterior of the 2,000,000 gallon Carroll Avenue Steel Storage Standpipe. 5/4/87 Robert A. Garland George C. Snead, Jr. Williarn F. Clark Bids for flood domage repair of East and West Stands, Victory Stadi~n. 5/11/87 Robert A. Garland Kit B. Kiser William F. Clark Bids for construction of the Park Lane, S.W. Duplex Grinder Sewage Lift Station and Force Main. 5/28/87 City Manager Investigation of the traffic situation on Williamson Road, specifically on Friday and Saturday nights. -2- Office of ~ City Clerk June 3, 1987 File #72 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: A report of the committee appointed to study the plight of the homeless, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 1, 1987. On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the report was accepted with appreciation and referred to you for study, report and recommendation to Council. Sincerely, ~l~A~.~- Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ra Enco cc: The Reverend Clay H. Turner, Pastor, St. John's Church, P. 0. Bo~ 257, Roanoke, Virginia 24002 Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Episcopal Room456 MunicipalDuildln~ 215(~ur~hA',~,~ue, S,W. Roanoke, Virginla24011 (703)981-2541 O~f~ce o~ ~he {i~y MQn~ge~ May 28, 1987 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor and Members of Council: Subject: Report of the City Manager's Task Force on the Homeless Attached is your copy of the final report of the City Manager's Task Force on homelessness. As you recall, the study was done in response to Mayor Taylor's recommendation in his 1986 State of the City address. The Reverend Clay Turner, Chairman of the Task Force, will attend the City Council meeting on Monday for the purpose of briefing Council on the contents of this study. We wanted you to have an opportunity to review it prior to that time. The report will not be released publicly until a press conference at 9 a.m., on Monday, June 1, 1987. WRH/JDR/a Sincerely, W. Robert Herbert City Manager Enclosure cc: Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Resources Room 364 Municipol Building 215 Church Avenue, 5 W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703)981-2333 June 1, 1987 Roanoke, Virginia Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Members of City Council: SUBJECT: REPORT OF CIT~ MANAGER'S TASK FORCE ON HG/4ELESSNESS I, BACI~GROUND mo M__ayor Noel C. Taylor in his 1986 State of the City Address recommended that the Department of Human Resources conduct a study to determine how the City might be involved in meeting the needs of the homeless. The _City Manager appointed a citizens task force composed of community leaders from the civic and business arenas to conduct a formal study on the homeless in Roanoke. 1. The Director of Human Resources was named Staff Coordinator to the task force. 2o The City contracted with the Council of Community Services to provide project coordination and technical assistance to the task force. The task force met officially for the first time on December 5, 1986. Subsequent task force meetings were held on January 12; February 2, 23, and 26; March 9, 18, and 25; and April 7 and 15, 1987. Meetings of the sub-committees on low-income housing and temporary/emergency shelter were held throughout the process. 2. Reports by other localities were studied in detail by staff and task force members. Do The task force conducted public hearinss and a~ency and client interviews to receive citizen input. Task force members visited all shelters to view facilities and spoke with both staff and residents. II. CURRENT SITUATION A. The task force has collected and analyzed data and made conclusions and recommendations. B. The task force prepared a formal report which includes the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. III. slw CC: Reverend Clay Turner, Task Force Chairman, submitted the final report to the City Manager. Implementation of the task force recommendations could enhance available City services with some redirection of current resources. E. This report is submitted for the members of City Council for information and appropriate referral to City administration. RECO~OIENDATION Receive report and refer to the City Manager for appropriate action. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager Finance Director City Attorney James Ritchie NO PLACE TO CALL HOME: A STUDY OF HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS IN ROANOKE, VIRGINIA APRIL, 1987 CITY MANAGER'S TASK FORCE The Reverend Clay H. ?urnlr, Chairman Dr. Wendell H. Butler Christina Coulter The Reverend Frank Wo Feather Odall W. Gray James G. Harvey, II Vera Johnson Louise King Olivia B. LaMotta Angelica D. Lloyd Wendy Moore Lewis W. Pasty ROANOKE CITY STAFF James D. Ritchie Donna $. Norvelle Susan Webster, Task Force Secretary PROJECT CONSULTANT Council of Community Services Mary Ellen Verdu, Staff JEFFERSON STREET AT ELM AVENUE P.O. BOX 257 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24002 TELEPHONE: 343-9341 April 27, 1987 Hr. W~ Robert Herbert Manager, City of Roanoke. 215 Church Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia 24011- Dear Bob: Enclosed you will find the final report of the Task Force on the Homeless. The entire Task Force joins me in thanking you for giving us the opportunity to serve our City in this way. We present our findings and recommendations to you with full awareness of the complexity of the task which lies ahead as. we seek to alle=iate the anxiety and suf£ering of the homeless people in our midst. We pledge ourselves to work toward the fulfillment of that goal. This means that we:see our report as only a beginning. We commend you for taking this initial step for our city and we hope to see exciting results of this study in the years to come . The RevF ;~d~er CHT/rh A Parish in the Diocese of Southwestern Yirginia TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .... PROLOGUE ....... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HISTORY AND PURPOSE WHO ARE THE HOMELESS? STUDY METHODOLOGY . . Subcommittee on Emergency/Temporary Shelter .... Subcommittee on Permanent Low-Cost Housing .... DESCRIPTION OF FINDINGS ............... Emergency/Temporary Shelter: Clients and Resources ..... The Homeless/Shelter Population ........ Resources ................. 19 Permanent Low-Cost Housing ............ 26 Populations at Risk of Homelessness ......... 26 Resources .................. 36 CONCLUSIONS PAGE i 1 3 6 7 l0 11 12 14 14 51 RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 56 REFERENCES APPENDICES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study is for the benefit of the homeless and potentially homeless in our community, and of the many public and private agencies named in it, with- out whose cooperation it would not have been possi- ble. Special gratitude is expressed to the admini- stration of the City of Roanoke, whose faith in the work of this Task Force has been the inspiration of the study. We wish to acknowledge the roles that the Advisory Board of Human Resources and the Human Resources Steering Committee played in first articu- lating the community's concern for the homeless. We also extend special thanks to Corinne Gott, Superintendent of Roanoke City Department of Social Services, and H, Daniel Pollock, Housing Develop- ment Coordinator of Roanoke City's Building Depart- ment, for their assistance and technical support, and to Janet Y. Terry, Office Manager of the Council of Community Services for her timely clerical sup- port. Finally, we wish to extend special apprecia- tion and gratitude to the many citizens of Roanoke who shared their feelings, concerns, experiences and ideas with us during the course of the study. NO PLACE TO CALL HOME PROLOGUE In undertaking the study of the homeless situation in the Roanoke Valley, the Task Force has endeavored throughout its work to move beyond numbers and percentages toward the development of an understanding of the issue of housing from the standpoint of its human dimensions. We have become aware that hous- ing has profound personal meanings which dramatically enhance or diminish a person's quality of life. Housing provides warmth, security, privacy, a sense of belonging, a location in society, a permanent address, one's own bed- room and kitchen and bathroom, community acceptance, environmental cleanliness, continuity, closets, running water and working windows and doors -- in sum, a sense of having a home. We have discovered that just as the matter of housing is a complex of meanings, so, too, the resolution to the problem of being with- out housing is complex and complicated. There is no single solution to this problem. The answers to the social and human problems of homelessness will be varied and vast and will demand many resources, both financial and personall from our community. If any person suffers from homelessness, we all suffer. Those of us who are privileged to have a place to call home are challenged to provide this basic ingredient of being human to all our neighbors. We cannot rest until all our fellow citizens have their place to call home. We have become aware that in an affluent society such as ours homeless- ness is absurd. Homelessness is unnecessary. Homelessness is unconscionable. Homelessness is hell. Homelessness is dereliction -- frostbitten toes, crook- ed and lost fingers, burning, bleary eyes with bad vision and a pair of drug- store glasses to mask the'shame and blindness of being homeless. In so many ways to be without a home is to be nowhere in society and to be without an identity . . to become a nobody, a non-person. No human being should suffer such a plight, be he young or old, male or female, married or single. We pledge ourselves to free these sufferers in our midst from their inhumane condition. To that end, we present the results of our study and assert our recommendations in the fervent hope that people in both the private and public sectors of our community will join together to alleviate this devastating human condition. The Task Force on Housing and Homelessness April 29, 1987 -2- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Manager's Task Force on Housing and Homelessness was appointed in December, 1986 to carry out a study of the needs of the homeless in Roanoke, following a request made by Mayor Noel C. Taylor in his 1986 State-of-the-City address. The twelve member task force conducted a four month study of the emergency shelter and permanent low-cost housing needs in Roanoke, by collecting its own data, studying existing data and consulting both affected citizens and agencies which serve them. The Task Force concerned itself with two different client populations: those adults and their dependents who rely on shelters to alleviate temporary and chronic homelessness; and those individuals and families who, by virtue of their financial position and other personal circumstances, find themselves unable to afford and maintain decent housing or who are at risk of losing housing due to the personal and economic stresses of their everyday lives. The Task Force determined that there are at least 177 people in Roanoke who are homeless and rely on emergency shelters for housing. The largest segment of this group is single men, many suffering from chronic alcoholism and drug abuse or mental illness. However, there has been an increase over the past few years in the numbers of families and young adults that are homeless. Despite the efforts of local shelter agencies there are not enough shelter beds to provide safe, adequate shelter year-round for these chronically homeless individuals. Therefore a major recommendation of this study is that the community should increase its emergency shelter bed space by the winter of 1987so that there are enough beds to meet the demand for shelter, and that they are provided in safe, clean and adequate facilities. Other recommendations made regarding services -3- The members of the Task Force recognize that the problems of housing and homelessness are complex, and solutions require short and long range efforts by both the private sector and government at all levels. The recommendations made in the study are therefore designed to encourage immediate efforts and gradual but steady changes to assure safe, adequate housing for all of our citizens. -5- WHO ARE THE HOMELESS? Those who are homeless may be so for a night or for many years. They are young and old, alone or with a family, male and female. During the course of this study members of the Task Force spoke with many individuals, including the following persons: A husband and wife in their late teens arrive in town from a nearby state with their six-week-old baby, They have left an area high in unemployment and come to Roanoke seeking work with no resources other than the small amount of cash in their pockets, They don't know where they will stay tomorrow. A friendly sociable 78-year-old man says that he prefers to live in his car in a city park rather than live in a permanent apartment. A local convenience store offers him shelter during the worst months of winter weather, -- A chronic alcoholic stays at the Salvation Army shelter when he is on a drinking binge because he says that his family objects to his drinking. -- A young man returns to his home community after serving time in prison. Although only marginally literate and having few marketable job skills, he is ineligible for many social services and lacks the credit refer- ences and deposits to get an apartment, -- A mother Of two school age children moves out of an abusive home into an efficiency motel room because she does not have enough money saved up to afford an apartment and furnishings, She calls the Information and and Referral Center for help when her car breaks down because she can not pay her motel bill and repair her car. -- A fifty-year-old woman is released from a state hospital and answers ad after ad for apartments but is repeatedly rejected as a tenant. She finally finds housing in a subsidized housing facility. -- A moderately retarded woman in her twenties lives at home with her fam- ily but worries about who will take care of her after her parents die. -- A family from a neighboring state is told by friends that Roanoke is a good place to find work. They sell their car and use all their money on rent. The man has a part-time job but the family is now living split up between men's and women's shelters, -- An incoherent, obvi'ously mentally ill middle-aged man is unable to com- plete a conversation with a visitor to a local shelter but says he wanders around the country. -- Men and women who'pay their entire General Relief ~hecks to a single- room-occupancy boarding house rely on the shelters to provide meals and clothing. They have no other income. - 7- any count of them can be, As the vignettes which preface this section show, the homeless have many faces and many stories. An individual who is homeless finds himself or herself denied one of the most basic elements of self-esteem and social status, namely a dwelling place which provides safety and security, a sense of permanence, and a feeling of belonging to a neighborhood and a community. Parents of homeless families~ own sense of inadequacy and frustra- tion regarding their inability to provide for their children is accentuated by community sanctions against "unfit" parents. Similarly, a resident of sub- standard rental housing or someone doubling up with friends or relatives in violation of occupancy codes or rules regarding public assistance, foregoes the civic right to complain to the appropriate authorities because the exer- cise of that right would likely lead to eviction. The Task Force is cautious about presenting absolute numbers of affected individuals. The numbers offered in the description of findings are approxi- mations which were derived by comparing data from a variety of s~urces. The Task Force believes that this cross-referencing of sources and the delineation between the different client groups have enabled it to present sound estimates of the numbers of people facing present or possible homelessness in the City of Roanoke. -9- SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY/TEMPORARY SHELTER This subcommittee was responsible for answering the following questions: - Who are the homeless in need of temporary or emergency shelter (how many, what are their demographic characteristics)? - What services are currently available to them, and what is the quality and quantity of these services? - What are the gaps between available services and existing needs? If there are gaps, are they likely to expand or contract over the next five or ten years? - Are there service models in other communities which might better address the needs of Roanoke's emergency shelter population? - What services besides direct shelter are needed to adequately address the problem of temporary homelessness in Roanoke? Are these services already in existence? Is the system coordinated? - Who, in terms of key service providers and funding bodies, is, or needs to be, involved in this issue? To determine the answers to these questions the subcommittee: - Visited all shelters to view the facilities, and spoke with both staff and residents; - Interviewed clients at some non-shelter agencies to determine their risk of becoming homeless and to listen to their concerns and fears relating to homelessness; - Interviewed staff from agencies who serve client group~ represented among the homeless, e.g., the deinstitutionalized and veterans, (see Appendix A); - Investigated shelter model~ and shelter support services in other commu- nities; - 11 - To determine the answers to these questions the subcommittee: - Held a series of public hearings in various neighborhoods around the City (see Appendix B); - Held in-depth interviews with key agencies whose clients are at risk of homelessness due to economic or personal circumstances (see Appendix A); - Attended group meetings of identified high-risk client groups (e.g,, ex- offenders, deinstitutionalized individuals and mothers of children partici- pating in Head Start programs); - Met with Congressman James Olin to investigate federal policies and initia- tives relating to the homeless, job training programs and the minimum wage; - Met with City public housing officials and housing planners; - Collected statistics on publicly subsidized housing controlled at state and federal levels and administered in neighboring locales; - Examined census and other statistical data to determine the numbers of individuals and families potentially at risk of losing their present housing; and - Interviewed representatives of the private real estate sector, The Task Force subcommittees reported to the full group monthly during the data collection phase, Once this phase was completed, the Task Force met as a full group to develop its conclusions. It met once more with all repre- sentatives of emergency/temporary shelter services and with representatives of related support service organizations to verify its findings as to available services and to solicit final suggestions and recommendations from those representatives. It then devel'oped its final recommendations and rationales through a group process, - 13- rather than brave the elements, and the police would be making a special effort to assure than no one froze from exposure. Individuals on fixed in- comes or who receive public assistance also tend to seek shelter more often at the end of the month because they have run out of money. In fact, this week was the coldest one of the winter with temperatures that week averaging a high of 25° and a low of 17° Fahrenheit. The subcommittee decided that the count should involve all four private shelters (the City Rescue Mission, the Salvation Army, Justice Mouse, and TRUST), the Mental Health Services' residential detoxification center, the City Jail, and the downtown police patrol. All of these agreed to partici- pate except for Justice House, which did give some limited, but unverifiable, information by telephone. For one week prior to the count each of the shelters or programs was contacted daily to determine how many people had been housed (or if pertinent, how many of the housed population were homeless) and to see if anyone had been housed in other lodging such as motels. On the night of the count, members of the Task Force and professional staff from several agencies went to the shelters and, in addition to obtaining a count, inter- viewed any residents who were willing to volunteer some information about themselves. All of the interviews were recorded on interview sheets, but no identifying information was sought or recorded. All interviewers requested the same basic information: whether the person was alone or part of a family unit, his/her approximate age, his/her sex, whether he/she described him/her- self as a local resident or in transit, and sources of income, Additional notes were taken if the person interviewed had any comments or suggestions about the study or his/her e~periences or if the interviewer noted clear physi- cal or mental illness or any special circumstances surrounding the person's -15 - -- In terms of ages of respondents the following was found: --only two respondents were under the age of 21 (less than 3%); --thirty-nine (54%) of those surveyed were between the ages of 21 and 55; and --sixteen men (22% of those surveyed) were over age 55; and one man said he was 78 years old. -- In terms of residency 47 of those surveyed (65%) described themselves as Roanoke City residents, while 24 (or 33%) reported they were from some other location ranging from Roanoke County to Utah. -- Only four (4) people described themselves as transients. Three, including two men and a woman, described themselves as only passing through Roanoke, while one man said he was from Roanoke but "travels a lot". -- Only 17 (or 24%) of those surveyed reported any employment, and seven (7) .of these were in the Rescue Mission's Recovery Program which provides work for participants. -- Nine peopie (or 12.5% of respondents), all men, reported that they had been laid off from work. All were in shelter alone, but one reported having children in foster care in another locality. -- Fifty-five people (76% of those surveyed) reported no form of income or subsidy. Findings of the count correspond fairly well to how shelter agencies describe their populations. As detailed below, three of the four major shelter organizations provide primarily emergency/temporary shelter. They concur that their "regular" population is at least 50-60% men, with single women and families comprising the rest. They all note that the shelter population contains an increasing percentage of young to middle aged adults and families in addition to the older men (and the very few women) who have - 17- EMERGENCY/TEMPORARY SHELTER RESOURCES There are currently four organizations offering overnight emergency/tem- porary housing and related on-site services. These are the Salvation Army, the City Rescue Mission, Justice House, and TRUST. These organizations are all private, non-profit; two (Salvation Army and TRUST) are United Way member agencies and three of them (City Rescue Mission, Salvation Army and Justice House) are predicated on a very specific sense of religious ministry to the people they serve. All of the shelter facilities are located in the City of Roanoke. One other organization, the Samaritan Inn, is located in the City Market area and offers day facilities and some services to street people. It should be noted that, unlike group home facilities or homes for adults, there are no licensing standards to which shelters must adhere. must only meet occupancy codes. They Salvation Army The Salvation Army operates several housing programs, but its emergency/ temporary shelters are Tom's Place for men and Dudley House for women and children, both located on Norfolk Avenue in Roanoke. In addition to the shel- ters, the Salvation Army has funds to pay for families or singles to stay in motels when its own facilities are full or inadequate to meet a family's or individual's needs. Tom's Place is a dormitory style facility for men offering dinner, breakfast, showers and clothes to the men staying there. It is open from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. except in inclement or cold weather when it may open earlier or stay open all day. M~n car stay a maximum of seven nights in a row, and a maximum of two weeks per month, except in cold weather months or especially inclement weather when an "open house" policy relaxes restrictions to keep - 19 City Rescue Mission The City Rescue Mission operates two facilities which face each other on Tazewell Avenue. Its housing programs currently include a transient men's shelter, a family shelter for women and children which is also intended to be temporary in nature, and a recovery program for men who want to escape a life on the streets. Like the Army, the City Rescue Mission also has funds to send families or individuals to motels for short stays when the need arises. The transient men's shelter has room for 30 men, but it has housed as many as 50 in inclement weather, using cots and pallets to make up the extra beds. The facility is dormitory style. Men can come in at 5:00 p.m. in the winter and ?:00 p.m. in the summer and stay until after breakfast (approx- imately 7:30 a.m.). Those who stay the night must attend chapel services and shower; they receive overnight shelter, dinner and breakfast, and clothing as needed. Generally speaking, a man may stay one night in seven at the shelter. However, from approximately October 1st to April 15th the Mission has an "open house" policy whereby an individual can stay every night, and the shelter may be open for a longer period of time in inclement weather, even all day in severe weather. Women and children stay in a house across the street in the family 9helter. At present families have to be divided between the shelters if there are a man and a woman, or an older son and a mother, This house has several bedrooms and a capacity of twelve, although more have been housed in bad weather. Clients may stay from 4:30 p.m. until 9:00 a.m. the next day, except in bad weather. A woman with small children may be permitted to stay all day. The family shelter ha~ bathing facilities, a kitchenette and some laundry assistance. The residents of the family shelter take their meals - 21 - residence. This graduate facility will more closely approximate independent living, and, in exchange for a nominal room and board fee, the men in it will get all the services of the Recovery Program plus some time to accumulate sav- ings and to look for permanent residence. The Mission's board of directors has approved a plan for a major new addition to its facilities. The one million dollar addition would add a new family shelter facility which would triple existing capacity and allow fami- lies to stay together while in shelter. It will also be handicapped accessi- ble, a feature which would fill a major gap in current shelter facilities. It would also triple the Mission's bedspace for transient men and add expanded day facilities, although no day programs are planned. Justice House* Justice House is located on Jamison Avenue in Southeast Roanoke. Self- described as a "hospitality house", it offers both temporary and extended/ transitional shelter. It is privately operated and part of the Southeast Community Church which is affiliated with the Mennonite Church. The shelter facilities consist of a house with 5 bedrooms and, when needed, the church building itself. The director of Justice House stated that the house has an occupancy rate of 12, but approximately 35 people reside there at any one time. (In the coldest weather House spokespersons indicated there were 50 people residing there, but no verification was possible.) The *Justice House did not allow a.complete tour of its facilities, Most of this information comes from an interview with the director and observations of Task Force members at two house meetings. - 23 - essence, the personal religious mission of one individual with volunteer sup- port and is not an incorporated organization. The Samaritan Inn is facing in- creasing resistance from its retail business neighbors and will have to find another facility when its lease runs out in the summer of 1987. The continued operation of the Samaritan Inn is in doubt at this time. - 25 - living in Roanoke City, 10,043 persons in Roanoke County/Salem, and 3,429 persons in Botetourt County who are at or below 125% of poverty income levels. To determine how many households are at risk of homelessness, the esti- mated number of poverty level households was compared with the number of avail-' able subsidized housing units in each locality. See Table 1. (For a com- plete discussion of subsidized housing, see p~ge 38.) Six thousand and sixty-eight (6,068) households are at risk in Roanoke City, 2,812 households in Roanoke County/Salem are at risk, and 1,224 house- holds in Botetourt County are at risk. It is also apparent from Table 1 that subsidized housing is available in the home locality for only 39 percent of Roanoke City's low-income families, for only 22 percent of Roanoke County/ Salem's low-income families, and for none of Botetourt County's low-income families. Overall, less than one-third of the eligible households in these localities are currently being served by assisted housing. Stated another way, more than two-thirds of the Valley~s poverty level households are at risk of homelessness. The same proportion of at-risk low-income households has been identified in a report on homelessness in 25 cities nationwide. (See The Continued Growth of Nun~er, Homelessness and Poverty in America's Cities: 1986. United States Conference of Mayors, December 1986.) - 27 - Within the general group of those with limited economic resources there are some specific populations which share personal or social circumstances which place them at a distinct disadvantage as they seek to maintain them- selves in the community. The Task Force held a series of public hearings and met with some members of these groups, as well as with agencies which address the special needs of these individuals. The findings on these specific at- risk groups are detailed here, Minimum Wage Earners and Part-time Workers Employed at One Job Since 1981 the minimum wage has remained at $3.35 per hour equalling $6,968 annually if a person is employed full time. The poverty line for a single individual is $5,469; a family of four must make over $10,989 to be above the poverty line. Part-time workers comprise approximately 25 percent of the work force, and, on average, earn less per hour than full-time employ- ees, According to recent government figures, part-time workers nationally earn $4.17 hourly compared to an average of $7.05 for full time workers. Approximately one-half of the part-time workers do not have health insurance coverage and 70 percent lack a retirement plan at work. (See Business Week, December 15, 1986, p.52.) Congress is considering increasing the minimum wage, but it is not expect- ed that the increase would amount to more than fifty cents per hour. Such an adjustment will do little to ease the financial strains of the minimum wage earner, The Roanoke City Department of Social Services estimates that a wage earner in Roanoke needs to e~rn about $5.50 per hour in order to afford unsub- sidized housing and other basic necessities. Even at $5.50 an hour an individ- ual would still be subject to the risk of homelessnes$ as a result of an - 29 - Securing rental housing is difficult for this population. Problems frequently incurred include landlords refusing to rent to ADC families because of previous ~roblems with other ADC recipients, long waiting lists for public housing, limited availability of Section 8 certificates, and the prevalence of substandard private housing in the price range of such families. Once housing is secured, they are faced with making ends meet with limited financial resources. A higher-than-usual electric bill or an unexpected medical expense may force these families to seek emergency financial assistance or to decide which bills will not be paid. Eviction for non-payment of rent may result. Deinstitutionalized Individuals Housing is a critically important issue for the individual who will be released from a private or state mental health facility. To identify the needs and issues of this population, Task Force members interviewed several professional and client representatives of Mental Wealth Services. It found that the needs of the chronically mentally ill are similar to the needs of the elderly; that is, this population requires an array of readily accessible support services to function in the community. While the exact disposition of everyone released to this area from mental health facilities is unknown, the Task Force determined that 501 people were released to the Roanoke area from state hospitals in F,Y. 1985-86. Many who receive community mental health services have trouble affording and keeping housing, and 30 to 35 percent of all who return to the community do not seek out the counseling and medication supervision that would optimize their chances for maintaining themselves with family or alone. The problem of housing for these people is three-fold: they have chronic psychiatric conditions which ~imit their ability to live independently and which may require periods of hospitalization; they have very limited financial - 31 - development of residences offering the possibility of less dependency by resi- dents and the teaching of life skills to promote independent living, Burrell Home for Adults, the largest adult home in the area with 206 beds, has announced that it is planning to phase out its operation, As there appears to be a need for other levels of care between the complete care of adult homes and independent living, the relocation of the present residents may offer an opportunity to consider alternative residential transitional programs for those who seem ready for specialized services, Ex-offenders To determine the needs and issues of this population, the Task Force met with members of Virginia Cares ex-offenders support group. The biggest hous- sing problems faced by ex-offenders are a lack of money for adequate housing, a lack of references, and a poor credit history, Parolees are turned back to the community with just $25.00 which is barely enough to rent a room for one night. Therefore, unless they have supportive families or friends, they are immediately thrown into the emergency services system. The group agreed that more low-income, subsidized units are needed and that credit standards for housing should be lowered for special circumstances. Temporary or transi- tional or transitional residential facilities for ex-offenders which would give them time to adjust to society as well as a sense of security were strongly recommended by members and Virginia Cares' staff.* *The Salvation Army operates e'pre-release program for prison inmates who are scheduled for release from the state prison system which is intended to help with this transition; however, the program is limited in scope and size, - 33 - below federal poverty income levels. Many elderly people "wear out" housing because they are unable physically and/or economically to maintain or repair their residences. In a recent survey conducted by the League of Older Americans, single female homeowners were found to experience the greatest difficulty with minor repair problems. The average age of that group of respondents (72 years) was cited as a factor. The average length of resi- dence in the same house (approximately 26 years) indicates that this group's housing was built prior to 1960 and could be expected to require repair due to deterioration brought on by age and usage. (See "League of Older Americans, Inc., Senior Housing Report, February 1987."} Low-cost housing facilities for the elderly have been constructed in recent years. However, the newest of these, Edinburgh Square, has a waiting list of 200 people. Overall, the occupancy rate for major retirement living facilities in the Valley is 99,1 percent, indicating a trend of the elderly to move out of private residences as space in such facilities becomes available. - 35 - Government housing policies have been geared in the past few years towards the elimination of substandard housing in an effort to see that ill local citizens have decent housing, but such policies have an unexpected negative impact on the low-income individual. For example, as poor quality housing has been identified in the City, a strong effort has been made either to assist the owner in rehabilitation of the unit or, if that is no longer reasonable, to see that it is condemned and torn down. In either case the low-income tenant is likely to lose, since rehabilitated housing can be rented at a higher rate, thus forcing the low-income tenant out, or there will be one less structure available to the low-income person seeking housing. No one wants to see people living in substandard conditions, and yet no one wants to see people living on the streets because they cannot find a place to rent. This is one very real public policy dilemma. People in low-cost private housing are also, by virtue of the limited supply of housing choices, more at risk of sharp-dealing landlords or others who would take advantage of them. Locally there has been recent media atten- tion on "rent to own" practices where renters have paid money to a landlord, believing that they were paying off the equivalent of a mortgage. Such pay- ments provide no equity in the home, and a missed payment may result in evic- tion as in the case of any other rental property. In these arrangements maintenance becomes the responsibility of the tenant who, because of lack of income, may be unable to prevent the structure from becoming substandard. Landlords who own fewer than eight rental units are not covered by the Virginia Tenant Landlord Act, which means that tenants in such units have limited recourse if the property i~ not-properly maintained. Section 8 is federally subsidized housing. A tenant living in Section 8 housing pays a portion of the fair market value of the unit based on income; the difference is made up by either the local public housing authority or by the Virginia Housing Development Authority if there is no local authority. Section 8 certificates are presented to private landlords with units in various areas which generally speaking, rent for less than $400 per month for a two-bedroom apartment. Realtors may also qualify for other Section 8 or Section 236 development and rehabilitation monies by agreeing that new or rehabilitated units will be used to house low-income renters. Under Section 236 the tenant pays approximately 25 percent of his/her total income to live in designated units. The income limits for both Section 8 and Section 236 range from $10,150 for one person to $15,650 for a family of five. There are approximately 1,923 of these privately owned, federally subsidized units in the Roanoke Valley, including 25 Section 8 certificates which have been allo- cated to, but not yet received by, Roanoke County. The Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority is the only public hous- ing authority in our region. In addition to administering the various Section 8 rental and rehabilitation programs, totaling approximately 1,211 existing and projected units, it also offers publicly run, subsidized housing through approximately 1,515 units at ten public housing sites and 47 scattered housing sites throughout the City. (See Table 2, page 41.) As noted above, public housing'is presently available only in the City and only to City residents, although residency requirements are minimal and easily established. Preference is given first to elderly disabled veterans, second to the elderly disabled (317 units are in high-rises specifically designated for the elderly), and - 39 - TABLE 2 ROANOKE REDEVELOLPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY (1) HOUSING UNITS AND WAITING LISTS PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS (2) WAITING LISTS 190 298 One 478 Two 393 Three 123 Four 33 Five l, 51 5 TOTAL Efficiencies (elderly only) Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom 10 291 410 82 13 1 807 TOTAL Section 8 Units 1,211 Units (including 94 rehabilitation models not yet open) Waitin~ List 722 (2) For a complete description of all the RRHA programs see the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority's 1986 Annual Report. These are approximations since waiting lists change daily, with the exception of the list for two bedroom units which has been temporarily closed. - 41 - traditionally meant that such facilities are located in the City. The move- ment toward residential neighborhood self-identity and preservation, which has been fostered by the City government, has led to increasingly effective opposi- tion to the zoning exceptions required for group homes. In recent years citizens of the City, the County and Salem have objected to efforts to relo- cate existing residential services or to develop new ones. In the past year vigorous opposition to the relocation of the Battered Women's Shelter and TRUST have left service organizations frustrated by the contradiction between community expectations that they care for segments of the population and com- munity resistance to providing these services. Those particular situations have highlighted the public policy dilemma faced by elected officals in area governments. Is the general public welfare benefited more by permitting transitional residential services to be placed in established neighborhoods over the objection of nearby property owners, or deferring to the desire of property owners or neighborhood groups either to accept or reject such facilities? That dilemma must be resolved before this community can address the need for additional transitional housing. Nousin~ Support Services Financial Aid Low-income individuals in their own or publicly subsidized housing pro- bably request emergency financial assistance more than any other single kind of support service. Some of the reasons for this are the fact that they simply do not have enough money each month to live on, they do not earn enough to cover extra expected costs such as high winter heating bills or unexpected ~osts for medical emergencies and car repairs; and they often lack money man- agement and consumer skills. Some real limitations are placed on low-income people's abilities to be ~ood consumers. For example, they lack transportation - 43 - such organizations have restrictions on the amounts of money or the number of times a particular individual may be helped, because they do not have enough funds to meet all requests. Every organization in the emergency assistance chain is in the frequent and regretable position of telling clients that their financial needs are greater than the community can meet. The two most frequent reasons for requesting emergency assistance are for housing payments and utility bills. Failure to pay such bills can result in eviction or living in substandard living conditions due to loss of utility services. Each eviction or utility cutoff requires that even more financial resources are required to re-establish the households since additional depo- sits and repayment of previous balances are required for reinstatement. Even if emergency assistance organizations help clients out of a current emergency or find them other housing, the chronic underlying conditions mean that many of these people will find themselves in a state of financial emergency again and again. The real limitation in emergency financial assistance efforts is not the number of sources of funds. (In fact, it could be argued that there is not enough coordination and consolidation of resources, and there are too many fragmented access points to.emergency funds.) Rather. it is that there is simply not enough total emergency funding available to address the needs of low-income people in this community. Food, Clothing and other In-Kind Services There are a numbe~ of food pantries and clothes closets in the Roanoke Valley, many run through churches, that provide emergency assistance to low- income people. Those who simply lack the money to'purchase necessities or who run out of money for food ~owards the end of the month rely on this extended network of services. Food pantries have had a difficult time getting - 45 - chronically mentally ill, and substance abusers. As a public agency funded by federal, state and local money, it can care for those who do not have the resources to use the available private care systems. The agency has a com- prehensive inpatient and outpatient program for alcoholics and drug users. MHS also has an extended program for the chronically mentally ill, including a day program called the Mountain House Clubhouse, medication supervision, case management, and some housing supervision and assistance. MHS already has the structure and administration to provide necessary support services for mentally ill persons. Both the Virginia Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation and MHS acknowledge the need for better outreach, emergency services, and case management, as well as improved coordination with other community services. Expanded support services can best be provided by addi- tional funding to MHS earmarked for specific services to the mentally ill population. In addition, Mountain House, a day club based on principles of Fountain House in New York City, needs its own space separate from clinical facilities in order to serve more deinstitutionalized persons. Only 47 are now active in the program with an average attendance of 18. The agency would like to have funds to rent another building for clinical services for chronically mentally ill people, and reserve the present building for the exclusive use of Mountain House. Virqinia Cares is a private organization whose mission is to assist offenders and their families by helping in the transition from correctional facilities to the community, working to keep families intact while people are incarcerated, and providing job.assistance, support groups and other related services. - 47 - City and on a few routes in Roanoke County. Unified Human Services Transpor- tation System (RADAR in the City and CORTRAN* in the County) uses local public funds and private contracts to provide limited transportation to the handicap- ped and elderly. Lack of private transportation is one of the major reasons why so many in the at-risk group must live close to work or along the City's Valley Metro transit routes. Job Training and Assistance The Fifth District Employment and Trainin9 Consortium provides a range of training and job assistance programs for disadvantaged people in the Fifth Planning District. The Virginia Department o_~f ~ehabilitative Services. TAP. Virginia ~ares. ARC/CHD Industries~ ~inker Mountain Industries, the Virginia Employment Commission. LOA, Virginia Western Community College and the Depart- ment of Social Service are all involved in helping to rehabilitate, train or find employment for persons who are disabled in some way or disadvantaged economically or educationally. The area's public school systems have adult education programs as well. ~Each of these organizations has its own eligibi- lity criteria for clients. *The future of public funding for CORTRAN by Roanoke County is in doubt as this report goes to press. - 49 - CONCLUSIONS The Chronically Homeless and Shelter Services Roanoke's homeless/shelter population appears to number at least l?? people. The largest segment of Roanoke's shelter population is single men, and, according to shelter organizations, a fair proportion of them are regu- lars who have frequented the shelters for years. Many of those who rely on the shelters appear to have alcohol or drug problems or seem mentally or emotionally unstable, conditions which make it difficult for such individuals to develop alternatives to this lifestyle. Families comprise a growing portion of the shelter population. Many of the families seen by the shelters have recently moved to Roanoke to seek work and housing or are in the process of moving through Roanoke to another location. Those local families which turn to shelters do so only in emergency circumstances. It is the consensus of the Task Force that the shelters are not appropriate facilities for these transitionally homeless families except for truly temporary emergency situations. All of the organizations providing emergency shelter to homeless people, the City Rescue Mission, the Salvation Army, Justice Nouse, and TRUST, are private, non-profit organizations, and the first three are part of religious organizations. Together they are equipped to provide emergency shelter to approximately 97 individuals. There are an additional 30 slots for people in the Rescue Mission's Recovery Program. In addition, three of the facilities can pay for limited motel space for families. These numbers reflect an emergency shelter system that is being stretched beyond its capacity to provide safe and adequate shelter. The Salvation Army provides 24 beds in its shelter for men but considers it more ideally suited - 51 out of a sense of ministry, and this is true in Roanoke. However, some potential clients claim to prefer sleeping out of doors to submitting to requirements that they attend chapel or bathe. For those organizations that see themselves primarily as emergency shel- ter providers, rules regarding the numbers of nights that someone can stay help to keep these shelters from becoming permanent housing, yet these poli- cies mean that many people must sleep in the open or in abandoned buildings because they have used up their allowance of temporary lodging. Similarly, policies requiring people to leave during the day are based on the shelters' lack of space and staff. This means that transients, the homeless, and street people must keep on the move on the City streets during the daylight hours. All of the shelters point out a strong need for day services for the homeless which would include simple day facilities as well as professional outreach services. In summary, those agencies providing temporary shelter fill a critical need in Roanoke and clearly have been doing so to the best of their abilities and resources. Some of the rules and regulations ere viewed negatively by the clients, yet the variation among the agencies does provide some limited options for users of the service. These agencies' ability to draw upon private financial resources is a great asset to the community, since public monies fluctuate with changes in government policies and public attitudes, and many of the people served by these agencies already have "fallen through the cracks" of the public system. However, these providers and the Task Force concur that additional services are needed for this population including adequate overnight facilities, facilities for intact families~ day services, expanded niqht shelter throughout the gear, ~nd transitional living and support services. - 53 - Humanity are a positive but modest addition to housing resources. There are also an array of different social services to address the needs of these at- risk people. It is critically important that the federal government continue to sup- port public and private subsidized housing. In lieu of housing subsidies for all who need them, it is imperative that communities offer basic services such as public transportation and da~ care on a sliding scale basis, using public and private dollars to supplement the income of the working poor. It is also very important that appropriate social service agencies provide transitional housinq and support services to their at risk clientele and that local govern- ments acknowledge the need for such transitional housing programs in their communit~ planning and zoning activities. - 55 - mw A COMPREHENSIVE DAY FACILITY FOR CHRONICALLY HOMELESS AND STREET PEOPLE SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE YEAR. THIS FACILITY SHOULD OFFER A SAFE INDOOR FACILITY WITH MINIMAL RULES FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO SIMPLY WANT TO STAY INDOORS DURING THE DAY BUT SHOULD ALSO OFFER A LOCAL ADDRESS FOR THE HOMELESS AND OUTREACH SERVICES FROM KEY AGENCIES, INCLUDING THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, ASSISTANCE TO TRAVELERS, MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND OTHERS. One of the existing soup kitchens could be located in such a facility so that at a minimum food and shelter are provided. Yet at the same time, outreach workers from key agencies, rotating in set times and days weekly, could provide centralized access to services to those individuals needing and desiring assistance. The proposed facility could include or augment the services already available through the Samaritan Inn. Presently the Inn provides the only day facility for homeless and street people. It is open seven days a week, several hours a day, through volunteer effort, and it may close its doors this summer if a new site is not found. AT LEAST ONE ADDITIONAL TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FACILITY SHOULD BE ESTAB- LISHED FOR THE HOMELESS WITHIN THE CALENDAR YEAR. In this study the need for a variety of transitional facilities has been documented. Several such facilities are currently under investigation in the commu- nity, including a relocation of Justice House to apartment buildings and the purchase of a men's single room occupancy-type hotel by Total Action Against Poverty, This type of housing is desperately needed by many of the at-risk groups represented in this study. This community's goal should be the working operation of at least one facility within a year. - 57 - e) SHOULD UNDERTAKE CONCENTRATED INSPECTION OF OCCUPIED SUBSTANDARD HOUSING IN ADDITION TO CURRENT EFFORTS TO INSPECT VACANT HOUSING. Currently, federally funded inspectors concentrate on vacant housing. f) SHOULD MAINTAIN THROUGH ITS BUILDING DEPARTMENT A CURRENT, UPDATED LIST OF ALL SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, WHETHER ADMINISTERED AT THE LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL LEVEL. No agency in the Valley has a complete and accurate list of all the housing units even though many agencies need this information. The Task Force developed such a list during the course of this study. g) SHOULD ESTABLISH A SINGLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON HOUSING PROGRAMS, HOUSING RELATED GRANTS, MODEL PROGRAM INFORMATION AND OTHER RELATED MATERIALS. This single source of information could help agencies to obtain funds of which they may not now be aware, and do so in a cost- efficient manner. h) SHOULD ESTABLISH A MECHANISM THROUGH WHICH AGENCIES COULD APPLY FOR THE VARIOUS PUBLIC FUNDS THAT ARE NOW BEING MADE AVAILABLE FOR SERVICES TO THE HOMELESS. A mechanism which would allow for formal application and review, as well as monitor the use of such funds, is needed. The Citizens' Services Committee under the Directorate of Human Resources might be the appropriate channel for this process. i) SHOULD, THROUGH THE OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER, NAME A SMALL EVALUATION GROUP TO EVALUATE HOW WELL THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS REPORT ARE CARRIED OUT AND TO RECOMMEND NEW ACTIVITIES BASED ON FUTURE FUNDING AND NEEDS. This evaluation group should include citizens to help ensure objectivity and should be given enough staff support to col- lect needed ~nformation., - 59 - LOCALITIES SURROUNDING ROANOKE CITY SHOULD APPLY FOR AND DEVELOP PUBLICLY SUBSIDIZED HOUSING PROGRAMS OR ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE THEIR DEVELOPMENT BY RESPONSIBLE PRIVATE SOURCES. IF A LOCALITY DECIDES THAT IT CANNOT OR SHOULD NOT BECOME INVOLVED IN PUBLIC OR SECTION 8 HOUSING, IT SHOULD MAKE MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CITY AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BASED ON THE RESIDENCE OF ORIGIN OF THOSE ACCEPTED INTO THE CITY'S PROGRAMS. Although there is some private Section 8 housing avail- able in Roanoke County and Salem, most of it is for senior citizens, and there is no subsidized housing available in Botetourt County. Roanoke County plans to have 25 Section 8 certificates by this summer, but the need for subsidized housing is very great. People from other localities come to Roanoke simply to obtain subsidized housing, and neighboring localities have a responsibility to address this drain on the City's resources. ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY, THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD), AND THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EACH SHOULD INSTITUTE AND ENFORCE CAREFUL SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR LANDLORDS AS TO RENTAL MAINTENANCE PRACTICES. Many tenants complained about the sanitation of apartments, broken equipment, and other problems with apartments that they had difficulty getting landlords to correct. Because Section 8 is administered by three different sources, screening methods and ongoing quality control efforts are not uniform. Therefore Some uniformity in practices and improvement in procedures would enhance the quality of this source of housing. THE ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY SHOULD ALTER ITS PRIORITY SYSTEM WHICH DECLARES PUBLIC WOUSING AND SECTION 8 CERTIFICATE HOUSING AS BEING EQUAL IN STATUS AND WHICH, THEREFORE, SERVES TO DISCOURAGE - 61 - 12. 13, Clients who are working to repay utility bills through emergency services agencies or the Consumer Credit Counseling Services should be viewed more tolerantly by the utility companies as well, MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES OF ROANOKE VALLEY (MHS) SHOULD DEVELOP A PROCEDURE WHEREBY MHS EXTENDED CARE STAFF ACTIVELY CONTACT ALL INDIVIDUALS TO BE RELEASED TO THIS COMMUNITY FROM A STATE INSTITUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE DISCHARGE PLANS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THESE INDI- VIDUALS AND IF THEY ARE IN NEED OF MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AVAILABLE TO THEM. MHS estimates that as many as 30 to 35% of all released individuals do not seek out mental health support services. Although no firm statis- tics are available it is apparent that some of these people join the ranks of the chronically homeless. More active outreach could give the commu- nity better statistics regarding this problem and assure that all have the opportunity to avail themselves of existing services, THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL RETARDATION SHOULD DEVELOP A SUBSIDY PROGRAM THROUGH WHICH OPERATORS OF HOMES FOR ADULTS AND OTHER GROUPS COULD GET ADDITIONAL FUNDS IF THEY AGREE TO ~FFER TRANSITIONAL LIVING SITUATIONS AND APPROPRIATE SUPPORT SERVICES TO HELP RESIDENTS TO LEARN TO LIVE INDEPENDENTLY, Currently homes for adults receive auxilliary grants through state and local social service funds to provide room and board and basic supervision of residents. The institutional nature of these facilities makes it difficult for people to graduate to independent living. A subsidy program, offered under the supervision of local community service boards, could do much to make homes for adults into critically needed transitional living facilities. - 63 - 17. 18. reluctance to allow service programs into individual neighborhoods. Only strong advocacy efforts by agencies will help to erase popular myths and create more positive and open views of our disabled and disadvantaged neighbors. THE EMERGENCY SERVICES COMMITTEE WHICH MEETS UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE COUNCIL OF COMMUNITY SERVICES SHOULD IMMEDIATELY EXPAND AND STRENGTHEN ITS EFFORTS TO COORDINATE SERVICES AND TO ACT AS AN ADVOCACY GROUP ON BEHALF OF THE HOMELESS AND THOSE AT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS. The Emergency Services Committee is comprised of representatives from all private and public agencies involved in this effort. It currently is active during winter months or if a special need arises. It needs to meet on a regular basis throughout the year and place some special emphasis on coordination of services to and advocacy of safe emergency/temporary shelter for these target groups. THE TASK FORCE SUPPORTS THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER'S RECENT FUNDING PROPOSAL FOCUSING ON THE NEEDS OF HOMELESS VETERANS IN THE COMMUNITY. Veterans comprise a significant segment of the chronic homeless population in the Valley, and those with substance abuse or chronic alcohol dependency problems are often in a revolving door between shelter and detoxification facilities. Services to this group should involve actual housing subsidies and other direct services, since coordi- nation of these services is already provided through the Emergency Ser- vices Committee of the Council of Community Services. - 65 - REFERENCES City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Annual Report: lg85-1986. Roanoke, VA, 1986. League of Older Americans, Inc., Senior. Housin9 Report, 1987. Martin Research, Inc., A Roanoke Valle~ Human Service Needs Assessment: An Evaluation of ~o~--'~ity Needs and Ser~o~n with the United Wa~ S__ervice Area. Prepared~~Way oT Roanoke Valley, Inc., Roanoke, VA, 1986. U. S. Conference of Mayors, The Growth of Hunger, Homelessness and Poverty in America's Cit~s~8~? AT-Citx Survey. Washing~n~ ~.. ~..~ ~ ~ ~f~ce ~f Mayors, 1986. APPENDIX A AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS PARTICIPATING IN THIS STUDY Baptist Friendship House Charity Community House City Rescue Mission Council of Community Services' Information and Referral Center of Southwest Virginia Fifth Planning District Commission Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium Justice House League of Older Americans Mental Health Services of Roanoke Valley Presbyterian Community Center Roanoke Area Ministries Roanoke City Building Office Roanoke City Department of Social Services Roanoke City Health Department Roanoke City Jail Roanoke City Police Department Roanoke City Public Schools Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority Salvation Army Samaritan Inn Social Security Administration Total Action Against Poverty TRUST Veterans Administration Medical Center Virginia Cares Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development Virginia Department of Rehabilitative Services Virginia Housing Development Authority Virginia Employment Commission YWCA APPENDIX B PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD FOR THIS STUDY January 15 January 15 January 28 February 12 February 19 - Mountainview Recreation Center - Hurt Park Elementary School - City Rescue Mission - Forest Park Elementary School - Fallon Park School APPENDIX C JANUARY 29, 1987 CLIENT INTERVIEW SHEET SUMMARY OF RESPONSES* 1. Is individual 69 - Alone 3 - Part of family unit 2. Is individual 65 - Male 6 - Female 3. Is individual 2 - Under age 21 54 - 21 - 55 16 - 55+ 4. Is individual 47 - Resident of Roanoke 24 - From other area Specify: 5. Financial status: (check all that apply) 6 - employed, full time 31 - employed, part time (includes City Rescue Mission's Recovery Program)** 9 - laid-off from job 2 - receiving ADC 2 - receiving General Relief 5 - receiving Social Security 5 - receiving S.S.I. 6 - receiving Food Stamps 6 - on Medicaid 4 - on Medicare 1 - unemployed 3 - veteran's pension Notes: Response totals differ between categories because some clients did not answer all questions. Figu~?s a~justed in report because some of these responses were ques~lonao~e. C)fl3ce of ff',e 0~/ June 3, 1987 File #60-72 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 25660, amending and reor- daining certain sections of the 1986-87 General Fund Appropriation Ordinance, to provide for the transfer of $35,000.00 from Foster Care to General Relief in the Social Services Department budget for a temporary emergency relief program for citizens, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June l, 1987. ~,~ ~ ~, ~%~Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ra Eng. cc: Mr. Mr. Ms. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Corinne B. Gott, Manager, Social Services Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Churn Avtw'~ue, 5.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, Ihe lst~'day of June, 1987. No. 28660. VIRGINIA, · SA AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1986-87 General Fund Appropriation Ordinance, 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 1986-87 General Fund Appropriation Ordinance be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained, to read as follows, in part: Appropriations Health and Welfare $10,295,432 Income Maintenance (1) ............................ 2,373,697 Social Services Services (2) .................... 3,664,468 (1) General Relief (001-054-5313-3125) $ 35,000 (2) Foster Care (001-054-5314-3140) (35,000) IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk CiTY C'.tL-i'ii~ iFFICE Roanoke, Virginia June 1, 1987 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor and Members of Council: I. BACKGROUND A. General Relief is a temporary emergency relief program that meets two areas of need: °Temporarily disabled citizens unable to work. °Unemployed or underemployed citizens who have lost income through no fault of their own. B. General Relief budget for FY 86/87 is $349,860.00 62 1/2% State Funds - $218,662.50 37 1/2% Local Funds - 131,197.50 $349.860.00 II. CURRENT SITUATION A. Reductions in federal programs have resulted in more requests for public assistance to alleviate emergencies such as: eutility cutoffs eeviction notices Ofood °prescriptions B. Request for $35,000.00 additional funds for remainder of FY 86/87. State Funds - $21,875.00 Local Funds - 13,125.00 $35,000.00 C. State Department of Social Services has appropriated their share of necessary funds ($21,875.00). Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 2 June 1, 1987 III. IV. ISSUES A. Local Cost B. Service Delivery C. Citizens Served ao ALTERNATIVES Transfer $35,000 from the Foster Care Account to the General Relief Account to provide services for: °Tem?orarily disabled citizens unable to work. °Unemployed or underemployed citizens who have lost income through no fault of their own. 1. Local Cost would be zero. Local match of $13,125.00 would be existing funds transferred from Foster Care. a. General Relief reimbursement rate is higher than Foster Care. (1) General Relief is 62.50 State funds and 37.50 local funds. (2) Foster Care is 50% State funds and 50% local funds. b. Transfer of funds would result in a lower percentage local match. 2. Service Delivery a. Foster Care will maintain a stable level of care. b. Foster Care had budgeted a reserve amount to do prevention services to keep children in their own homes and special services which did not materialize until April, 1987. 3. Citizens Served a. Emergency needs of citizens could be met thereby averting a larger and more severe problem. B. Do not transfer $35,000.00 from the Foster Care Account to the General Relief Account to provide services for: °Temporarily disabled citizens unable to work. °Unemployed or underemployed citizens who have lost income through no fault of their own. Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 3 June 1, 1987 Local Cost would be zero. Local match of $13,125.00 would be existing funds transferred from Foster Care. Service Delivery would not be met. Citizens Served - Citizens with emergency needs may have crisis situations such as evictions or utility cutoff as well as lack of prescriptions for medical needs. RECOMMENDATION A. Transfer $35~000.00 from the Foster Care Account to the General Relief Account as follows: °$35,000.00 from Foster Care, Account No. 001-054-5314-3140, to General Relief Account No. 001-054-5313-3125. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/ga June 3, 1987 File #27-468B Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending approval of the Wastewater Facility Plan, and authorization to pursue approval of the plan by the State Water Control Board, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June i, 1987. On motion, duly seconded and adopted, Council concurred in the recommendation. ~%~ I~ ~,Sincerely' ~ Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. cc: Mr. William J. Pa~ton, Jr., City Manager, City of Salem, P. 0. Bo~c 869, Salem, Virginia 24153 Mr. John D. Williamson, III, County Administrator, Botetourt County, P. 0. Box 279, Fincastle, Virginia 24090 Mr. George W. Nester, Town Manager, Town of Vinton, 311 South Pollard Street, Vinton, Virginia 24179 Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, Jr., County Administrator, P. 0. Box 3800, Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations Mr. Steven L. Walker, Manager, Sewage Treatment Plant Mr. Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Manager, Utility Line Facilities Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Itoom456 MunlclpalBulldlng 215ChurchAve~ue,$.W. Roanoke, Vlrginla24011 (703)981-2541 C, y r'~ ::' . _ Roanoke, g ~ June 1, 1987 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Wastewater Facility Plan The attached staff report was considered by the Water Resources Committee at its meeting on April 27, 1987 and further considered by the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 20, 1987. The Committee recommends that Council approve the Wastewater Facility Plan and autho- rize the staff to pursue approval of the plan by the State Water Control Board. Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman Water Resources Committee ETB:KBK:afm Attachment cc: City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance INTERDEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION DATE: TO: FROM: April 17, 1987 Chairman and Members, F. aj~itJ~esources Committee ~.~. o~.~rt Herber~NF.~Fty Manager thru Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities & Operations Subject: Wastewater Facility Plan II. I. Background: Briefing on the proposed Wastewater Facility Plan was provided to the Committee by report dated November 6, 1986. Public meeting was duly advertised and held on January 14, 1987 regarding the proposed plan. Attached is a copy of the adver- tisement and minutes from that public meeting. Staff comments and comments from other Valley governments were submitted to and considered by the consultant, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. D. Final report of study and recommendations were received April 2 1987. ' E. Summary and Chapter 8, Selected Plan are attached for your ready reference. F. Entire study report is being sent to the City Clerk, City Engineer, qanager of Sewage Treatment Plant, Manager of Utility Line Ser- vices Department, Secretary to the Planning Commission, Main Li- brary and two copies each to the Chief Administrative Officials of each local government participating in the Regional Sewage Treatment Plant. Copies will also be made available to any mem- ber of the Committee or Council who desires the entire document. Current Situation: Approval of the report of study and recommendations is needed from the Water ResourCes Committee, Roanoke City Planning Com- mission and City Council. B. State approval will be sought after approval by City Council. Page 2 C. Local~ State and Federal funding will be pursued after Local and State approval of the planning document and as each element of the plan is developed into a project. III. Recommendation: Committee undertake the following action: A. Approve the Wastewater Facility Plan for the City of Roanoke Regional Sewage Treatment Plant and major sewer interceptors, dated February 1987, as proposed by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. B. Recommend approval of the Wastewater Plan by the Plannin~ Com mission by submission of a copy of the earlier briefing report and this report to the Planning Commission. C. Recommend approval to City Council, once the Planning Commission has taken action, of the plan. D. Recommend Council authorize the staff to pursue approval of the plan by the State Water Control Board. KBK:afm Attachments CC: City Clerk City Attorney Secretary, Planning Commission Mr. William J. Paxton, Jr. Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. Mr. John D. Williamson, Mr. George W. Nester City Engineer ~lanager, Sewage Treatment Plant Manager, Utility Line Services- City Librarian DATE: TO: FROM: INTERDEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION November 6, 1986 Chai,r~)~ ~and Members, Water Resources Committee thru Subject: Briefing - Wastewater Facilities Plan Background: A. Facilities Plan Study was started on August 12, 1985 upon execution of an agreement with Malcolm Pirnie, Environmen- tal Engineers, Scientists, and Planners, which study was initiated at the request of your Committee. B. Draft report of study was presented to the staff of the City Of Roanoke, Roanoke County, City of Salem, Town of Vinton and Botetourt County on October 31, 1986. C. Study format is that previously required by the State Water Control Board and Federal Environmental Protection Agency in order to have an approvable facilities plan as required when State and Federal fundin~ is requested. D. State and Federal Funding availability is unsure, at best, and is the product of Federal appropriations and allocations to the State, the State emphasis at any given time on priorities for Funding (health problem corrections, environment impairment, ~nterceptor Pipeline vs. treatment plants, etc.) and a lengthy application and waiting list process. For planning purposes, allow 5-years to get an answer on the best approvable or~ect to complete design, obtain funding and complete construction. E. Local funding, besides the City of Roanoke, is a function of future capacity requirements vs. allowances by the other local governments party to the 1972, 30 year term, treatment contracts and negotiations evolving around those i~sues. Current Situation: A. Draft report has been received. B. The Plan in a nutshell is captured in the attached reproduced sheets entitled "Preface" and "Summary" which envision: Page 2 1. Replacement of the Roanoke River Interceptor 2. Replacement of a portion of the Tinker Creek Interceptor Replacement of high maintenance or antiquat ed equipment and safety improvements at the '~'lant $12,800,000 3,400,000 5,800,000 4.' Increase plant treatment capacity from cur- rent 35 MGD total treatment and 60 MGD pri- mary treatment to 62 MGD total treatment and change certain treatment processes to 90 MGD primary treatment _ 9,200,000 Total Cost $31,200,000 5. Timing is recon~nended by the draft plan to occur over the next 5 years. .... 6. All elements of the plan, as it may be approved by Council, will ultimately be dealt with b,y Council on a project by pro- ject basis. Some elements are optional, e.g. depending on infiltration and inflow deletions of all participating local governments, their capacity requirements and construction cost sharing negotiations, how much of the interceptors will need to be replaced on what time schedule. Also, do we actually need to replace certain antiquated equipment and trouble-prone equipment, structural and processes. Chapter 8, and the cur- rent and proposed mass balance diagrams reproduced and attached hereto, gives more information regarding the plan. Preliminary evaluation is the overall tion, is good if we: plan, concept and recommenda- 2. III. Timing: A. Want a modern and up-to-date ~lant. Continue our current mode of operation. Potential timinq and sequence of eventq are as follows: Staff comments sent to the consultant by November 15 1986, note the attached letter. ' B. Briefing presentation of draft document to Water Resources Committee. C. Report made public and public meeting scheduled with comments in- vited - January, 1987. Final report of recommendation submitted by consultant and consul- tant briefing of Water Resources Committee - February or March, 1987. E. Report presented to the Roanoke City Plannin~ Commission - March or April, 1987. Page 3 IV. F. Report presented to City Council and StatP for approval - May to June, 1987. Go Report taken under advisement by City Council and used to guide sewage facilities improvements and to apply for Stain and Federal fundinq to meet major sewage facilities needs until 2005. Entire draft report is, or will be, available in the Office of the DirectOr of Utilities, City Engineer, Main Library, and designated administrative representatives in the other local governments. I will also be pleased to meet with members of the Committee to review the report. KBK:afm Attachments CC: Mr. William j Paxton, Jr. Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, Jr. Mr. William K. Manion Mr. John D. Wiltiamson, III Mr. George W. Nester P~EFACE On August 12, lg85, the City of Roanoke, Virginia and the firm of Malcolm Pirnie, [nc. entered into an agreement whereby the latter would provide engineering 'services relative to preparation of a wastewater facility plan for the Roanoke River Basin. The boundary of the study area, described in Section 2, is based on established Environmental Protection Agency criteria. A facility plan is the first step of a three step process for receiving a Federal Grant for construction of wastewater facilities under the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Amended lg77, Amended 1981. The second step is the design phase and the third step is the construction phase. This facility plan is being prepared at the request of the Roanoke City Council. The Council foresees the impending need for the expansion of the Roanoke Wastewater Treatment Facility and interceptor system to serve the growing Roanoke River Basin area, and anticipates this expansion will be added to the State Water Control Board's wastewater facility funding priority system. Construction should be completed prior to the anticipated overburden- ing of the existing system, thus reducing the ~ossibility of serious health hazards or degradation of surrounding waters. The format of this facility plan is in accordance with guidelines estab- lished by the Environmental Protection Agency. Basic subjects covered by ~he plan include the current and future need for wastewater treatment facilities; ~he most feasible method of providing needed facilities; and the economical and environmental impacts of these facilities. SUMMARY The facility plan examined the adequacy of existing wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities and projected the need for expanded, modified or new facilities through the year 2005 for the Roanoke Region- al System. Flow Projection~ Wastewater flows in the system were projected to the design year 2005. Expansion of the system to new areas and additional hook-ups within existing service areas are expected to occur. Conclusions 1. The annual average total system flow is projected to increase from a 1985 value of 28.66 mgd to 34.46 mgd in the year 2005. 2. Approximately 0.8 mgd of the increase is estimated to occur as a result of an increase in I/I while 5.0 mgd is the expected increase due to new services. Conveyance System The analysis of the conveyance system was limited to the Roanoke River and Tinker Creek Interceptors. The following conclusions were made: From a total system perspective it is not cost-effective to remove infiltration and inflow (I/I/. Individual jurisdictions may find it in their best interests to remediate I/I on a case specific basis. o The capacity of the major interceptors with respect to projected flows is inadequate. Some surcharging and overflows are evident under existing conditions. Wastewater Treatment Alternatives A number of wastewater treatment and disposal ined. Included in these options were: options were exam- No Action - Construction of a New Regional Treatment Plant S-1 Upgrade/Expand the Existing Regional Treatment Plant Reuse of Treated Wastewater Land Application Relocation of the Existing Discharge On-Site Systems Satellite Treatment Plants ~ ~pnclusions 1. The existing treatment plant can not meet modification or expansion. 2. long term needs without The most feasible solution to long-term treatment and disposal of wastewater is to upgrade and expand the existing treatment plant. Reconl~lendations 1. Upgrade the existing treatment plant by implementing the defined priority actions. The projectea capital cost of these acticns is $5.8 million (1986). 2. Implement the recommended secondary actions at the treatment plant. The projected capital cost of these options is $9.2 million {1986). 3. Replace the lower reaches of both the Roanoke River and Tinker Creek Interceptors. The projected capital cost of the interceptor replacements are as follows: Roanoke River Interceptor Tinker Creek Interceptor S12.8 million S 3.4 million S-2 8. SE~LECTED PLAN R detailed evaluation of the interceptor system was presented in Chapter 5. The recon~ndatton of that evaluation was a program of interceptor replacement for the two major interceptors: the Roanoke River Interceptor and the Tinker Creek Interceptor. Chapter 6 also indicated that, from a total system Perspective, I/I reduction is no~t cost effective. That does no__~t however mean that localized I/I problems should be ignored. I/I is the principal cause for many of the required treatment plant modifications. In addition, there is a certain risk in upgrading the downstream interceptors without limiting upstream I/I. 8.1.I R~oanoke River Intercepto_r It is recommended that 8.5 miles of the Roanoke River interceptor be replaced. This segment extends from the 8arnhardt Creek Trunk to the wastewater treatment plant. The estimated capital cost of this improve- ment is $9,775,000 in 1986 dollars. This replacement could, for logistical and funding reasons, be broken up into a number of segments. Because many segments of the system are CUrrently at or over capacity, it is recommended that this replacement be implemented and operational within the next five years. m m I 8.1.2 T~rker Creek Interceptor It is recommended that 2.3 miles of the Tinker Creek Interceptor be replaced. This segment extends from the Orange Avenue Diversion to the waStewater treatment Plant. The estimated c~pital c~st of this improve- ment is $3,300,0C0 in I986 dollars. As is the case for the Roanoke River Interceptor, the Tinker Creek Interceptor replacement could be implemented in phases but should be fully implemented within approximately five years. 8.2 Treatment Plant Chapter 7 Presented a detailed analysis of the existing treatment Plant and the recommendations for upgrading/expanding this facility. The following presents the estimated capital costs for this work. 8.2.! Priority Actton~ Table 8-! presents the priority actions and their associated construction costs. The estimated construction cost ?or the priority items is $4,?00,000 in I988 dollars. The total capital cost estimate including contingencies /15~) and engineering 118~) is $5,775,000. The priority actions are intended to rehabilitate worn-out equip- ment so,ye extensive maintenance problems, provide additional operations Flexibility and sOlve a sa?ety problem. These actions should be imple- merited as Soon as Funding is available. A number o? the activities may be implemented by plant maintenance crews. The costs presented in Table 8-I assume contract construction. 8.2.2 Secondary Action~ Secondary actions have been defined as those items necessary to provide for treatment of wastewater through the design year 2005. The estimated costs of the recommended secondary actions is shown in Table 8-2. The estimated construction cost of these items is $7,425,000 {i9865). The total estimated capital cost including and engineering (~1 is $9,175,000. contingencies The secondary actions will be necessary to meet treatment needs over the next twenty years. In order to meet these ne~d~, it is recom- mended that these actions be implemented within the nex~ ~ive years. As with the interceptor replacement work, the treatment plant secondary actions can be implemented in multiple phases to facilitate funding. B-2 Table 8-1 ESTIMATED COSTS FOR PRIORITY ACTIONS 2. 3. 4. lO. Item Replace Con~ninutors with fine screens. Replace floor tile and sock diffusers with fine bubble disc/dome diffusers. Provide means to drain aeration tanks. Provide bypass of primary effluent to second stage aeration. Rehabilitate square clarifier corners and increase effluent launder wastewater velocity. Provide first stage return activated sludge wet well. Reline digester No. 1. Provide digester gas storage. Provide flow measurement and sampling for the gravity thickener overflow, DAF under- flow and lagoon overflow. Provide an additional gravity sludge thickener and refurbish the existing thickener Estimated Construction Cost $ 850,000 1,050,000 100,000 100,000 575,000 100,000 175,000 1,350,000 125,000 275,CC0 Construction Cost Subtotal Contingency Engineering TOTAL S4,700,000 700,000 375,000 $5,775,000 Table ESTI/~ATED COSTS FOR SECONDARY ACTIONS Item I. Replace existing 12 mgd raw sewage pump with a 25 mgd pump. 2. Provide two {2) new primary clarifiers 3. Provide an additional 10 mg of flow equalization. 4. Convert two (2) existing first stage aeration basins to swing- use 5. Provide three (3) new second Stage aeration basins. 6. Place the modification settling basins in parallel with the coagu)ation final settling basins 7. Chemical addition to second stage settling basins. 8. Provide a second stage return activated sludge pump station for the coagulation final settling basins. 9. Provide pickle liquor oxidation and feed facilities. 10. Provide two {2) additional gravity filters. 11. Upgrade second stage return activateU s)udge pump station. 12. Upgrade existing first Stage return activated sludge pump station 13. Provide dechlorination of effluent. Construction Cost Subtota) Contingency Engineering Estimated Construction Cost $ 125,000 1,100,000 1,800,000 300,000 1,600,000 600,000 75,000 550,000 75,000 7C0,000 175,000 250,000 75,000 $7,425,000 1,150,000 600~000 TOTAL $9,I75,000 -- -- -- -- -- ,m m mmmmmm~~! November 6, 1986 Mr. Richard Stahr Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 301Hiden Boulevard Newport News, VA 23603 Dear Richard: Reference the draft Wastewater Facility Plan you submitted and re- viewed with Staff Representatives of Roanoke County, Botetourt County, Town of Vinton, City of Salem, and Roanoke County on October 31, 1986. I submit herewith my comments on the draft document, and by a copy here- by ask all Staff Representatives noted below to do likewise by November 15, 1986. I. Good report. 2. Report must ultimately be accepted as an approved facilities plan by Roanoke City Council and the Commonwealth of Virginia. 3. Specific comments regarding questions, needed clarifications, etc. are attached. Report (draft form) should be made public immediately upon consideration of a City staff report to the City's Water Resources Committee at a meeting tentatively scheduled for the fourth Monday in December. Please work with Mr. Huf- fine, City Engineer, to schedule a meeting to ~resent the drafc document to the public and receive public comments in January, 1987. All comments from Staff and the public will be forwarded to you for your professional consideration prior to your final report of study and recommendation. Thank you. Respectfully, Kit B. Kiser, Director Utilities & Operations KBK:afm Attachment Roor~ ,~54 '~,~,C ~r 5u,o,n,~ 5!5 ~'~urG'~ Av~u~ S W Roono~e v,rg,n,O 24011 ?03; 981-2002 Page CC: Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works, City of Roanoke Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer, City of Roanoke Mr. Earl Sturgill, Utilities Engineer, City of Roanoke Mr..Steven L. Walker, Manager, Sewage Treatment Plant, City of Roanoke Mr. John D. Abbott, City Engineer, City of Salem Mr. William K. Manion, Director, Botetourt County Service Authority Mr. James A. McClung, Public Works Director, Town of Vinton Mr. Cecil W. Stacy, Utilities Manager, Town of Vinton Mr. Clifford Craig, Director of Utilities Division, County of Roanoke CO~4ENTS WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN Pa~e 2 - 4 Section 2.4.3 Town of Vinton - The Town of Vinton and the County of Roanoke have an agreement to construct six wells, but I do not think they have all been constructed. Section 2.4.4 City oF Salem - Salem currently has dual plant capacity of 8.0 MGD ~as opposed to the stated 3.0 MGD) with po- tential for expansion to 20 MGD. Pa~e 2 - 5 Roanoke Water Pollution Control Plant, top of page, it should be noted that the expanded plant is designed to provide full treatment for 35 MGD and also designed to provide primary treatment to 60 MGD with the capacity of diverting and storing excess flows to a 30 million gallon holding basin. Figure 2 - 3 Septic Tank Failure Areas - I believe, subject to confirmation by Mr. William Manion, that the British Woods Subdivision in Botetourt County, along 2oute 604 is also a subdivision with Septic tank trouble. Page 2 - 6 Section 2.6 Wastewater Collection and Conveyance System, second paragraoh - ~ote: Roanoke City treats tne sewage from Roanoke County, City of Salem, Town of Vinton and the southern oortion of Botetourt County under the terms o~ a 30-year agreement, dated 1979. Section 2.11.2 SurFace 'water. [ do not understand the comment that Smith Mountain Lake and Leesviile Reservoir are used ftr !ow- water regulation for pollution abatement. Figure 2 - 7 and Page 2 - 14 (Table 2 - 4) - NODES oermit for map Reference 'lumber 13, Roanoke WTP, Falling Creek, is located, east of where shown and in ~edford County; about an inch CO the right would be close. Table 2 - 5, under t~e column for TSP Range - [ suspect the Number 31 - I8 is incorrect, merely by t~e way it is stated. Please verify all reproduced numbers and figures which have been received from State and local agencies. Pa~e 2 - 18, Section 2115 and Page 2 - 20 Historic and Archaeological Resource,. Roanoke City also includes the Historic City Market area. Page 2 Page 2 - 19, Table 2 - 7 - The table lists the General Distribution of Endangered species. Important, please verify. My infor- mation is these species are only listed as threatened. Page Page 4 - 7,' Water quality Analysis - I do not believe, possibly due to an oversite by the SWCB, that Roanoke River and its tributaries are any longer listed as phosphorus limiting. I do believe they will be relisted in the forthcoming months, however. Section 4.5 - Service Population Water Demand Determination - Please qualify this section to the extent of explaining that this is a methodology for determining sewage flow and not water supply planning since it excludes such water demand factors as treatment plant water usage, leaks and broken lines, fire pro- tection, irrigation, etc. Page 5 - 8 Flow data analysis for the purpose of sizing interceptors, were allowances made to STP influent flows to deduct plant recircu- lation flows such as lagoon decant flows and filter backwash water flows? Page 5 - i2, ~age 5 - Section 5m2 -- COSt Effective Analysis Some mention should be made to oasement drains and sump pumps which, under today's building codes are improper, I believe contribute greatly to the I,,'I problem during rainy weather. i5, Section ~.2 Top of Page - Change "should" to "could" because ultimatel/ each jurisdiction is res~cnsible for their own oecause tqey have limited capacity allocations in the interceP- tors and ST~ and because they have to 2ay on actual flow. A demand change For peaking would produce revenue but Roanoke City could oe used as the "bad guy" when other localities need to increase sewer rates to say for their own i/I reduction. Table Page 7 - 5 & 5 - 9 Roanoke River and Tinker Creek Interceptor capacities. Rrevious studies have stated ~nese interceptors nave sJction limiting capacities of 35 MGD and 25 MGD resDe:tively. Suggest Ig65 H.S.M&M. report for reference. Please ~ouole o~eck. Average day loading for BODq, TSS, TKN S T-m a$oear to be about 10== too low based on recent plant readings, which plant read- ings do include re-circulated sludge lagoon decant and back- wash water Flows but which also have to be considered when sizing weirs, oxygen addition, etc. Please double check. don~t want t] overbuild but do want recent monthly trends to be considered. Figure 7 - 21 - ~iass ~alancP - You show addition of sickle liquor, alum, make-up water Out do not show addition of air, chlorine, polymer. Diagram should snow consistency. The same applies to Figure 7- 22. Page 7 - 13, Section 7.2.2.3 Flow Equalization - The 8 MG basin rakes have worked but from the beginning have suffered from maintenance difficulties. Also, the equalization basin does not overtop but has an overflow to the river. Page 3 Table 7 - 7 Carbonaceous Current Activated Sludge Clarifier Performancn Data - What does "* Not Evaluated" refer to? Page 7 - 21m Table 7 - 12~ Table 7 - 14 - It should be noted that percent removal figures are only for the unit of treatment and do not directly equate to total plant removal percentages; example, filtration removes 82% of TSS between top and bottom of the filters but does not remove 82% of TSS of total plant influent TSS. Page 7 - 22 Page 7 - 25, Table 7 - i6 ~age 7 - 34, Solids Stream - I don't understand why data (flow and concen- tration) could not have been collected to judge the performance of the gravity thickner and flotation thickner. Doesn't re- ported data on Page 7 - 24 say you did receive plant data re- garding solids concentration in the DAF? Section 7.2.2.12 Sludge Lagoons - There are five lagoons rather than four. The fifth lagoon was constructed in 1980-81. Please recheck volume of storage figure. 2005 Design Criteria - Why does the loading between average and maximum month increase at the same ratio as the flow? I would :nink there is an initial flushing then the normal strength is diluted by the increased I/I flow. I realize the plant operating/design criteria is hydraulic/detention time driven (not BODe, TSS, etc. loading) and may not make a significant difference except in sizing blowers, lbs. applied for f~od, oxygen required, etc. Section 7.3.3.4 - ]~pacts of Chemical Addition Location - Are there any negative ~otential impacts associated with the metals that are also added wish, and included in, the pickle liquor? ~a~e 7 - 29 vs. 7 - 54 - Report needs ~ore description of recommendation to "provide flood proofing to critical electrical components and structures. [ don't believe the cos: estimate ~or flood proof- ing is included in the overall cost escira:e. This needs more exDlanation. Sage $ - 2. Sections 8.2.1 ~ 8.2.2 - C~nge I~ en~ineerin~ :o S COMMUNICATION TO: ·. Office of ~e CiN Engine~ '' D~cember 12, 1986 Mayor Noel C. Taylor '~' ...: Councilmember David A. Bowers Councilmember Elizabeth T. Bowles Councilmember Robert A. Garland Councilmember James G. Harvey, II Coun¢ilmember Howard E. Mueser Councilmemeber James O. Trout W. Robert Herbert, C£ty Manager Wilburn C. Dibling, City Attorney William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Kit B. Kieer, Director of Utilitiee & Operations' Steve Walker, Manager, Roanoke City Water Pollution Control Plant Richard W. Stahr, Jr., P.E., Malcolm Pirnie ~imer C. Hodge, Roanoke County Administrator John D. Williamson, III, Botetourt County Administrator William K. Manion, Director, Botetourt County Service Authority George W. Nester, Vinton Town Manager William T. Paxton, Jr., City Manager, City of Salem Please be advised that an administrative public hearing has now been scheduled for Wednesday, January i4, 1986, at 7:30 p.m., in the City of Roanoke Council Chambers, 4th floor, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, $.W., Roanoke, Virginia. The subject matter will be the proposed wastewater treatment and facility plan addressing the City of Roanoke Wastewater Treatment Facility and related interceptor systems together with expansions to serve the growing needs of the Roanoke River Basin Area. Study consultant, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., will present the preliminary study document to the public and solicit public comments prior to providing the final document for formal approval. A copy of the legal advertisement for this public notice is attached for your information. The advertisement will appear in the Sunday edition of the Roanoke Times & World News for two consecutive weeks, January 4th and January llth, I987. CMH/ES/~m Attachment Charles M. Huffine, P.E. City Engineer I~oom 350 Muni¢ilDal Bu~lcling 2t5 Churctl Avenue, S.W ~oonoke, Vicginia 240'11 [703] 98 f-273 t ~OTI~ OF PUBLIC RE&~ING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on Wednesday, January 14, 1987, at 7:]0 p.m., prevailln$ local time, aC the City of Roanoke Council Chamber, 4th floor, Municipal Buildin$, 215 W. Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Vir$inia, in order to consider the followln$: The proposed wastewater treatment and facility plan addressin8 the City of Roanoke Wastewater Treatment Facility and Interceptor Systems together with expansions to serve the growing needs of the Roanoke River Basin Area. This plan has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 201 of the Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500) and the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1981 (PL 97-117). A copy of the said plan is available for review in the Office of the Roanoke City Engineer, Room 350, Municipal Building and at the following administra- tive offices: Roanoke Coun:y Botetourt County City of Salem Town of Vinton All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be heard in the matter. Date William ~. CLark Director of Public Works City of Roanoke, Virginia MINUTES FROM A PUBLIC HEARING hELD ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1987, AT 7:30 p.m. IN THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL CT{AMBERS, 215 CHURCH AVENUE, S.W., ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Introduction was made by Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities & Operations, for the City of Roanoke, addressing the purpose of the meeting being the duly adver- tised public meeting to hear the presentation of the 20 Year Facilities Plan for the Roanoke Regional Sewage Treatment Plant. No member of the public was in attendance, however, for those members of the staffs of adjacent local governments that participate by contract in the Sewage Treatment Flant a quick presentation was presented by Mr. Richard W. Stahr, Jr., Project Engineer wi~h Malcolm Pirnie. A short presentation was given since most in attendance had already heard =he presentation before. The project is a 20 Year Plan for Wastewater Management the service area. Mr. Stahr, using the following charts, described the project briefly. 1. Chart depicting what the projected service area will be in the year 2005 (showing the various jurisidictions involved). 2. Flow Projections, showing the flow population and the infiltration and inflow. Infiltration/Inflow Reduction Cost Effectiveness Analysis 4 Interceptor Replacement Program 5 Roanoke WPCP - Plant Influent Flow 30 day moving averages 1/1/83 to 9/30/85 6 Schematic - Roanoke Wa~er Pollution Control Piant 7 Alternatives, for providing long term treatment (7 alternatives). $ Seiec~ed Plan - Estimated Cost being approximately 32 million dolfars. conclusion of presentation, the floor was open for questions. A question asked by Mr. Clift Craig, of Roanoke County was: "The plan you have looks at the next 20 years, up ~o 2005, is there room, phyiscally, on the land for modification for additional units to expand further after the year 2005, or are we looking a~ a ~otal new facility at chac ~ime?" Mr. Kiser s~ated that ~here is land available for expansion beyond ~he 20 year period. Some of the land is already owned, some would have co be purchased. Mt. Kiser =hen concluded the beefing with =he following co~--ents. As far as scheduling, iC was hoped that Malcolm-Pirnie would go hack, and from comments, take draft document and put it in a form of a final document, submit it to the City of Roanoke, and in turn, the City of Roanoke would share this with other local governments and also submit a copy to the Water Resources Committee. Through the Co,--i~tee the document would then go to City Council asking for their approval. After that requesting the State to give us a formal approval of the doucment as a planning document. It is important to try to secure a letter from the state approving this document. There should be a meeting with all people who are parties to the STP contract sometime in the next tvo years to try to get through the level of capacity that may be requested by each level of local government for interceptors in the plant. The 1972 document requires that joint facilities be planned cooperati- vely, tha~ there always be an opportunity for joint participation and joint capacities. In aCCendance: Richard W. Stahr, Jr., Project Engineer, Malcolm-Pirnie R. F. Bonnet, Jr., P.E., Vice President, Malcolm-Pirnie Kit B. Riser, Director of Utilities & Operations, City of Roanoke cleft Craig, Roanoke County Cecil Stacy, Town of Vinton Dave Rigby, Clean Wa~er Engineers Steve Walker, Manager, Sewage Treatment Plan~, City of Roanoke Charles ~uffine, P.E., City Engineer, City of Roanoke Earl Sturgill, Civil Engineer, City of Roanoke SUMMARY The facility plan examined the adequacy of existing wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities and projected the need for expanded, modified or new facilities through the year 2005 for the Roanoke Region- al System. Flow Projections Wastewater flows in the system were projected to the design year 2005. Expansion of the system to new areas and additional hook-ups within existing service areas are expected to occur. Conclusions The annual average total system flow is projected to increase from a 1985 value of 28.66 mgd to 34.46 mgd in the year 2005. Approximately 0.8 mgd of the increase is estimated to occur as a result of an increase in I/I while 5.0 mgd is the expected increase due to new services. Conveyance System The analysis of the conveyance system was limited to the Roanoke River and Tinker Creek Interceptors. The following conclusions were made: From a total system perspective it is not cost-effective to remove infiltration and inflow (I/I). Individual jurisdictions may find it in their best interests to remediate I/I on a case specific basis. The capacity of the major flows is inadequate. Some under existing conditions. interceptors with respect to projected surcharging and overflows are evident Wastewater Treatment Alternatives A number of wastewater treatment and disposal ined. Included in these options were: options were exam- - No Action Construction of a New Regional Treatment Plant S-1 - Upgrade/Expand the Existing Regional Treatment Plant - Reuse of Treated Wastewater - Land Application - Relocation of the Existing Discharge - On-Site Systems - Satellite Treatment Plants Conclusions The existing treatment plant can not meet long term needs without mooification or expansion. The most feasible solution to long-term treatment and disposal of wastewater is to upgrade and expand the existing treatment plant. Reccm~endati OhS Upgrade the existing treatment plant by implementing the defineU priority actions. The projected capital cost of these actions is $6.4 million (1986). Implement the recommenee~ secondary actions at the treatment plant. The projected capital cost of these options is $9.2 million (1986). Replace the lower reaches of both the Roanoke River and Tinker Creek Znterceptors. The projected capital cost of the interceptor replacements are as follows: Roanoke River Interceptor Tinker Creek Interceptor $12.8 million $ 3.4 million S-2 8. SELECTED PLAN 8.1 Intercepto? System A detailed evaluation of the major interceptor system was presented in Chapter 5. The recommendation of that evaluation was a program of interceptor replacement for the two major interceptors: the Roanoke River Interceptor and the Tinker Creek Interceptor. Chapter 5 also indicated that, from a total system perspective, I/I reduction is not cost effective. That does not however mean that localized I/I problems should be ignored. I/1 is the principal cause for many of the required treatment plant modifications. In addition, there is a certain risk in upgrading the downstream interceptors without limiting upstream I/I. 8.1.1 Roanoke Fiver Zntercgptor We recommend that 8.5 miles of the Roanoke River interceptor be replaced. This segment extends from the 8arnharot Creek Trunk to the wastewater treatment plant. The estimatea capital cost of this improve- ment is S12,8C3,000 in iBB6 dollars. This replacement could, for logistical and funding reasons, be broken up into a number of segments. Because many segments of the system are currently at or over capacity, it is recommended that this replacement be implemented and operational within the next five years. $.1.2 Tinker Creek Zn:ercepto~ We recommend that 2.3 miles of the Tinker Creek Znterceptcr be replaced. This segment extends frcm the Orange Avenue Diversion te the wastewater treatment plant. The estimated capital cost ef this improve- merit is $3,352,CC0 in 19£6 dollars. As is the case for the ~canoke River Interceptor, the Tinker Creek Interceptor replacement could be implemented in phases but should be fully implemented within approximately five years. 8.2 Treatment Plant Chapter 7 presented a detailed analysis of the existing treatment plant and the recommencations for upgrading/expanding this facility. 8-1 The following presents the estimated capital costs for this work. '8.2.1 Priority Actions Table 8-1 presents the priority actions and their associated construc.tion costs. The estimated construction cost for the priority items is $5,200,000 in 1986 dollars. The total capital cost estimate including contingencies (15%) and engineering {8%) is $6,400,000. The priority actions are intended to rehabilitate worh-out equip- ment solve extensive maintenance problems, provide additional operations flexibility and solve a safety problem. These actions shculd be imple- menteo as soon as funding is available. A number of the activities may be implemented by plant maintenance crews. The costs presented in Table 8-I assume contract construction. 6.2.2 Secondary Actions Secnndary actions have been defined as those items necessary to prcvide for treatment of wastewater through the design 9ear 2005. The estimateo costs of the recommendeo secondary actions is shown in Table 8-2. Thc estimated constructicn cost of these items is $7,~25,000 (1986S). The total estimated capital cost including contingencies (15%) and engineering (8%) is $9,!75,000. The secondary actions will be necessary to meet treatment needs over the ne×c ~wenty years. In order to meet these needs, ~t 'is recom- mended Cha: these actions be implemented within the next five jeans. As with t~e interceptor replacement work, the treatment plan~ secondary actions can be implemented in multiple phases to facilitate funding. 8-2 Table 8-1 ESTIMATED COSTS FOR PRIORITY ACTIONS 2. 3. 4. 5. 10. 11. Item Replace Comminutors with fine screens. Replace floor tile and sock diffusers with fine bubble disc/dome diffusers. Provide means to drain aeration tanks. Provide bypass of primary effluent to second stage aeration. Rehabilitate square clarifier corners and increase effluent launder wastewater velocity. Provide first stage return activated sludge wet well. Reline ~igester No. 1. Provide digester gas storage. Provide flow measurement and sampling for the gravity thickener overflow, DAF under- flow and lagoon overflow. Provide an additional gravity sludge thickener anO refurbish t~e existing thickener ProviCe floodproofing of critical structures and electrical cemponents Estimated Construction Cost $ 850,000 1,050,000 100,000 100,000 575,000 100,000 175,666 1,350,000 125,000 275,000 500,000 25,200,000 780,000 420:000 $6,400,000 Construction Cost Subtotal Contingency Engineering TOTAL Table 8-2 ESTIMATED COSTS FOR SECONDARY ACTIONS Item Estimated Construction Cost 1. Replace existing 12 mgd raw . sewage pump with a 25 mgd pump. 2. Provide two {2) new primary clarifiers 3. Provide an additional 10 mg of flow equalization. 4. Convert two (2) existing first stage aeration basins to swing- use 5. Provide three (3) new second stage aeration basins. 6. Place the modification settling basins in parallel with the coagulation final settling basins 7. Chemical addition to second stage settling basins. 8. Provide a second stage return activated sludge pump station for the coagulation final settling basins. 9. Provide pickle liquor oxidation and feed facilities. I0. Provide two (2) additional gravity filters. 11. Upgrade second stage return activated sludge pump station. i2. Upgrade existing first stage return activated sludge pump station 13. Provide dechlorination of effluent. $ 125,000 1,100,000 1,800,000 300,000 1,600,000 600,000 75,000 550,000 75,000 700,000 I75,000 250,000 75,000 S7,425,000 1,150,000 600,000 Construction Cost Subtotal Contingency Engineering TOTAL S9,175,000 I~~l~~~' ~oano~ Ci~ Plannincj Comm,ssion June 1, 1987 The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Wastewater Facility Plan The Transportation/Utilities/Facilities Subcommittee of the Roanoke City Planning Commission met on May 13, 1987, to consider the Wastewater Facility Plan, prepared for the City by Malcolm Pirnie, Environmental Engineers, Scientists & Planners. The presentation to the Subcommittee was made by Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations. The consensus of the Subcommittee was that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Wastewater Facility Plan. The Roanoke City Planning Commission considered the Wastewater Facility Plan during their regular meeting on May 20, 1987 and found that the Plan was in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Commission unanimously (6-0, Mr. Price absent) recommended approval of the plan to City Council. Respectfully submitted, Susan S. Goode, Chairwoman Roanoke City Planning Commission SSG:mpf attachment cc: Assistant City Attorney Director of Public Works Director of Utilities and Operations City Engineer Manager, Sewage Treatment Plant Room 355 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, 5.W. Roanoke, Virginia 240t 1 (703) 981 2344 Or, ce af the City C]en~ June 3, 1987 File #516 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28661, authorizing can- cellation of the City's lease agreement with Roanoke Photo Associates for a portion of the congnercial space in the Market Square Parking Garage, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June l, 1987. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ra Enco cc: Mr. Ron Jackson, Executive Vice President, Photo USA, P. O. Box 3843, Salem, Virginia 24153 Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, .Ir., City Attorney Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Ms. Deborah J. Moses, Chief of Billings and Collections Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations Room456 MuniclpalBulldlng 215(D',urchAve~ue, S.W. Roanc~e,~rginio24011 (703)981-2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 1st day of June, 1987. No. 28661. AN ORDINANCE authorizing cancellation of the City's lease agreement with Roanoke Photo Associates for a portion of the commercial space in the Market Square Parking C~rage and pro- viding for an emergency. BE IT OI{DAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager is authorized to cancel the existing lease agreement between the City and Magna Photo, Inc. assigned to Roanoke Photo Associates for a 1000 square foot commercial space, Space No. 108, located in the Market Square Parking Garage as set forth in the report to this Council dated June 1, 1987, the form of any necessary written cancellation to be approved by the City Attorney; and 2. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia dune 1, 1987 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Market Square Parking Garage - Commercial Space Lease - Roanoke Photo Associates The attached staff report was considered by the Water Resources Committee at its meeting on May 26, 1987. The Committee recommends that Council authorize the cancellation of the lease of a 1000 square foot space in the Market Square Parking Garage held by Roanoke Photo Associates effective on or before July 31, 1987. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman Water Resources Committee ETB:KBK:afm Attachment CC: City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Utilities & Operations INTERDEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION DATE: TO: FROM: THRU: RE: May 5, 1987 Members, Water Resources Committee ~.,~ ~.L Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations W. Robert Herbert, City Manager ~/f~---~ Market Square Parking Garage Commercial Space Lease Roanoke Photo Associates I. Back~round: me City Council by Ordinance No. 26870, dated February 6, 1984, authorized a five (5) year lease of a 1000 square foot commercial space (Space No. 108) to Magna Photo, Inc. Council, by Ordinance No. 28294, dated August 26, 1986, authorized the assignment of the Magna Photo lease to Roanoke Photo Associates. II. Current Situation: A. Roanoke Photo Associates has not done business at this location since the flood of November, 1985. Roanoke Photo Associates has requested that the City cancel their lease and the lease of Magna Photo, Inc. They no longer desire to do business at that location. They request that the lease be cancelled by no later than July 31, 1987. III. Issues: A. Need B. Timin~ C. Cost to City IV. Alternatives: Recommend to City Council that it authorize the appropriate City officials to cancel the lease for the 1000 square foot commercial space (No. 108) in the Market Square Parking Garage currently held by Roanoke Photo Associates effective on or before July 31, 1987. Page 2 1. Need by Roanoke Photo Associates to move from that location is met. 2. Timin~ to meet deadline of July 31, 1987 is met. Cost to City is loss of future rent of $7~000.00 per year for approximately two (2) years remaining on the lease until the property is released. Do not recommend to City Council that it authorize the can- cellation of the lease for a 1000 square foot commercial space in the Market Square Parking Garage held by Roanoke Photo Associates. 1. Need by lessee to move from that location is not met. 2. Timin~ to meet lessee's deadline of July 31, 1987 is not met. 3. Cost to City is moot. Recommendation: Committee recommend to City Council that it authorize the cancellation of the lease of a 1000 square foot space in the Market Square Parking Garage held by Roanoke Photo Associates in accordance with Alternative "A". RVH/KBK/WRH/hw Attachments cc: City Attorney Director of Finance May 4, 1987 Mr. Kit B. Kiser Director of Utilities and Operations Room 354 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear Mr. Kiser: Pursuant to our telephone conversation just completed, Roanoke Photo Associates, a Virginia General Partnership, desires to cancel its existing lease assignment in addition to that lease date February 20, 1984, between The City of Roanoke, Lessor, and Magna Photo, Inc., Lessee, for that certain space described as 1,000 square feet located in the Culture Center Parking Garage on Campbell Avenue, S.E., Roanoke, Virginia and better defined as Space 108. Roanoke Photo Associates requests this cancellation as soon as possible but no later than July 31, 1987. If this presents any problems or questions, please do not hesitate to call. n Jac xencuJ~ve~%e President The Photo Lab, Inc. General Partner cc: Bill Poe Hall and Associates RNJ:bss OFFICE OF CITY - E, August 29, 1986 File #42-255 Mr. W. Robert HerDert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28294, approving and authorizing the execution of an assignment of the lease of a 1000 square foot space in the Market Square Parking Garage, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, August 11, 1986, a)so adopted by the Council on second reading on Monday, August 25, 1986, and will take effect ten days following the date of its second reading. Sincerely, udith ;~. St. Clair Deputy City Clerk JMS:se EFIC, CCi Mr. Robert Stetson, Magna Photo, Inc., 222 W. Adams Street, Suite 1395, Chicago, Illinois 60606 Mr. William D. Poe, Hall Associates, Inc., 1007 Dominion Bank Building, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Mr. Wilburn C. Dibting, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations Mr.~William F. Clark, Director of Public Works ~:~C~. Richard V. Hamilton, Right-of-Way Agent Room 456 Munlcl~l Buildlf~ 915 (~urch A~t~,e, S.W. Roonc:~ke, 'vl~lnlo 2401 t (703) 98'1-2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITy OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 25th day of August, 1986. No. 28294. AN ORDINANCE approving and authorizing the execution of an assign- ment of the lease of a 1000 square foot space in the Market Square Parking Oarase. BE IT ORDAINED by the City 5~nager be and tie is of the lease authorized by Ordinance 1984, as amended by Ordinance No. a five (5) year period of a 1000 Square Parking Garage from ~gna Council of the City of Roanoke that the hereby authorized to execute an assignment No. 26870, adopted February 6, 27102, adopted July 9, 1984, for square foot space in the ~r~et Photo, Inc., to Roanoke Photo Associates, a Virginia ~eneral partnership, such assignment to be subject to all of the terms and conditions of the original lease and to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. ATTEST: /~-/'~ City Clerk. Office of the City Cler~ July 12, 1984 File #2-166-516 Mr. H. B. Ewert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Ewert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 27102, authorizing you to enter an agreement amending the lease between the City and Magna Photo, Inc., dated February 20, 1984, for 1,000 square feet of space located in the Cultural Center Parking Garage in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, such amendment to increase the amount of the rent credit for improvements constructed at Lessee's expense, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, June 25, 1984, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Monday, July 9, 1984, and will take effect ten days following the date of its second reading. Sincerely, ~ Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:se Enc. Room 45~ Municipal Building 215 Onurch Av~que, S.W. Roc~c~e. Virginlo 24011 (703) 981-2541 Mr. H. B. Ewert Page 2 July 12, 1984 cc: Mr. Robert Stetson, Magna Photo, Inc., John Hancock Center, Suite 3046, 875 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611 Mr. William D. Poe, Property Manager, Hall Associates, Inc., 1007 FNEB Building, City 24011 Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations ~. Richard B. Burrow, City Engineer Mr. Richard V. Hamilton, Right-of-Way Agent IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 9th day of July, 1984, No. 27102. VIRGINIA, AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to enter an agreement amending the lease between the City and Magna Photo, Inc., dated February 20, 1984, for 1,000 square feet of space located in the Cul- tural Center Parking Garage in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, such amendment to increase the amount of the rent credit for improvements constructed at tessee's expense. its expense during the 2. Inc., shall quired by BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into a written amendment to the lease agreement, dated February 20, 1984, between the City and Magna Photo, Inc., which lease agreement provides for lease by the City to Magna Photo, Inc., of ],000 square feet of space located in the Cultural Center Parking Garage in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, to increase from $12,000 to $21,000 the rent credit to which Magna Photo, Inc., shall be entitled for improvements constructed at first twelve months of the lease term. Any amendment to the lease between the City and Magna Photo, shall be in such form as is approved by the City Attorney and contain such other terms and conditions as are approved and re- the City Manager. ATTEST: ~ City Clerk. Office of the Ci~, C]e~ February 9, I984 File #166-426-255 Mr. H. B. Ewert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear ;ir. Ewert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 26870, authorizing and directing the proper City officials to enter into a five-year lease agreement with Magna Photo, Inc., with respect to a 1,000 square foot space located in the Cultural Center Parking Garage in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, upon certain terms and con- ditions, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, January 23, 1984, also adopted on second reading on Monday, February 6, 1984, and will take effect ten days following the date of its second reading. Sincerely, Hary F. Parker, C~.IC City Clerk [1FP:se Enco cc: Fir. ';!illiam D. Poe, Property Manager, Hall Associates, Inc., 1007 FNEB Building, City 24011 Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations Ilr. Wil)iam E. Callahan, General Manager, Valley Metro, P. O. Box 13247, City 24032 Mr. Thomas F. Brady, Director of Public Works ~r. Richard B. Burrow, City Engineer Mr. Richard V. Hamilton, Real Estate Agent ~ir. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Joel M. Schtanger, Director of Finance :'~1456 ~:~¢i~J~ildir~ 215 ~chAv~,$.WR~nc~.~lniG2~l~ (?~)98!-254t TH~ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 6th day of February, 1984. VIRGINIA, No. 26870. AN ORDI'!ANCE authorizing and directing the proper City offi- cials to enter into a five-year lease agreement with Magna Photo, !nc., with respect to a ~,000 square foot space located in the Cultural Center Parking Garage in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, upon certain terms and conditions. BE IT ORDAI?IED by the Council of the City of Roanoke the l~ . >Ianager and City Clerk are hereby authorized and that directed, respectively, to execute and attest, for and on behalf of the City of Roanoke, a lease in such form as is approved by t.,_ City Attorney with Magna Photo, Inc., for a 1 ,000 square foot · - ~e ~ ~t~ ~1 Center Parking Carage adjacent to the $7.90 per s~uare foot per year, provi,~ing, however, that lessee shall be entitled to a $12,000.00 rent credit fo~ improvements :o::':tr::ct.~:] ~t l,,~;~;.~,_~'~ expense during3 the first twelve months subject to the approval of the City Manager with utilities to be paid by lessee, such lease to contain such other terms and con- dfnions as are approved and required by the City Manager. ATTEST: ~~ City Clurk. Office of ~e City June 3, 1987 File ~468B-~ Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28663, amending and reor- daining certain sections of the 1986-87 Water Fund Appropriation Ordinance, appropriating $170,000.00 from the Water Fund to cover an over expenditure and to provide necessary funding for new ser- vices, hydrants and lines through June 30, 1987, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June l, 1987. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. cc: Mr. Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Manager, Utility Line Facilities Room456 MunlclpalBulldlng 215(hurchAve~ue, S.W. Roanoke, Virglnla24011 (703)98t-2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, lbe 1st ~ay of June, 1987. No. 28663. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1986-87 Water Fund Appropriation Ordinance, 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 1986-87 Water Fund Appropriation Ordinance be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained, to read as follows, in part: Appropriations Capital Outlay From Revenue New Services, Hydrants, Lines Retained Earninss Unrestricted Retained Earnings (2) ................. $14,082,523 $ 3,328,867 (1) ................ 470,495 (1) Approp. from General Rev. (2) Retained Earnings Unrestricted (A002-056-8310-9003) $ 170,000 (X002-3336) (170,000) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia June 1, 1987 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Water Fund Appropriation for New Services, Hydrants and Water Lines The attached staff report was considered by the Water Resources Committee at its meeting on May 26, t987. The Committee recommends that Council appropriate $170,000 from Water Fund retained earnings to Water Department Account No. 002-056-8310-9060 - Capital Outlay from Revenue - New Services, Hydrants, Lines. ETB:KBK:afm Attachment CC: Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman Water Resources Committee City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Utilities & Operations Manager, Water Department INTERDEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION DATE: TO: FROM: May 26, 1987 Mrs. Bowles and Members, Water Resources Committee thru Mr. erbert Subject: Water Fund Appropriation for New Services, Hydrants and Water Lines Background: City Council approved funds in the FY86-87 Budget in the amount of $300,495.00 for Water Fund Account 002-056-8310-9060, New Services, Hydrants, Lines. This was an estimate of funds needed to cover the cost of installation of customer requested work such as domestic services, fire services, water lines under main extension agreements and Water Department required work on storm drain and highway projects. Majority of the work is reimbursed by customer fees. B. Revenue from Connection Charges and Customers Work through April 30, 1987 amounted to $169,498,27. Co Water line installation expenses for the Roanoke Center for Industry and Technology is not reimbursed since the city is the developer of the park. II. Current Situation: mo April 30, 1987 Water Fund Account NeW Services, Hydrants, Lines shows expenditures of $315,950.19 and an encumbrance of $9,415.40, for an over-expenditure of $24,870.59. The over-expenditure has resulted from the current economic climate of low interest rates with an increased requirement for customer services related to the many commercial, industrial, residential developments and several storm drain and highway projects. ApPropriation of $170,000,00 from Water Fund retained earnings is needed to cover the over-expenditure and to provide necessary funding for New Services, Hydrants, Lines Account 002-056-8310-9060 through June 30, 1987. III. Issues in order of consideration are: A. Need. B. Funding. C. Timing. Page Two IV. Alternatives: A. Council authorize the appropriation of $170,000.00 from the Water Fund retained earnings to Water Department Account No. 002-056-8310-9060. 1. Need for the funding to cover required expansion of the water system will be met. 2. Funding is available in Water Fund retained earnings. 3. Timing of funds requirement through the current fiscal year will be met. B. Council not authorize the appropriation of $170,000.00 from the Water Fund retained earnings to Water Department Account No. 002-056-8310-9060. 1. Need for funding would not be met. 2. Funding source would not matter. 3. Timing of funds requirement through the current fiscal year would not be met and installation of services and water lines would have to be delayed. V. Recommendation: Implement Alternative "A" by appropriating $170,000.00 from Water Fund retained earnings to Water Department Account No. 002-056-8310-9060 - Capital Outlay From Revenue - New Services, Hydrants, Lines. KBK:MCS:je cc: City Attorney Director of Finance Office of the City C)e~ June 3, 1987 File #27 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28664, authorizing a certain contract to be entered into with Cooper Industries, Inc., for overhauling No. 6 Blower Engine at the Sewage Treatment Plant, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June l, 1987. ~i~.fl~Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. cc: Mr, Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations Mr. Steven L. Walker, Manager, Sewage Treatment Plant Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration Public Safety Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services and Room 456 Municipal Building 2t5 Churc~ Avenue, S.W. Roonoke, Vlrglnia 24011 (703) 981-2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 1st day of June, 1987. No. 28664. AN ORDINANCE authorizing a certain contract with Cooper Industries, Inc., for overhaul of No. at the Sewage Treatment Plant upon certain terms and providing for an emergency. to be entered 6 Blower Engine and conditions; BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized to execute and attest respectively on behalf of the City a written contract with Cooper Industries, Inc., to perform an overhaul on the No. 6 Blower Engine at the Sewage Treatment Plant including provision of all necessary parts and labor, the cost not to exceed $79,020.40 in accordance with said firm's proposal and as more particularly set forth in the report to this Council dated June 1, 1987, a copy of which is on file in the Office of City Clerk, said contract to be in form approved by the City Attorney; 2. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Roanoke, Virginia June 1, 1987 Subject: Sewage Treatment Plant Overhaul of No. 6 Blower Engine The attached staff report was considered by the Water Resources Committee at its meeting on May 26, 1987. The Committee recommends that City Council authorize a contract with Cooper Industries, the only source practically available, to overhaul No. 6 White Superior Engine at a cost not to exceed $79,020.40, subject to the form of contract being approved by the City Attorney. ETB:KBK:afm Attachment CC: City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Utilities & Operations Manager, General Services Manager, Sewage Treatment Plant Respectfully submitted, . Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman Water Resources Committee INTERDEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION DATE: TO: FROM: May 20, 1987 Members, Water Resources Committee thru Mr. K. B. Kiser Su bj ect: Sewage Treatment Plant Overhaul of No. 6 Blower Engine I. Background: A. Three blowers for aeration of tanks are powered by 1600 horsepower White Superior Engines. B. Engines require overhaul at 25,000 hours of running time. C. No. 6 Blower Engine needs an overhaul as it has over 25,000 hours on it. D. Parts for overhaul are only available from the manufacturer, Cooper Industries. Eo Labor for engine maintenance is normally performed by the Stationary Engine Mechanic which is vacant due to transfer to the City Garage. Labor for a major overhaul is not available. F. Time for overhaul requires approximately fourteen (14) days for a team of three (3) mechanics. Go Cooper Industries has submitted a proposal for overhaul at a cost of $45,395.00. Additional parts required to complete the over- haul increases the cost to $79,020.40. (See Attachment A). Ho Competitive bids were not requested as the manufacturer is the only source for parts. Purchasing the parts and contracting the labor from anyone other than the manufacturer could create serious problems with equipment warranties. Therefore, Cooper Industries is the only source practically available for the needed parts and services. II. Current Situation: A. No. 6 Blower Engine has over 25,000 hours on it and needs an over- haul. Continued operations may result in increased repair costs. Page 2 B. Labor cannot be performed by plant personnel due to vacant position and longevity of training period. Delivery time for inventorS parts requires up to six (6) months. Required parts for complete overhaul are not in stock room inven- tory due to the need to maintain inventory for maintenance of other engines. III. Issues in order of priority: A. Need B. Cost C. Timing D. Funding IV. Alternatives: A. Recommend to Cits Council to authorize a contract with Cooper Industries for overhaul of No. 6 Blower Engine. 1. Need for proper aeration capacity will be met. 2. Cost is $79,020.40 for a complete overhaul with all required parts. 3. Timin~ is important as the engine is not safe to operate and increased damage could result. 4. Funding is available in Fees for Professional Services, Account No. 003-056-3150-2010. B, Water Resources Committee not recommend to Cits Council to authorize a contract with Cooper Industries. 1. Need for proper aeration capacity will not be met. 2. Cost is moot. 3. Timin~ is moot. 4. Funding is moot. Recommendation is that the Water Resources Committee recommend to City Council to authorize a contract with Cooper Industries, the only source practically available, to overhaul No. 6 White %uperior Engine at a cost of $79,020.40, subject to the form of contract being approved by the City Attorney. ENERGY SERVICES GROUP April 8, 1987 City of Roanoke Water Pollution Control Plant 1402 Bennington St., S.E. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Attention: Mr Berry Montgumery Reference: Overhaul Proposal - DQ-50756-80 Dear Mr. Montgumery: Attached, please find one (1) copy of subject overhaul proposal and quotation. Two part lists have been submitted for your review. On one list, the prices have been extended and quoted. These parts are considered minimum required parts. The second list has not been extended or quoted. These parts, if required, will be invoiced separately as outlined in the attached quotation. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at my office. We will be looking forward to hearing from you concerning the upcoming overhaul. Sincerely, Richard S. Errera Asst. to the Field Service Mgr Eastern Region /e Attachments AFTERMARKET SERVICES North Sandusky Street Mount Vernon, Ohio 43050 (614) 393-8200 Telex: 24-5388 AJAX® COOPER-BESSEMERe EN-TRONIC~ CONTROLS NORDBERG® PENN' SUPERIORm CIT~ OF ROAFI)KE Water Pollution Oontrol Plant 1402 Bennington Street, S.E. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 OVERHAUL PROPOSAL 4~-GE~X-12 SN-21178 ENERGY SERVICES GROUP F~fM: BY: ENERGY SERVICES GROUP Mount Vernon, Ohio 4305~ R. S. Errera Contract Services Aftermarket Services April 7, 1987 OVERHAUL PROPOSAL INDEX CONTRACT II. III · IV. V. VI. VII. Subject Introduction Service A. Supervision & Labor B. Tools & Equil~aent C. Material D. Parts Procedure Schedule Miscellaneous Attachments A. Cooper Energy Services Field Service Terms and Conditions B. Cooper Energy Services Field Service Rate Schedule C. Cooper Energy Services Mechanic and Equil=nent Rate Schedule D. Cooper Energy Services Parts Sales Terms and Conditions E. Quotation, DQ-5~756-80 ENERGY SERVICES GROUP OVERHA~ PROPOSAL SUBJECT.. CITY OF ROANOKE Water Pollution ~ontrol Plant Boanoke, Virginia 4~-GDSX-12, SN-21178 II. INTRODUCTION: This quotation includes the overhauling of subject engine as outlined under Section IV, "Procedure". III. The service outlined below will be in accordance with Energy Services Group's standard overhaul procedures. The service will include: A. Supervision and T~r Experienced Energy Services Group personnel will be used for both supervision and labor to ccmplete the work outlined in The overhaul crew will be supervised by one (1) Energy Services Group serviceman, who will re~ain responsible for the complete overhaul project. Energy Services Group's overhaul crew, consisting of three (3) mechanics, will be resFonsible for the actual work as outlined under "Procedure". B. Tools and ~qui~e~t All tools and equil~nent, with the exception of special engine tools and crane for handling of heavy parts, will be furnished by Energy Services Group. Special engine tools are those that ~re suppliedwith the unit. C. ~terial Expendable material such as rags and cleaning fluidwill be furnished by Energy Services Group. The storage and renewal, if necessary, of lube oil will be the Custc~er's responsibility. ENERGY SERVICES GROUP III. SERVICE(~t'd.) D. Parts Energy Services Group will remain responsible for all engine parts needed to cc~plete the Overhaul of subject engine and return subject engine to a first class condition. Minim~n required parts, as described on the attached parts list, will be shipped to the job site prior to the starting date of the job. Energy Services Group agrees to supply additional engine parts that may be required to Overhaul subject engine and invoice Customer for said parts an amount equal to ~ergy Services Group's current list price at the time of sale, less twenty (2~) percent. A. Bases will be cleaned and visually inspected for cracks. B. Bearings and bushings will be inspected. S~ot check four (4) main bearings. C. Injectors and fuel pt~ps will be removed and replaced with new, or reconditioned ones provided by the City of Roanoke. D. Pistons will be r~noved, cleaned and inspected. All piston rings will be replaced. E. Liners ~11 be cleaned, inspected and honed. F. Ail drives and drive chains will be inspected. G. The following ass~nblies will be cleaned, inspected and reconditioned, as required: 1. Starting air systen 2. Water p%~aps 3. C~nsha ft ass~nblies 4. Valve rod guides 5. Crankcase breathers 6. Cylinder heads (Reconditioned by City of Roanoke) H. Engine shutdown devices will be checked and adjusted, as required. I. Inspect o~tboard bearings and record clearances. ENERGY SERVICES GROUP IV. ~m~ol~(~ont'a.) J. Tne following readings will be recorded for the C~stc~er's reference: 1. Web deflections 2. Liner diameters 3. Piston pin to bushing clearances 4. Camshaft bushing clearances Startup, operations checks and adjustments will be acccmplished to insure the satisfactory operating condition of the anit. The on-site work will be scheduled to begin on the prescribed date suggested by the C~stc~er. We do require, h(x~ever, that E~ergy Services Group be advised at least four (4) weeks prior to the begin- ning of the job in order to assign a work crew and insure that all equilm~ent required for the job will be available on the starting date. Energy Services Gro~pproposes to complete the required sc~Dpeof%ork outlined in "Procedure" as quickly and efficiently as possible. Tne C~st~merwillbe advised of our progressbythe Energy Services Group's representative in charge as the Customer dee~s necessary. This proposal is based on working one (1), eight (8) hour shift per day, five (5) days per week until the job is cc~plete. Estimated time to c~mplete the overhaul is fourteen (14) working days. MISL:.:~,fANEOUS: The Energy Services Group's work force will cc~ply to all saftey relations as set forth bythe C~stc~er. VII. ATTAC~W~T~fS .- The foll~m~ing doc~uents are attached hereto and made a part of this Agre ~ment: A. Cooper Energy Services Field Service Terms and Cc~ditions B. Cooper Energy Services Field Service Rate Schedule C. Cooper Energy Services Mechanic and Equipment Rate Schedule D. Cooper Energy Services Parts Sales Terms and ~onditions E. Quotation, DQ-50756-80 ENERGY SERVICES GROUP In Witness Whereof, the parties have executed this Agre~nent, by and through their duly authorized representatives as of this day · 1987. Energy Services Group a Division of Cooper Industries, Inc. DATE: BY: TITLE: BUYER DATE: BY.- TITLE: ENERGY SERVICES GROUP FIELD SERVICE TERMS AND CONDITIONS · ~ooper Energy Services Ihereinafter called "Seller"), will, upon request from Purchaser, and subject to availability, provide technical field service representatives (bere,;~after called "Representatives") subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter stated. Charges -- Unless a fixed price is agreed upon in writing, Purchaser shah pay for field service work and material at the rates currently in effect at the time of performance. A copy of current Service Rates is a/tacbed hereto and made a part hereof. However, such rates are subject to adjustment without notice. Time Sheets showing hours worked and expenses incurred shall be presented to Purchaser for approval insofar as practical; such approval shall, nevertheless, nol be required for invoicing by Seller of Representative's time and expenses as shown on said time sheets. Payment for Seller's charges shall be due upon pre- sentafion of invoices. 2. Permits and Taxes -- Purchaser shall obtain any local working permits required. Seller's pr cas do no nc ude sales use or similar taxes Such taxes shall be billed separately Io Purchaser, unless Purchaser provides ~?e~ler wi h a val d tax-exemption cert~lcate acceptable to taxing authorities. 3. Suspension or Cancellation -- Should Purchaser elect to suspend work under this contract, Seller shall be notified in writing at least seven (7) days in advance of the suspension date; such notice shall indicate the estimated period of suspension. Seller shall be entitled to a reasonable price adjustment resulting fi`ore expenses in relocating manpower, equipment and material as a result of such suspension. Purchaser can cancel this contract only upon prior written notice to Seller and upon payment of reasonable cancellation charges. 4. Purchaser's Responsibility -- A. Unless other'~vise stated in writing, Purchaser shall furnish all labor and supervision, materials, supplies, utilities and such _t~_,ls an~d .e~ u. ip~ment as .rr~ not ,,be pro?dad ,,~ R,e, pre~e~ ntaflve. Purchaser understands that R ,epresentaflve's responsibility is ~lmitad 1o furnish ng techncal advice Dray aha mm nepresenTanve shah nol De uti~lzea o,~ rurchaser as a supervisor of Purchaser s employees subcontractors or agents. Should Purchaser use Representative in any manner as a lead hand, foreman, supervisor, etc., Representative shall become, for that purpose, Purchaser's employee, for whom Purchaser shall be liable, shall maintain adequate insurance coverage and shall hold harmless and Indemnif~ Seller fi`om and against any and all claims arising out of Representative's acts or omissions while acting in such capacity. B. Should this contract provide for the overhaul of equipment by Seller, Seller shall provide the labor, supen~ision, materials and supplies necessary to perform the work. Purchaser shall lurnish all necessary cranes, utilities, and such tools and equipment as may not be provided by Seller, 5. Inspection and Warranty -- A. All services provided by Seller hereunder shall be promptly inspected and accepted upon completion thereof and prior to Representative's leaving Purchaser's premises. At such time Purchaser must assert in writing any claims whatsoever in connection with the work performed by Representative, other than those provided for under the Warranty clause hereof or such claims shall be waived. B. Seller warrants o Purchaser that the fled services supplied hereunder wiJ~ be performed in a competent, dirlgent manner and in accordance with generally accepted standards for such services. This warranty does not extend Seller's separate standard warranty on equipment or parts manufactured, or furnished by Seller. Such equlpmenl or parts shall contain Seller's standard equipment or parts warranty. Ail claims for defective field service hereunder must be mede in writing immediately upon discovery and, in any event, within ninety (90) days from the date of completion of said services. Defective work must be held for Selrer's inspection. Upon submission of a claim and substantiation thereof, Seller shah al its option either (a) repair or replace the defective work, including repair or replacement Lo.b. Seller's plant of defective or damaged parts furnished by seller in connection with such services upon return thereof f.o,b. Se~[er's planl within the warranty period, or {b) refund an equitable portion of Ibe contract price. The foregoin~l warranl~ is exclusive and In lieu of all other warranfie~r express, implied or statutory, including the implied warranty of merchantability. 6. Delay In Performance -- Seller shall not be liable for dela~ in performance due to acts of God, accidents, strikes, tire, governmental controls, delays in transportation, and any other cause beyond Seller's reasonable control including inability to obtain or delay n ob a ning suitable abor or material required for this contract. In the event of such delay lime of performance shall be extended for a period equal to the time lost by reason of the delay. When delays in the work are caused by Purchaser, Seller shaU be reimbursed for the time and expenses caused by such delay. 7. Subcontracting and Assignment-- Seller shall have the right to subcontract any of the work to one or more subcontractors. Purchaser shall not assign this contract to a third party without written consent of Seller. 8. Indemnify, Insurance & Limitation of Liability -- A. Seller agrees to indemnify Purchaser and hold Purchaser harmless against any claims, demands or causes of action for property damage or personal injury including dea h) caused by the negligent act or omission of any employee agent or subcontractor of Seller, and nol contributed to by the negligence of Purchaser, its agents or employees. Seller shail not be responsible for the acts and workmanship of em- ployees, agents, contractors or subcontractors of Purchaser, nor Ior failure or malfunction of any tools, materials, equipment, supplies, facilities or devices not supplied by Seller. B. Seller has in force the following insurance coverages: 1. Workmens Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance -- Rtatutorv limits 2. Comprehensive General Liability and Contractual Liabiltiv -- ~500,000 Combined Single Limit 3. Automobile Liability Insurance- ~500,000 Combined Single Limit If requested in writing, Seller shalt furnish k',urchaser with acceptable cerrltlcates evidencing such coverage oCr. Under' n.o c!~cumstances shall .~eller be liable for special, consequential or incidental damaqes, nor for Dss of an iclpated pro Is, loss of use of ~ any installation system or tacdtiV into which such equipment may be located Any action for breach of contract hereunder must be commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued. 9. Compliance with Laws -- Seller shall comply with ail Federal, State and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to any part of the work. 10. General A. Seller's prices are based on these terms, and this document, togelber with any additional writings by Seller, contains the complete agreement between the parties, and these terms may nol be modified, explained or waived by Purchaser's purchase order, a course of dea ng, Se let's performance, or in any other manner unless approved in writing by a duly authorized representative of Seller. Any reference contained herein to Purchaser's specifications or order is solely for the purpose of describing the ser¥ices to be performed and no terms contained therein shall be binding on Seller, unless agreed to in writing by a duly authorized representative of Seller. B. This agreement and lhe interpretation thereol shall be construed under the laws of the State of Ohio. COOPER ENERGY SERVICES AJAX COOPER-BESSEMER PENN PUMP SUPERIOR PAGE ENERGY SERVICES GROUP FSR-,t-3 FIELD SERVICE RATES JOBLOCATION Standard Rate Not Including Expen_~e_- {AY lIN U. $. $] SERVICE ENTRONIC SPECIALIST SERVICE REP. ENGINEER PER HOUR PER HOUR PER DAY UNITED STATES {EXCEPT ALASKA} $46.00 $66.00 $705.00 $CHEDU~ OF CHARGES 1. TraveITima .................................. Std. Rate .,.. 2. Servlca Time in axcaaa of 8 houri per day .............. 1.5 final Std. Rata 3. Service time in excess of 12 hours ~er day. and Iii continuous Ilrvice time in excel4 of 12 houri, regardless of calendar day ........................ 2.0 times Std. Rite 4. Service time on Saturday (filet 12 houri} ............... 1 .S times Std. Rate S. Service time on SurKlay and locally observed holidays ...... 2.0 times Std. Rate S. Domestic Offshore (B) ........................... 1.1S timel IplMicable day's rite 7. Automobiles (Company & Plrlanail .................. ~0(~ Der mi 1 e/32¢ per Ki 10meter S. Rental Cars .................................. Act(~l'Poet. S. Tool/Instrument Rental ........................... Fie I~lciflad by IOCll Service Manager M Manager of Reid Engineering will be charged far special tOO~l er instruments mt rmemally carded by Service RaDreeentetive er Field Engineer. 1 O, Training Material ............................... FaEI apaclfled by Msnager Of Training, Mt. Vernon, Ohio, B~iil for chlrgl~ will be prel~rit~an time and complexity of NOTES A. Uving and traveling expenses charged (it co~) from time employes Iiivaa home until return. Talephune celia related to job, one telephone call to amDIoyee'l horns per week, and lau~lry axper4ea will be charged to the cuitamer. Par diem rate quoted upon requeit. Per diem charge Inclubes meals, lodging and local tTaval. Transportation from home bees to job and to h~me ~ from job, when ritleeed f~m job, Ihail be fM c~mtomar'l Iccount. PI~ diem charge il on I calendar bins ~at on I working day beale) fo~ every dly away ti~m home. S. Offshore - Location that cam~ot be driven to mgm'MM of whether located on MOd er water. C. Mirfimum Charge: 1. Domeltic {jab alta in home bede eree) 1 a. When Itaying It hom~ ....................... 4 ~ plul ~lvel time It that dly'l riel. lb. When ~teying away from home ................. 8 houri per day, NIo~day th~u F~dly. provided ~artem .......................... 12 ho~m per day. 2. Foreign (job Nee not in home base area) 2b. Rat rite ~b'~tiva fee may eisa be ~npe~d to cov~ pa~xx*,/vL~a delay~, etc., ~t dlscre~ of Company. D. When employee ia on fo~aign la~grmme~t amd Iway from hame in axcell of th~aa montha, ha will be ontitled to homa '"Schedule of Chargea." F. Chergas will be at the rota in affect on tha date work is performed. Ritaa may be changed without notice. G. For Terms amd Condittonl las Foam D-1 OO. SUPERSEDES ISSUE DATED EFFECTIVE DATE JANUARY 1, 1985 JANUARY 1, 1986 Nount Vernon, Ohio ENERGY SERVICES GROUP MECHANIC RATE SCHEDULE Stmndard Hourly Rmte - Not Including Expenses (A) - $30.00 per hour. Trucks, tools and equipment will be billed at $12.00 per working hour. 6CHEDULE OF CHARGES 1. TrevelTJme .................................. Std. Rmt~ ~). Servicl ~me in Ixcell of S ~ per dly .............. ! ,S fliT41 Std. Alto 3. ~I~Cl ~1~ In IXClII Of 1 2 houfll per ,~-y. end Ilgerdle$1 of celendor dly ........................ 2.0 tJmli Std. Rltl 4. ~rvtce time on Saturday (f~-It 12 houri) ............... 1.E I~mll St,~. R~e S. r~lce time on $~dey .nd lecky ,~wed ho~y~ ...... 2.0 tim# Std. Rate e. D~mestic Offth~e lB) ........................... 1.15 tlme~ ~a,~'___-Me dey'e ?. ~M~l)ile, (Cor~l~ln¥ I. Iml~l) .................. ~4;tO~l ~ejt mi 1 e/32¢ per Ki 1 ometer S. R~mel Clre .................................. I . ~]~ineeflrtg will be chal~od for Ipecill tOOdl or Initrumentl not nMmelly carried by S~rYJr~ 10. TreifliflO Material ............................... Foe Mwclflod by Manager of Trlirdng. Mt. Vernon. Ohio. IMdl for charges will be proporlflon lflTte and comp~xity of NO'r;s Uvlng Ihd treveling expend# charged (it co~) ~ ~ empl~N ~vls ~ ~ mt~. TMph~ ~111 related to ~, ~ toleph~ cell to O~OyN'I "Sc~du~ of C~s." 8UKRSEDES ISSUE DA~D J~UARY 1, 1~5 OANUARY 1, 1986 COOPER ENERGY SERVICES TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PARTS SALES 1. Applicable Law -- Definitions. The definition of terms used, inter- pretation of this Agreement and rights of parties hereto shall be construed under and governed by the laws of the State of Ohio. "Vendor" when used herein means Cooper Energy Services, "Pur- chaser'' when used herein means the person, firm or corporation to whom this acknowledgement is addressed, and "goods" means those parts, articles, materials, supplies, drawings, data, or other property or services described on the front side hereof. 2. Acceptance. If this acknowledgment constitutes an acceptance of an offer, such acceptance is expressly made conditional to Purchaser's assent solely to the terms of this acknowledgment, and acceptance of any pert of the goods delivered by Vendor shail be deemed to constitute such assent by Purchaser. If this acknowledgement con- sitltutes an offer, Purchaser's acceptance of this offer is hereby limited to the terms hereof and acceptance of any part of the goods covered hereunder shall be deemed to constitute such acceptance solely to the terms hereof. No waiver, alteration or modification of, or additions to the terms and conditions contained herein shell be binding unless expressly agreed to in writing by a duly authorized officer or vendor. 3. Price. Unless otherwise provided in writing, the price of goods ordered will be those prices in effect on the date of shipment, Prices quoted by the Vendor at the time of order represent only an estimate of what the actual price will be at the time of delivery, The price of goods shipped may be higher than the price quoted herein. 4. Dalivery. Terms of delivery will be F.O.B. the Vendor's Plant, unless otherwise specified by the parties, Delivery dates, if shown, are approximate and are based on prompt receipt of a firm order on the terms herein contained and full information received at Vendor's office. In case of delay by Purchaser in furnishing complete information, delivery dates may be extended for a reasonable time depending on factory conditions. It is expressly agreed that time is not of the essence, Vendor shall not be responsible for reasonable or ex- cusable delays, nor shall Purchaser refuse to accept delivery because of any such delays. "Excusable delays" include, without limltation, delays resulting from accidents, acts of God, strike or other labor difficulties, government controls, or other forms of in- tervention, inability to obtain labor, materials, utilities or services or other causes beyond Vendor's control. Availability of parts is subject to prior sale. 5, Warranty. Vendor warrants to the purchaser that goods of its manufacture supplied and services performed by it hereunder will be free from defects in material or workmanship caused by Vendor for one year from date of delivery, except that parts furnished on a repair and return, overhaul or unit exchange transaction shall carry such warranty for six months from date of delivew. The obligation of Vendor and Purchaser's sole and exclusive remedy hereunder shall be limited, at Vendor's option, to replacement or repair of any goods which are returned to Vendor's facility within the warranty period, transporation charges prepaid, and there determined by Vendor not to be as war- ranted; provided, hov'qver, should the goods be determined by Vendor to be so defective as to preclude the remedying of warranted defects by replacement or repair, Purchaser's sole and exclusive remedy shall be a refund of the purchase price, less a reasonable charge for any utilization by Purchaser Notwithstanding the foregoing, Vendor shall have no obligation hereunder if the goods or parts become defective in whole or in part as a result of removal, improper use, operation above capacities specified or misapplication thereof after delivery to Purchaser. Purchaser shall pay freight charges in connection with the return or replacement of the defective goods or parts. Parts and accessories made by other manufactures are warranted only to the extend of the original manufacturer's warranty to Vendor. EXCEPT AS SET FORTH HEREIN, AND EXCEPT AS TO TITLE, IT IS EXPRESSLY AGREED (A) THAT THERE IS NO IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, NOR OTHER WARRANTY. EXPRESS, IM- PLIED, OR STATUTORY, NOR ANY AFFIRMATION OF FACT, OR PROMISE BY THE VENDOR WITH REFERENCE TO THE GOODS, PARTS, SERVICES, OR OTHERWISE, WHICH EXTENDS BEYOND THE DESCRIPTION OF THE GOODS, PARTS, OR SERVICES SET FORTH HEREIN: AND {B) THAT PURCHASER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT IS PURCHASING THE GOODS, PARTS OF SERVICES SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE COMMITMENTS OF VENDOR EX- PRESSLY SET FORTH HEREIN. 6, Demages. IN NO EVENT SHALL VENDOR BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL CONSEQUENTIAL, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF ANTICIPATED PROFITS OR LOSS OF USE OF ANY EQUIPMENT, INSTALLATION, SYSTEM, OPERATION OR SERVICE INTO WHICH THE GOODS OR PARTS MAY BE PUT, OR THE SERVICES PERFORMED. THIS LIMITATION ON VENDOR'S LIABILITY SHALL APPLY TO ANY LIABILITY FOR DEFAULT UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE GOODS, PARTS OR SERVICES DELIVERED HEREUNDER, WHETHER BASED ON WARRANTY, FAILURE OF OR DELAY IN DELIVERY OR OTHERWISE. ANY ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT HEREUNDER MUST BE COMMENCED WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE CAUSE OF ACTION HAS ACCRUED. 7. Payment. Payment terms are net 30 days from date of invoice. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, Purchaser agrees to pay in- terest on all past due invoices at a rate of 18 percent per annum or et the highest allowable rate according to the laws of the State of Ohio. 8. Patent Indemnity. Unless Purchaser furnished designs to Vendor, Vendor agrees to indemnify Purchaser against any claim that the goods sold infringe any United States or Canadian patent (except a patent on an article manufactured by the use of the goods), provided Purchaser notifies Vendor promptly in writing of any claim or suit, gives Vendor assistance and information and permits Vendor to assume full direction and control of any settlement, negotiation or suit, Vendor shall, at its option, either (a) procure for Purchaser the right to continue using the goods, (b) modify or replace the goods or (c) remove the goods and refund the purchase price, Purchaser's remedies for infringement are exclusively limited to this paragraph. 9. Controlling Terms. In the event of conflict between these terms and conditions and those of any purchase order issued, these terms and conditions shall govern. 10. Miscellaneous. Vendor's goods and parts are highly engineered and constantly subject to engineering refinement and improvement, Of necessity, therefore, Vendor reserves the right to change the af- fected part numbers and prices at any time. 11. Returns. Any goods returned to Vendor will be subject to a restocking charge not to exceed 100 percent of the invoice price. ENERGY SERVICES GROUP Quotation # DQ - 50756-80 from the ./~ Eastem Region the Best '.' parts and service supplier ~ in the L ........ ~-~'~;.~ ~.~ ~..j'-*.X Call us about Parts and Service for your equipment at 614 - 393 - 8200 Professional Field Service · Trouble shooting · Maintenance supervision Contract Services · Maintenance contracts · Overhaul crews · Engine regrout and realignment Machine Shop Service · Compressor valve reconditioning · Power cylinder and liner rechroming · Compressor cylinder relining · Route truck service Turbocharger Overhaul and Repair Unit Exchange Program -QUOTATION- City of Roanoke Water Pollution Control Plant 1402 Bennington St, S.E. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 April 8, 1987 Quotation No.: DQ-50756-80 Equipment Model: 40GDSX-12 Serial No.: 21178 Type: Superior Location: Roanoke, Va. Supervision, labor, expenses, tools and equipment for one (1) Service Representative and three (3) Mechanics working eight (8) hours per day, five (5) days per week, for fourteen working days. Factory labor and parts to recondition two (2) Model H-303 Elliot Turbochargers at ESG's Tulsa overhaul facility. Minimum required parts to overhaul one (1) Model 40GDSX-12 Superior Unit. (See Attached) Freight: $25,328.80 $ 9,400.00 $ 8,266.20 $ 2,400.00 Note: Estimated Total: $ 45,395.00 1. All field labor will be invoiced at actual time and expense. 2. Additional parts required will be invoiced at current list price less twenty percent (20%). This quotation does not include any factory labor for the reconditioning of cylinder heads, fuel pumps, injectors, or water pump. Per Mr. Berry Montgumery, this work will be accomplished by a local machine shop which Roanoke will have done. ENERGY SERVICES GROUP QTY PART NUMBER 7 019-910 7 019-911 2 005-241 12 022-109 28 003-775 12 030-414 12 023-641 12 023-642 12 002-915 12 013-161 12 016-021 12 900-835-023 12 004-815 12 H-5233-1 2 003-774 1 003-481 1 003-482 1 002-422 1 027-291 1 027-292 1 002-420 1 003-102 CITY OF ROANOKE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA OVERHAUL PARTS 40GDSX-12 SN: 21178-80 UNIT DESCRIPTION NET Shell (M.B.) 108.00 Shell (M.B.) 112.00 Thrust Washer 68.80 Gasket Set 160.00 Shell (Camshaft) 6.40 Ring Set 34.40 Shell (Rod) 33.60 Shell (Rod) 40.00 Bushing (Int Vlv) 22.40 Bushing (Exh Vlv) 22.40 Bushing (Gas Vlv) 77.60 Seal .40 Bushing (Air St Vlv) 26.40 Sleeve (Air St Ch Vlv) 40.00 Gasket 4.80 Gasket 2.80 Gasket 2.40 Seal 360.00 Belt 30.00 Belt 25.60 Seal 280.00 Gasket 11.20 EXTENDED NET 756.00 784.00 137.60 1,920.00 179.20 412.80 403.20 480.00 268.80 268.80 931.20 4.80 316.80 480.00 9.60 2.80 2.40 360.00 30.00 25.60 280.00 11.20 ENERGY SERVICES GROUP QTY PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION 1 003-085 Gasket 12 003-244 Gasket 4 004-133 Gasket 4 004-134 Gasket 1 003-057 Gasket 2 004-763 Gasket 3 4A-2127 Gasket 1 003-134 Gasket 2 R-3841 Gasket 4 4A-1190 Gasket TOTAL: UNIT NET 7.60 .80 7.20 7.20 12.00 8.10 21.60 12.80 3.20 4.40 EXTENDED NET 7.60 9.60 28.80 28.80 12.00 16.20 64.80 12.80 6.40 17.60 $ 8,269.60 ENERGY SERVICES GROUP RSE 4/10/87 QTY 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 PART NUMBER 024-420 O30-716 O12-224 O02-391 O29-556 002-389 CITY OF ROANOKE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA OVERHAUL PARTS 40GDSX-12 SN: 21178-80 DESCRIPTION Liner Piston Seat (Int Vlv) Seat (EXh Vlv) Intake Valve Exhaust Valve Heads (Reconditioned) Injectors Injector Pumps Unit NET 600.00 752.O0 120.00 46.50 560.70 88.00 325.00 60.00 250.00 TOTAL 7200.00 9024.00 1440.00 556.80 6728.64 1056.00 3900.00 720.00 3000.00 $33625.40 Office of the City C~erk June 3, 1987 File #472 Shelor Chevrolet Corporation 2325 Roanoke Road Christiansburg, Virginia 24073 Ladies and Gentlemen: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 28659, accepting your propo- sal for two new midsize one-half ton pickup trucks, in the total amount of $16,977.14, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Tuesday, May 26, 1987, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Monday, June 1, 1987, and will take effect ten days following the date of its second reading. $incere Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ra Eno. cc: Mr. Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director Finance Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations Mr. Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Manager, Utility Line Facilities Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and Public Safety Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Mr. William F. Clark, Mr. James A. McClung, Manager, General Services Director of Public Works Manager, Motor Vehicle Maintenance Room 456 Municipal Building 215 (~urch A'~f~ue, S.W. Roanoke, 'virginia 240t I (703) 981-2541 C)~tce d ~he O~ June 3, 1987 File #472 Dominion Car, Ltd. 1259 East Main Street Salem, Virginia 24153 Magic City Motor Corporation P. O. Box 12807 Roanoke, Virginia 24028 Ladies and Gentlemen: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 28659, accepting the propo- sal of Shelor Chevrolet Corporation for two new midsize one-half ton pickup trucks, in the total amount of $16,977.14, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Tuesday, May 26, 1987, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Monday, June 1, 1987, and will take effect ten days following the date of its second reading. On behalf of the Council, [ would like to express appreciation for submitting your proposal for two new midsize one-half ton pickup trucks. ~ ~]~ ~°Sincerely' Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP : r a Eno. P,~:~n456 MunlclpalBullding 215 Church Avenue, S.W.l~anoke, Virglnla24~11 (703)98t-254t IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 1st day of June, 1987. No. 28659. AN ORDINANCE providing for the purchase of two new midsize one-half ton pickup truoks for use by the City, upon oertain terms and conditions, by accepting a bid made to the City for furnishing and delivering such equipment; and rejecting other bids made to the City. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The bid of Shelor Chevrolet Corporation, made to the City offering to furnish and deliver to the City, f.o.b., Roanoke, Virginia, two new midsize one-half ton pickup trucks, for the sum of $16.977.14. is hereby ACCEPTED. 2. The City's Manager of General Services is 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. The other bids made to the City for the supply of such equipment are hereby REJECTED, and the City Clerk is directed to notify suoh other bidders and to express the City's appreciation for their bids. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia May 26, 1987 Honorable Mayor and City council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: SUBJECT~ BIDS FOR MIDSIZE PICK-UP TRUCKS, BID NUI~BER 87-3-57 I concur with the recommendation of the bid committee relative to the above subject and recommend it to you for appropriate action. Respectful~ submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/DDR/ms City Attorney Director of Finance Manager, Motor Vehicle Maintenance Roanoke, Virginia May 26, 1987 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia SUBJECT: BIOS FOR MIDSIZE PICK-UP TRUCKS, BID NUMBER 87-3-57 I~ BACKGROUND A. November 10, 1986, Council designated funds from the Internal Services, Retained Earnings, to provide for the purchase of vehicular equipment for Utility Line Services to replace existing equipment in poor condition. B. Bid Request were sent specifically to eleven (11) vendors that are currently listed on the City's bid list. C. Bids were received, after due and proper advertisement, in the Office of Manager of General Services, on April 9, 1987, at 2:00 p.m., at which time all bids so received were publicly opened and read. II~ CURRENT SITUATION A. Three (3) bid responses were received. Bid Tabulation is attached. B. Bids were evaluated by representatives of the following departments: 1. Utility Line Services 2. Motor Vehicle Maintenance 3. General Services C. The lowest bid, as submitted by Shelor Chevrolet Corp. meets all required specifications. 1112 ISSUES 1. Need 2. Compliance with Specifications 3. Fundin$ I~ ALTERNATIVES A. Council accept the lowest responsible bid, for two (2) new 1/2 ton, midsize pick-up trucks, as submitted by Shelor Chevrolet Corp. for the total amount of $16,977.14. 1. Need - requested equipment is needed to replace existing equipment that is used daily and is in poor condition. Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 2 2. Compliance with Specifications - the bid from Shelor Chevrolet Corp. meets all required specifications. 3. Fundin~ - funds are available in Utility Line Services account 006-056-2625-9015. B. Reject all bids. 1. Need - existing equipment in poor condition would not be replaced. 2. Compliance with Specifications - would not be an issue with this alternative. 3. Fundin~ - designated funds would not be expended. RECO~fl~ENDATION A. Council concur in Alternative "A" - award the bid for two (2) new 1/2 ton, midsize pick-up trucks, to Shelor Chevrolet Corp. B. Reject all other bids. Respectfully submitted, Committee: Kit B. Kiser JeSse H. Perdue, Jr. ~ D. Darwin Roupe DDR/ms cc: City Attorney Director of Finance Ma,ager, Motor Vehicle MaJ,te,ance Z CD oo