HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 05-26-8728654
Bowers )
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ...... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
May 26, 1987
2:00 p.m.
AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL
C-1
C-2
C-3
Call to Order -- Roll Call· Mayor Taylor and Mr. Trout were
absent.
The invocation will be delivered
Vice-Mayor Musser.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America will be led by Ma~o-~--~)-e-l-C~-~xrr-.- Vice-Mayor Musser.
CONSENT AGENDA (Approved 5~0)
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED
TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE
MOTION IN THE FORM LISTED BELOW. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DIS-
CUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL
BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
Minutes of the special meeting of Council held on Monday,
April 20, 1987.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispense with the reading thereof and
approve as recorded.
A corr~nunication from Mayor Noel C. Taylor requesting an
Executive Session to discuss personnel matters relating to
vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and com-
mittees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344
(a) (I), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
RECOMmeNDED ACTION:
Concur in request for Council to convene in
Executive Session to discuss personnel mat-
ters relating to vacancies on various
authorities, boards, commissions and com-
mittees appointed by Council, pursuant to
Section 2.1-344 (a) (1), Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended.
A communication from F. Blair Wimbush tendering his resig-
nation as a member of the Roanoke Arts Co~ission.
RECOMmeNDED ACTION: Accept resignation with regret and receive
and file communication.
(I)
C-4
A corr~unication from Lee Garrett, Vice Chairman, Roanoke
Regional Airport Commission, transmitting the Fiscal Year
1987-88 Budget for the Roanoke Regional Airport·
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in budget and receive and file
cor~unication.
REGULAR AGENDA
Hearing of Citizens Upon Public Matters: None.
Petitions and Communications:
a. A communication from Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's
Attorney, requesting appropriation of state approved funds,
in the amount of $4,850.00, for the purchase of office
automation equipment and furniture. Adopted Ordinance Nc.
28654. (5-0)
Reports of Officers:
a. City Manager:
Briefings: None.
Items Recommended for Act on:
A report
include
cabinets,
Juvenile
$4,854.00
Reports of Cor~ittees: None.
Unfinished Business: None.
recommending the purchase of services to
installation of new floor coverings, new
and relocation of the dishwasher at the
Probation House, and appropriation of
therefor. Adopted Ordinance No. 28655. (5-0)
2. A report recommending authorization to submit a grant
application to HUD for the 1987 Rental Rehabilitation
Program allocation of $143,000.00. Adopted Resolution No.
28656. 15-0)
3. A report recommending the purchase of a rebuilt 1968
Walter Crash Fire Rescue vehicle in the amount of
$42,500.00, and appropriation of funds therefor. Adopted
Ordinance No. 28657 and Ordinance No. 28658. (5-0)
4. A report concurring in a report of the Bid Cowsnittee
recommending that the bid of Shelor Chevrolet
Corporation for two new I/2 ton midsize pick-up trucks,
in the amount of $16,977.14, be accepted. Adopted Ordinance
No~ 28659 on first reading. {4-0) (Mr. Bowers abstained
from voting.
Introduction and Consideration of Ordinances and Resolutions:
None.
10.
Motions and Miscellaneous Business:
ae
Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and members of City
Council.
be
Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and
commi-ttees appointed by Council.
Other Hearings of Citizens:
The City Manager was requested to investigate the traffic situation
on Williamson Road, specifically on Friday and Saturday nights.
The City Manager advised of a storm drain culvert replacement across
Garden City Boulevard during the week o6 June I 6, 1987.
Appointed Mrs. Anthon~ R. Stavola to the Advisory Board of Human
Resources. ~
(3)
MINUTES CONSIDERED AT THIS COUNCIL MEETING
MAY BE REVIEWED ON LINE IN THE "OFFICIAL MINUTES" FOLDER,
OR AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Office ot r~e Moyor
May 21, 1987
Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
I wish to request an Executive Session on Tuesday, May 26, 1987,
to discuss personnel matters relating to vacancies on various
authorities, boards, commissions and corr~ittees appointed by
Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (1), Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended.
Sincerely,
Noel C. Taylor
Mayor
NCT:se
P.~:~om 452 Municil~l Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, V~rgin~ 24011 (703) 981-2(('~
Office of fne Qty Oe~k
May 28, 1987
File #230
Mr. F. Blair Wimbush
3433 Londonderry Court, S.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Mr. Wimbush:
Your communication tendering your resignation as a member of the
Roanoke Arts Cowmission, was before the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, May 26, 1987.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the corr~nunication was
received and filed and the resignation was accepted with regret.
The Council requested that
the many services you have
member of the Corr~nission.
Appreciation issued by
Council.
I express its sincere appreciation for
rendered to the City of Roanoke as a
Please find enclosed a Certificate of
the Mayor on behalf of the members of City
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
cc: Mr. Timothy L. Jamieson, Chairman, Roanoke Arts
6857 Sugar Rum Ridge, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Corr~nission,
Room45~ Munlcipall~lldlng 215(~urchAv~nue, S.W. Roanc~e, Virglnla240~l~l (703)981-2541
NORFOLK
SOUTHERN
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Law Department
204 South Jefferson Street
Roanoke, Virginia 24042-0069
703 985-6727
May 11, 1987
F. Blair Wimbush
Assistant General Solicitor
The Honorable David A. Bowers
City Council
city of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue,
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear David:
My three-year term on the Roanoke Arts Commission ends
June 30, 1987. As I mentioned to you earlier, I will not be
able to serve another term because I am being transferred to
Norfolk. My tenure on the Commission has been rewarding and I
regret not having the opportunity to do more with it. I
appreciate you and the City Council giving me a chance to serve
the community in such a small way.
By the way, the courage you and other Council members
displayed in making the right decision on the Commonwealth
Building is admirable. The right choice can never be wrong.
Very truly yours,
F. Blair Wimbush
FBW/jr
cc:
Mr. Timothy L. Jamieson
Chairman, Roanoke Arts Commission
Hayes Seay Mattern & Mattern
1315 Franklin Road,
Roanoke, VA 24016
Operating Subsidiaries: Norfolk and Western Railway Company / Southern Railway Company
CY~ce ~f ~he ~ O~
May 28, 1987
File #9
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, Chairman
Roanoke Regional Airport Conrnission
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
A cor~gnunication from Lee Garrett, Vice Chairman, Roanoke Regional
Airport Corrgnission, transmitting the Fiscal Year 1987-88 Budget
for the Roanoke Regional Airport, was before the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, May 26,
1987.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the communication was
received and filed.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
CC:
Mr. Lee Garrett, Vice-Chairman, Roanoke Regional
Con'gnission, P. O. Box 3800, Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Treasurer, Roanoke Regional
Commission
Airport
Airport
Room456 MunlclpalBulldlng 215 Church AYenue, S.W. Roanoi~,Vlrglnia24~11 (703) 981-2541
CITY Ci ~'!'~*' ~ ~ F ::'!r IC
Roanoke, Virginia
May 13, 1987
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Roanoke Regional Airport FY 87-88 Budget
Transmitted herewith for your information is the Airport budget recap
that was approved by the Airport Con~nission this date.
The budget does not require supplemental funding from participating
local governments.
LG:cp
Respectfully submitted,
Lee Garrett, Vice Chairman
Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
FY 87-88
ROANOKE REGIONAL AIRPORT
BUDGET
Expenditure Projections
Operations and Maintenance A. Salaries, Wages and Benefits
B. Operating
C. Internal Services
Total Operations & Maintenance
Non-Operating Expenses A. Interest
B. Depreciation
Total Non-Operating
Capital from Revenue
A. Equipment
B. Projects
Total Capital from Revenue
TOTAL EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS
Revenue Projections
1. Airline Landing and Parking Fees
2. Building Rentals and Related Charges
3. Concessionaires
4. Interest on Investments
Sheet i of 2
Revised May 13, 1987
April 15, 1987
1986-87 1987-88
$ 394,669 $ 432,595
429,050 458,700
689,500 713,500
$1,513,219 $1,604,795
$ 114,499 $ 111,218
622,000 571,800
$ 736,499 $ 683,018
S 2,500 $ 42,300
285,320 105,000
$ 287,820 $ 147,300
$2,537,538 $2,435,113
1986-87 1987-88
$ 472,000 $ 439,000
$ 430,000 $ 417,000
$1,410,000 $1,497,000
$ 175,000 $ 100,000
TOTAL REVENUE PROJECTIONS $2,487,000 $2,453,000
Sheet 2 of 2
Authorized Expenditures from Replacement Reserw
(Depreciation Funding)
Equipment
2 each 2-way radio units
Executive Chair
$ 3,200
750
$ 3,950
Projects
Roof Replacement/Repairs
Fencing Replacement/Repairs
Overlay Aircraft Parking Apron
Unidentified Replacement
$ 14,000
20,000
25,000
50,000
$109,000
TOTAL AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES FROM
REPLACEMENT RESERVE (DEPRECIATION
FUNDING)
$112,950
Office of the City C]e~
May 28, 1987
File #60-133-472
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28654, amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1986-87 General Fund
Appropriation Ordinance, to provide for appropriation of state
approved funds, in the amount of $4,850.00, for the purchase of
office automation equipment and furniture for the Office of the
Commonwealth's Attorney, which Ordinance was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Tuesday, May 26, 1987.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
cc: Mr. Wo Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Donald S. Caldwell, Co,,~onwealth's Attorney
I~orn 456 Municipal B~ildlng 215 iD'lurch Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-254t
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 26~h day of May, 1987.
No. 28654.
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
Judicial Administration $ 2,361,309
Commonwealth Attorney (1) ......................... 496,864
Revenue
Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth $44,276,493
Shared Expenses (2) ............................... 1,444,584
(1) Furn. & Equip.
(,2) Commonwealth's
Attorney
(001-026-2210-9005) $4,850
(001-020-1234-0610) 4,850
IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Roanoke, Virginia
May 26, 1987'
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
Subject:
Appropriation of Funds for Capital Outlay
Commonwealth's Attorney
I concur in the attached report from Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's
Attorney.
WRH/a
Encl.
cc: Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling,
Sincerely ~.?
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Finance Director
GoHHONWEALTI+ OF VIRglNi4.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY
ROANOKE. VIRGINIA ~Ole
May 13, 1987
The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, VA
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Appropriation of Funds
for Capital Outlay
I. Background:
me
The Commonwealth Attorney's 1986-87 budget request submitted to the State
Compensation Board included $9,900 in capital outlay for the purchase of
office automation equipment and furniture.
B. The Connnonwealth Attorney's 1986-87 supplemental budget submitted to the
City also included this same request.
C. The Commonwealth Attorney's 1986-87 budget approved by the State Compensation
Board included $5,500 in capital outlay.
De
City Council appropriated the state approved funds in the amount of $5,500
to Capital Outlay in the Commonwealth Attorney's 1986-87 budget and increased
the revenue estimate for shared expenses in the same amount.
II. Current Situation:
A. The State Compensation Board has approved an additional $4,850 in capital
outlay for the Commonwealth Attorney's 1986-87 budget.
B. The Commonwealth Attorney's 1986-87 budget as approved by City Council does
not provide funding for capital outlay.
III. Recommendation:
Appropriate the state approved funds in the amount of $4,850 to Capital
Outlay in the Commonwealth Attorney's budget (001-026-2210-9005) and
increase the revenue estimate for shared expenses - Commonwealth Attorney
(001-020-1234-0610) - so that we can purchase much needed office equipment
with the funds approved by the State Compensation Board.
pc:
Respectfully submitted,
Donald S. Caldwell
Commonwealth's Attorney
City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Finance
J. T SHROPSHIRE
CHAIRMAN
JOHN McE. GARRETT
EXECUTIVESECRETARY
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
COMPENSATION BOARD
P.O. BOX 3-F
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23206-0686
(804) 786-3886
May 8, 1987
W H. FORST
W J KUCHARSKI
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS
Mr. Donald S. Caldwell
Commonwealth's Attorney
City of Roanoke
315 Church Avenue
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dear Mr. Caldwell:
I am pleased to advise you the Compensation Board has
reconsidered certain portions of your Capital Outlay request for the
1986/87 fiscal year and approved an additional ~4850 for the
purchase of a word processing terminal/sheet feeder and typewriter
for your office.
This approval will make total approval ~10,350 in this area of
your current budget.
~-i_ncerely,
//John M?E. Garrett
~' Executive Secretary
JMcEG/kml
Copy to: Governing Body
Office of the City Clerk
May 28, 1987
File #60-305
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28655, amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1986-87 General Fund
Appropriations, to provide for the appropriation of $4,854.00,
for the purpose of installation of new floor coverings, new cabi-
nets, and relocation of the dishwasher at the Juvenile Probation
House, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, May 26, 1987.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc,
CC: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources
Jack E. Trent, Juvenile Probation House
Room 456 Munlcl~c~c:l Building 215 G~urch Avenue, $.W. P, oanoke, Virginia 240t t (703) 981-254t
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 26th day of May, 1987.
No. 28655.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1986-87 General Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily o~eration 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
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained, to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Public Safety $20,961,906
Juvenile Probation House (1) ..................... 272,975
Revenue
Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth $44,276,497
Other Categorical Aid (2) ........................ 10,726,452
(1) Fees for Prof.
Services
i~) USDA - Youth
Haven
(001-054-3350-2010) $4,854
(001-020-1234-0662) 4,854
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
CITY iT:',.Z:''q rr'!F,r
May 26, 1987
Roanoke, Virginia
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Members of Council:
SUBJECT: USDA SPECIAL GRANT FOR ALTERATION TO FOOD SERVICE AREA
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Juvenile Probation House (Youth Haven I) is a department
of the City of Roanoke under the Directorate of Human Resources.
Operational expenses of the department are funded through a block
grant from the State Department of Corrections which funds 100
percent operational costs and equipment and 66 and 2/3 percent
of salaries and wages.
Co
This department has been in operation since October 1, 1970
and houses 12 adolescent boys who are placed by the Juvenile
Court for supervised care, treatment, and counseling.
D. Youth Haven I's food service area problems are as follows:
The dining room and food storage area (pantry) floors
are hardwood and carpet respectively and are not functional
with youth who are constantly spilling food and drinks.
Additional food storage cabinets for dry ~oods/staples are
needed to accommodate USDA food co~odities as Youth Haven I
begins to participate in that program.
3. Supervision of residents in the kitchen is extremely difficult,
therefore, the dishwasher needs to be relocated in the dining
room so that residents handling the dishes can be supervised
along with the group.
II. CURRENT SITUATION
Approval for reimbursement to the City of Roanoke has been ~ranted
under a ~pecial allotment of USDA funds received by the State
Department of Corrections from the United States Department of
Agriculture's National School Lunch, Breakfast, and Special Milk
Program.
B. Approval for reimbursement is for the following professional
services and ~oods:
1. Installation of inlaid vinyl floor
coverin~ in the dining room and pantry.
2. Installation of three new cabinets and
$1,264
the cabinet for the dishwasher.
3. Electrical work (new receptacles and
dishwasher connections).
2,590
4. Installation of sink and plumbing
connections for dishwasher.
500
III. I$S~S
5OO
A. Budget concerns.
B. Quality of food service.
C. Supervision of residents.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Authorize the purchase of services to include installation of
floor covering in the dining room and food storage areas,
installation of three additional food storage cabinets,
relocation of existing dishwasher in a new cabinet with
electrical/plumbing connections at the Juvenile Probation
House (Youth Haven I), at bid prices secured by General
Services, City of Roanoke.
Budget concerns. $4,854 will need to be appropriated
and added to account #001-054-3350-2010 for purchase of
goods and services. The City will be reimbursed 100
percent by the State Department of Corrections USDA standards.
2. Quality of food service. Food Services will be enhanced,
and cleaner, more sanitary floors where spills will be more
easily controlled and storage of dry goods/staples will
be adequate to meet USDA standards.
3. Supervision of residents. The children will no lon~er
be required to be in the kitchen unsupervised and exposed
to knives, gas range, or other hazardous equipment when
there is single staff coverage.
Bo
Do not authorize purchase of the floor covering, cabinets,
and relocation of the dishwasher at the Juvenile Probation
House (Youth Haven I).
1. B__ud~et concerns. Not an issue.
2o
Quality of food services. The floor in the dining room
will need sanding and refinishing soon or it will deteriorate.
The carpet in the food storage room is stained and will need
to be replaced within six months.
slw
cc:
3o
Supervision of residents. Single coverage by staff at
certain times is unavoidable, and allowing residents
into the kitchen without direct supervision presents
risks to the staff, other residents, and to the program.
V. RECO~QII~DATION
Authorize the installation of new floor coverings, new cabinets,
and relocation of the dishwasher for improved food service
and resident su_~.ervision at the Juvenile Probation ~ouse which
is 100 percent reimbursable by the State Department of Corrections.
Appropriate $4,854 to the Juvenile Probation House budget,
account ~001-054-3350-2010 to cover the initial cost of food
service projects and increase the USDA Juvenile Probation
House revenue estimate, account #001-020-1234-0662, by the same
amount.
Respectful~ submitte~d,
~ ~ob~rt ~rb~rt
~it~
Finance Director
City Attorney
James Ritchie
Jack Trent
Office of the City Clerk
May 28, 1987
File #60-178-236
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 28656, authorizing the
filing of an application with the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development for certain funds for a Rental
Rehabilitation Program in the City, which Resolution was adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Tuesday, May 26, 1987.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
cc:
Mr. Herbert D. McBride, Executive Director, Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 2624 Salem Turnpike
N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner/Zoning
Administrator
Mr. H. Daniel Pollock, Housing Development Coordinator
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administ-rator
Room 456 Municipal Building 2t5 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24~11 (703) 98t-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 26th day of May, 1987.
No. 28656.
A RESOLUTION authorizing the filing of an application with the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for cer-
tain funds for a Rental Rehabilitation Program in the City.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
City Manager is authorized and directed to prepare, submit, and nego-
tiate with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment an application for funds in the amount of $143,000 for a Rental
Rehabilitation Program to be implemented in the City, such Program
to be generally consistent with the proposed general outline of the
Program set out in the report of the City Manager to Council dated
May 26, 1987, and the attachments thereto.
ATTE ST:
City Clerk.
?,[ C~]~noke, Virginia
May. f~,. 1987
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Rental Rehabilitation Program - Grant Application for FY 1987
I. Background
Rental Rehabilitation Program is a cooperative program among HUD, the
RRHA and the City, to encourage rehabilitation of privately-owned rental
property.
B. Program provides two types of subsidies:
1. Rehabilitation subsidies to property owners, equal to one-third of
rehabilitation costs up to $5,000/apartment.
Rental subsidies to low-income tenants, so they may stay in the
apartment after it is repaired and the rent is increased. The
tenants may use the subsidy to move elsewhere. One rent subsidy is
allocated to Roanoke for each $7500 of Program allocation.
Roanoke's allocations for the previous three years of the Rental
Rehabilitation Program totalled $336,300 for rehabilitation subsidies.
These allocations provided renovation to 70 apartment units in 38
buildings at a total cost of approximately $1,134,690.
D. Allocations have included $70,000 supplemental award due to the local
Program's success.
II. Current Situation:
A. 1987 Rental Rehabilitation Program has been announced with Roanoke's
allocation at $143~000
B. Application to HUD must be filed by June 1, 1987.
Proposed Program for 1987 provides for two alternative forms of
rehabilitation subsidy, depending on the eventual availability of
supplemental funding from Virginia Housing Development Authority:
If VHDA does not provide loan funds to owners @ 7% interest, Rental
Rehab Program subsidy would continue as in the past, i.e. a deferred
payment loan, forgiven completely after 10 years (No repayment
expected).
If VHDA does provide loan funds, Program subsidy would be in the form
of a deferred payment loan due and payable in full in 10 years
(Entire subsidy would revolve back for reuse in 10 years).
November 10, 1986
Page 2
III. Issues
A. Impact on neighborhood revitalization
B. Housing opportunities for disadvantaged citizens
C. Cost to the City
D. Timing
IV. Alternatives
A. Authorize the City Manager to submit the attached application to HUD
for Roaneke's 1987 Rental Rehabilitation Program allocation of $143,000.
Impact on neighborhood revitalization would be positive. The
$143,000 allocation to Roanoke would attract at least $286~000
more in private funds, for a total of $429~000+ of rehabilitation.
At least 29 substandard apartment units will be renovated under
this phase of the Program. In addition, if VHDA funding allows
Program funds to revolve after 10 years, long-term revitalization
would be enhanced.
Housing opportunities for disadvantaged citizens will be enhanced.
Low-income tenants currently living in at least 19 substandard units
repaired under the Program will receive rental assistance to allow
them to stay in their remodeled apartments. Rent subsidies may
also be available to low-income families moving into currently
vacant units after their repair.
J
Cost to the City will be nothing. The Program grant is reserved by
HUD for the City, and is drawn on by the Redevelopment and Housing
Authority as the administering agent. No City matching funds are
required. The City will benefit from higher values of rehabilitated
buildings.
4. Timing requires the application be submitted to HUD by June 1, 1987.
B. Do not authorize the City Manager to submit the attached application
for the 1987 Rental Rehabilitation Program.
Impact on neighborhood revitalization would be negative. Twenty-
nine (29) or more substandard rental units in 12 - 15 houses would
continue to deteriorate, have a blighting effect on neighborhoods,
and pose health and safety hazards.
Housing opportunities for disadvantaged citizens would be hindered,
in that low-income families would not receive rental assistance,
and at least 29 fewer safe and sanitary units would be available
for rent.
Cost to the city would be increased due to lost tax revenue from the
upgraded buildings, and to the staff attention required by substandard
housing.
November 10, 1986
Page 3
4. Timin~ would not be an issue.
Recommendation is to adopt Alternative A, thereby authorizing the City
Manager to submit the attached application to HUD for Roanoke's 1987
Rental Rehabilitation Program allocation of $143~000.
Respectfu/~? submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:HDP:¢mh
Attachment
CC:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Building Commissioner
Housing Development Coordinator
Grants Monitoring Administrator
Executive Director, RRHA
Rental Rehabilitation Pro,ram
I. Back~round
Roanoke is a city of approximately 100,000 citizens housed in
42,500 dwelling units. Like most cities, Roanoke has had periods
of rapid growth and of stability. The last 30 years has been a
time of maturation for the City.
Compared to the Roanoke metropolitan area, the City's housing
stock is relatively old, more likely to be rental property, and
more likely to be in need of repair.
Two-thirds of all housing units in the City are more than 25
years old. Almost half are more than 45 years old. With age
comes the need for substantial repairs or renovations and more
diligent preventive maintenance. Because of the expense, many
owners have deferred taking these measures, without which the
houses have tended to deteriorate at an accelerating pace. The
too frequent result of this can be seen in the figures for vacant
housing units (about 2,600) and values of single-family houses
(20% are assessed at less than $20,000; 7% at less than $10,000.)
The City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority have administered a variety of neighborhood revitaliza-
tion programs over recent years. Most of these programs and the
funds allocated to them have been targeted toward the rehabilita-
tion of owner-occupied houses in neighborhoods designated as
Conservation Areas or Rehabilitation Districts under Virginia
law. This concentration has begun to have a significant positive
effect in these neighborhoods.
However, a large proportion of the housing stock in the aforemen-
tioned areas is rental property (50%, compared to 39% City-wide),
of which a sizable percentage are in fair to poor condition. The
incentive for private investments to be made in owner-occupied
homes in these neighborhoods is weakened by nearby rental units
in disrepair. It is obvious that the upgrading of deteriorated
rental property must be a critical element of overall
neighborhood revitalization.
Past and current programs for rehabilitation of rental property
have consisted of Section 8/Moderate Rehabilitation and
Substantial Rehabilitation/Public Housing. While each of these
programs has contributed to the improvement of housing stock,
neither is designed to encourage a strong role by the private,
unsubsidized rental market in neighborhood revitalization. The
Rental Rehabilitation Program described herein is designed to
attract private investment while maintaining flexibility in an
area's housing market, by the direct rehabilitation of 29-35
rental housing units occupied by lower income families.
Indirectly, the improvement of these units will encourage main-
tenance and repair to other rental and owner-occupied buildings
nearby.
II. Program Design
A. Form of Rehabilitation Subsidy
The City's Rental Rehabilitation Program will offer one of
two forms of rehabilitation subsidies, depending on the
eventual availability of financing from Virginia Housing
Development Authority's Housing Fund. Application will be
made to VHDA for an allocation of loan funds from this source
at 7% interest over a 10-year term.
If funds are not available from VHDA for the rehabilitation
expenses not covered by the Rental Rehab subsidy, the Program
will operate as it has in previous years, namely offering
non-interest bearing deferred payment loans (DPLs), forgive-
able after 10 years, equal to one-third (1/3) of the
rehabilitation expense or $5000 per unit, whichever is less.
The minimum subsidy to be considered will be $2000 per unit
(for $6000 of rehabilitation work per unit).
If the borrowing property owner adheres to the terms of the
DPL and the deed of trust securing it for the ten-year term,
no payment will be required. If the conditions of the loan
are not followed, the DPL will become payable less 10% for
each full year after completion of the rehabilitation.
If funds are made available by VHDA for the non-program
expenses, the Program subsidy will be provided as a
non-interest bearing deferred payment loan equal to one-third
(1/3) of the rehabilitation expense or $5000 per unit,
whichever is less. However, the loan will become due and
payable in full after 10 years, when the VHDA loan is fully
amortized.
Following is a comparison of these two arrangements:
Scenario One: Duplex receiving $30,000 rehabilitation
Private rehab financing @ 12% for 15-year term.
Alternative A: No VHDA financing: forgiveable deferred
payment loans
$20,000 Private financing (12%, 15 years) $240/month
$10,000 Program DPL, forgiveable 0
$240/month
for 15
years
Alternative B: VHDA financing; deferred payment loan @ 0%
with 10-year balloon
$20,000 VHDA financing (7%, 10 years)
$10,000 Program DPL, deferred 10 years
$232/month
0
$232/month
for 10
years
Privately refinance $10,000 DPL in 10 years
@ 14% for 5 years (market interest rate
for $10,0000 first mortgage is assumed
will be 14% in 10 years)
$233/month
for 5 years
after DPL
Scenario Two: Duplex receiving $40,000 rehabilitation
Private rehab financing @ 12% for 15-year term
Alternative A: As above
$30,000 Private financing (12%, 15 years) $360/month
$10,000 Program DPL, forgiveable 0
$360/month
for 15
years
Alternative B: As above
$30,000 VHDA financing (7%, 10 years) $348/month
$10,000 Program DPL, deferred 10 years 0
$348/month
for 10
years
Privately refinance $10,000 DPL in 10 years
@ 14% for 5 years
$233/month
for 5 years
after DPL
From this comparison, it is apparent that to the property
owner, the alternative with VHDA financing and a balloon
payment in 10 years is preferable to the forgiveable DPL
supplementing market rate financing, especially for more
extensive rehabilitation projects (Scenario Two). The total
15-year cost could be significantly less. Meanwhile, after
10 years the City will receive the Program subsidies back to
reuse.
General Conditions
1. Each unit subsidized must be located in an area
designated as eligible for the Program.
2o
Each unit subsidized under the Program mDst be substan-
dard according to either Section 8 Housing Quality
Standards (HQS) or the City's building code.
Each unit subsidized under the Program must be renovated
to at least Section 8 HQS and qualify for a Certificate
of Occupancy from the City Building Department. As part
of the rehabilitation, improvement of the exterior
appearance of the building will be considered a priority.
4. Any unit rehabilitated under the Program must receive
work costing at least $6,000.
Initial occupancy of all units subsidized under the
Program must be by lower income families, to the maximum
extent possible. Exceptions are allowable in the case of
a unit occupied by a family not of lower income prior to
rehabilitation, or if rental subsidies are not available
to support the Program.
Each unit must be maintained at least to Section 8 HQS
and Certificate of Occupancy standards for the ten year
term of the DPL, whether occupied by Section 8 tenants or
No unit subsidized under the Program may be converted to
a condominium or cooperative for the ten year term of the
DPL.
8o
There may be no discrimination against a prospective
tenant because of receipt of or eligibility for housing
assistance, or because of residence with a minor child,
for the ten year term of the DPL.
Each property owner will agree to comply with applicable
requirements for nondiscrimination and "affirmative
marketing" of units rehabilitated under the Program for
the ten-year term of the DPL. Guidelines and procedures
for property owners will be developed jointly by the City
and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, to
insure that each owner is aware of his/her obligations in
this regard.
C. Areas of Eligibility
The Rental Rehabilitation Program will be offered in the
areas shown on the attached map, including the following
neighborhoods:
Gainsboro Conservation Area
Gilmer Avenue Conservation Area
Harrison Avenue Conservation Area
Hurt Park Conservation Area
Belmont Conservation Area
Highland Park Conservation Area
Loudon Avenue Rehabilitation District
Melrose Rehabilitation District
Fallon Park Rehabilitation District
Morningside Rehabilitation District
Kenwood Rehabilitation District
Washington Park Neighborhood
In general, each of these neighborhoods has a significant
degree of housing deterioration, especially of rental pro-
perty. The Rental Rehabilitation Program is expected to make
a valuable contribution to the revitalization of these older
neighborhoods.
Each of these areas meets the criteria established by program
regulations, as follows:
Median incomes not exceedin~ 80% of median income for the
Roanoke area. According to the 1980 census, the median
household zncome in the Roanoke SMSA was $16,119, of
which 80% was $12,895. The median income of each of
these neighborhoods was below this figure and ranged from
$6,514 to $11,750.
Rents affordable to lower income families. The 1980
Census reports that these neighborhoods had median
contract rents between $78 and $136, compared to city-
wide median of $150. Gross rents, including estimated
costs of utilities, ranged from $155 to $240. At the
same time, the Section 8 Fair Market Rents, including
utility allowances, were $265 for a two-bedroom unit, and
$306 for a three-bedroom unit. At this time, the pre-
vailing rents, with utilities, in these areas are in the
$200-$350 range, with few beyond this range.
Expected rent stability. While each of the eligible
neighborhoods has experienced rehabilitation of some
buildings in recent years, there is no evidence of signi-
ficant "gentrification" or rapidly rising property values
or rents, or displacement that might be associated.
There are no known significant developments planned in
any of these areas that would cause the rents to increase
dramatically in the next five years.
D. Selection Criteria
Program applicants satisfying the basic general conditions
listed earlier will be selected competitively based on a
number of considerations. The 100-point evaluation scale,
outlined below, will give priority to projects involving
lower income or very low income tenants, larger apartments,
and small buildings.
Evaluation Scale
Factor Score
Current Occupancy:
Very low income families
Lower income tenant
Vacant
Tenant not of lower income
(20)
20
i0
10
0
Size of Unit(s):
Three bedrooms or more
Two bedrooms
One bedroom
(15)
15
10
0
Number of Units in Building:
Two to four units
Single unit building
Five to seven units
(15)
15
5
0
Loan to Value Ratio (with rehabilitation financing): (15)
60% or less 15
61% - 85% 10
86% - 100% 0
General Desirability (considering inpact on
community revitalization, consistency with
program goals etc.)
(20)
85
In some cases the scoring of some factors will have to be
"prorated." For example, a triplex with two two-bedroom units
and one single bedroom unit would be rated 7 in the size of units
category.
The Evaluation Scale will be applied as long as it is effective
in meeting the requirements of program regulations. However, if
it appears that some requirements will not be met, e.g. 70% of
the units assisted being of two or more bedrooms, or that a high-
rated applicable just is not suitable for the Program, applica-
tion of the scale may be compromised to insure compliance with
Program requirements.
This scale will be applied to those applications received during
the initial application period and is based on the expectation
that more applications will be received than can be funded.
Based on interest expressed thusfar by property owners, it
appears likely this will be the case. If not, another method of
selection consistent with the intent of the program will be
developed.
The Program design and use of the Evaluation Scale address
several of the mandates of the Program, as follows:
Lower income benefit: The Current Occupancy factor gives
priority to units occupied by low or very low income tenants, or
vacant units into which lower income tenants may be placed after
rehabilitation, using Section 8 certificates or vouchers provided
by the Program. In addition, this will be monitored through the
processing of applications to insure maximum feasible benefit to
lower income. However, it is expected that some buildings whose
rehabilitation would be valuable to the community as well as low
income tenants may also have some units occupied by tenants not
of lower income. The displacement of such tenants is to be
avoided in the interest of neighborhood stability as well as
fairness to the individual. To deal with such instances of high
priority to a neighborhood and to allow for unforeseeable cir-
cumstances, the City requests reduction of the 100% lower income
benefit standard to 70%. This request is pursuant to information
and input received from resident organizations of affected neigh-
borhoods, apartment owners, and agencies serving lower income
clientele. (See also Section IV A.)
Housin~ for families: The Size of Unit(s) factor gives heavy
p~iority to projects with two, three, or more bedrooms. This item
too will be monitored as applications are processed, to insure
that at least 70% of rehabilitation funds are used for large
units. Characteristics of rental housing stock in the eligible
neighborhoods indicate this standard will be met easily.
Substandard units occupied by very low-income families: Ail
units receiving assistance under the Program must be substandard.
Those currently occupied by families of very low income are
afforded greater weight by the Evaluation Scale (see "Lower
income benefit" above in this section).
Efficient use of Pro~ram funds: The Program design will leverage
at least two dollars of private funds for rehabilitation for
every dollar of subsidy. In addition Program funds will revolve
in i0 years if VHDA loan funds are available. The terms of the
subsidy (i.e., deferred payment loan) is expected to be
attractive to investor owners. In addition, the design of the
subsidy and the overall Program is expected to allow for minimal
administrative expense both initially and over the ten-year term
of the DPL. (See also "Financial feasibility", below.)
Financial feasibility: Each DPL provided by the Program will be
secured by a deed of trust on the property. The total of all
indebtedness against the property, including the DPL, may not
exceed 100 percent of the appraised value. Priority will be
given to properties with lower loan-to-value ratios, thereby
showing stronger financial feasibility and greater incentive to
the property owner to abide by the terms of the DPL (e.g.
maintenance of the property to Section 8 standards).
Each applicant will be counseled that the Program design is such
that the feasibility of the rehabilitation must be based on
market, unsubsidized rents, and that if projected cash flow is
not sufficient without subsidized rents, the rehabilitation may
not be feasible.
The private financing market for rental property in Roanoke shows
the willingness of local lenders to make secure loans for rental
repairs. If conventional sources must be used for non-program
rehabilitation expenses, the Program subsidy, which will increase
property values, be subservient to private deeds of trust, and
not reduce cash flow, should make private lenders' deeds of trust
more secure. Informational sessions with the private financial
community will be held as needed to explain the Program.
III. Administrative Organization and Procedures:
The Rental Rehabilitation Program will be administered jointly by
the City and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
(RRHA). The RRHA has agreed to cooperate with the City in the
administration of the Program, through the administration of
Housing Voucher and/or the Section 8 rent subsidies. A program
management team will be formed to include at least the following:
H. Wesley White, Jr., Land Planning/Subsidized Housing Director
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
P.O. Box 6359
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
703-342-4561
Dan Pollock, Housing Development Coordinator
Room 170, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
703-981-2222
Rehabilitation Inspector
The program management team will be responsible for general
program administration and assignment of specific tasks,
including:
Pro,ram Publicity, Marketin~ and Outreach: The principal
point of contact for Program information will be the RRHA.
Receipt and Initial Screenin~ of Preliminary Proposals:
Preliminary proposals will contain basic information about
the project, such as location, number and size of units to be
rehabilitated, general description and rough estimation of
cost of repairs, expected source of private financing,
characteristics of current occupants, etc. These basic pro-
posals will be submitted to the RRHA, who will also review
each upon its receipt to determine completeness and basic
eligibility.
Preliminary Property Inspection: The rehabilitation inspec-
tor will perform a cursory inspection of each unit proposed
to be rehabilitated under the Program. He will prepare a
brief listing of basic repairs necessary to meet Program
requirements to give to the property owner. This inspection
also will verify that the units are substandard and in need
of repair.
Prioritization: Based on the preliminary proposals and
inspections, the program management team will apply the
Evaluation Scale to determine which proposa%s appear to be
best suited to the intent of the Program. Those receiving
the highest rankings will be asked to complete detailed
application packages, providing more detail about proposed
projects, including detailed work write-ups and estimates by
the applicant's contractors.
Final Review and Selection: The program management team will
review the application packages to verify the rankings from
the Evaluation Scale. This review will include the rehabili-
tation inspector verifying the work write-up by the applicant's
contractor, and the Section 8 staff verifying the Section 8
eligibility of existing tenants. Those applications con-
firmed as of highest ranking will be approved by the team and
will be issued loan commitments.
Rehabilitation: Arrangement for rehabilitation work to be
performed will primarily be the responsibility of the appli-
cant property owner. Periodic in-progress inspections will
be held by the rehabilitation inspector, relative to
compliance with the work write-up and workmanship standards,
and by City building inspector(s), to assure compliance with
code requirements. Final inspections will be performed by a
Section 8 housing inspector (to verify compliance with
Section 8 Housing Quality Standards), a City building
inspector (to confirm Certificate of Occupancy quality), and
the rehab inspector.
Post-Rehabilitation Monitoring: Property owners will be
asked to submit brief periodic (probably quarterly) reports
of the status of each project, especially concerning rents
and tenants. Blank report forms will be sent by the RRHA to
the owner for completion and return. In addition, on at
least an annual basis, a Section 8 housing inspector, rehabili-
tation inspector, or City building inspector will perform an
on-site inspection to verify that each unit is maintained in
accordance with the terms of the DPL.
The tentative timetable for the Program is as follows:
Approval of Program funding
by end of June
Receive preliminary proposals
by mid July
Screen proposals and perform
initial inspections
by end of July
Select high priority projects per
Evaluation Scale; request detailed
application packages
by mid August
Private financing arranged;
project funds encumbered
by mid September
Hold first loan closings
by end of September
Begin first rehabilitation
October i987
It is expected the Program subsidy funds'will be committed to
specified projects according to the following schedule:
First Quarter (July - September 1987) $ 75,000
Second Quarter (October - December 1987) 68,000
$143,000
IV. Certifications:
A. Public Consultation:
The proposed Rental Rehabilitation Program has been presented
and discussed with representatives of resident organizations
of neighborhoods affected, public and private non-profit
agencies concerned with housing issues of lower income
tenants, and organizations of rental property owners, as well
as many individuals. This Program design reflects concerns,
attitudes, and expectations expressed from these quarters.
Also as a result of these public consultations, the City
requests reduction of the lower income benefit standard to
70%, in order to avoid displacement of tenants in otherwise
high priority projects, to provide for unexpected contingen-
cies that cannot be foreseen in the rental property markets
of eligible neighborhoods, and to allow for unexpectedly low
rehabilitation expenses resulting in more units rehabilitated
than Housing Vouchers or Section 8 certificates awarded.
B. Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity:
The City and the RRHA will provide detailed guidelines to
applicant owners describing their obligations for fair
housing practices. These may include procedures to notify
the RRHA and other community or service agencies of vacan-
cies, posting of Equal Housing Opportunity logotype of premises,
public advertisement of vacancies, etc.. These requirements
will be conditions of the deed of trust for the DPC.
Evidence of compliance will be examined by the RRHA at least
annually, at the time of on-site inspection. Violation of
fair housing and nondiscrimination provisions will be grounds
for requiring payment of the DPL as specified in the deed of
trust.
C. Tenant Assistance Policy:
All reasonable efforts will be made to avoid involuntary
displacement of tenants due to rent increases, especially
tenants of lower income. In no case will a very low income
family be displaced involuntarily by a tenant not of very low
income.
Each tenant in a unit to be rehabilitated under the Program
will be counseled about the effect of the rehabilitation on
him/her. The RRHA will insure that information is provided
to all tenants, and individual counseling afforded to all
those in jeopardy of being displaced involuntarily. This
counseling will at least include descriptions of alternative
housing opportunities, ways to search for suitable alterna-
tive arrangements, and tenant rights under the Federal Fair
Housing law. Tenants qualifying for Housing Vouchers or
Section 8 assistance will be offered such subsidy either to
stay in the unit after its repair, to move to another unit in
the project or another project rehabilitated under the
Program, or to move to another qualified unit in the City.
Direct referrals to other apartments also may be made. No
tenant offered decent, safe, and sanitary housing at an
affordable rent (as defined in 24 CFR 511.10(h)(1) will be
considered to be displaced. Any tenant displaced involun-
tarily by the Rental Rehabilitation Program shall receive
priority consideration for available Section 8 and public
housing units administered by the RRHA.
D. Neighborhood preservation:
Rehabilitation of rental property without displacement of
current residents will enhance the preservation and revitali-
zation of affected neighborhoods. The improvement of rental
properties will supplement substantial investments made in
owner-occupied homes over the last few years.
Rehabilitation proposed in parts of the Hurt Park and
Highland Park Conservation Areas designated the Southwest
Historic District will be reviewed for sensitivity to
historic preservation, in accordance with the Memorandum of
Agreement with the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks.
E. Compliance with Applicable Regulations:
Administration of the Rental Rehabilitation Program will
comply with all applicable federal regulations and require-
ments, including but not limited to those concerning non-
discrimination and equal opportunity, as identified in 24 CFR
511.10(m).
F. Authority to Apply:
The submission of the grant application has been authorized
by Roanoke City Council. The City and the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority are legally authorized to
develop and administer housing rehabilitation and rent sub-
sidy programs within the City, such as this Rental
Rehabilitation Program.
RENTAL REHABILITATION PROGP~AM
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND NONDISCRIMINATION POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
General Policy: It is the Policy of the City of Roanoke and the
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) to administer the
Rental Rehabilitation Program so that individuals of similar income
have similar available housing choices, regardless of race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, or handicap. Each property owner
applying for participation in the Rental Rehabilitation Program shall
agree to avoid any discrimination on the basis of race, color, reli-
gion, sex, national origin, or handicap, and shall agree to market
their vacant rental units in good faith to inform and attract eligible
tenants from all racial, ethnic, and gender groups.
A. The RRHA shall give a copy of these Policies and Guidelines
to the following:
1. Applicant property owners.
2. Current tenants and tenants applying to the RRHA for
housing rehabilitated under the Program.
Social service agencies, including Total Action Against
Poverty (TAP), League of Older Americans (LOA), Legal Aid
Society, and Roanoke Neighborhood Alliance.
4. Resident organizations of affected/eligible
neighborhoods.
5. General public, upon request.
In addition, all advertisements, press releases, information
packages, application forms, and written communications pre-
pared by the RRHA relative to the Rental Rehabilitation
Program shall include the Equal Housing Opportunity logo or
statement.
Each participating property owner shall seek to attract
tenants regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, or handicap, of all minority and majority groups,
especially those unlikely to apply without special outreach,
to units vacant after rehabilitation or that later become
vacant. These marketing efforts shall include, at a minimum,
the following:
Advertisement of any and all vacancies in the Roanoke
Times and World News and the Roanoke Tribune, such
advertisement to include the Equal Housing Opportunity
logo or statement. Such advertisements will specify that
vacant units are available for, but not limited to,
Section 8 tenants.
Co
go
Notification to the RRHA and TAP of any and all vacan-
cies. This notice will be forwarded by the RRHA to other
service agencies and organizations.
Posting of Equal Housing Opportunity poster, provided by
the RRHA, on vacant premises and rental offices, if
existing.
A participating property owner may be excused from the affir-
mative marketing requirements outlined in paragraph B, above,
if he/she prepares a substitute plan acceptable to the RRHA
and the City. This substitute plan, once approved, will be
available for public inspection at the business office of the
property owner (if applicable) and the RRHA.
Documentation: Each participating property owner shall docu-
ment affirmative marketing, such records to include the
following:
1. Copies of all advertisements, notices, and other outreach
for all vacancies.
A log of all contracts with potential tenants, including
race, sex, approximate age, and reasons for not accepting
as tenants.
Quarterly reports to the RRHA, in a format provided by
the RRHA, regarding the occupancy of all assisted units
and marketing activities for any vacancies.
The RRHA shall keep records including the following:
1. A log of vacancies reported by owners.
Copies or other evidence of notices regarding the Program
and vacancies sent to agencies and/or organizations by
the RRHA.
3. A log of referrals made to vacant units, including race,
sex, and approximate age.
4. Copies of advertisements placed by owners.
5. Records of characteristics of tenants occupying units,
including race, sex, and approximate age~
Assessment: The RRHA shall use the quarterly reports filed by
property owners to verify compliance with affirmative
marketing and Equal Housing Opportunity requirements. In
addition, the RRHA and/or the City may make other periodic
inspections of the property owner's records concerning
tenants and marketing activities, or ask for other infor-
mation about the same.
Me
Violations: Failure to comply with Equal Opportunity,
Nondiscrimination, or Affirmative Marketing requirements will
result in a written notice from the RRHA to the property
owner that specific provisions of the Deed of Trust between
the two parties have been violated, defining what corrective
actions, if any, are to be taken, and advising that further
violations or failure to take the prescribed actions may
require repayment of the Deferred Payment Loan, less 10% for
each full year of its life.
Tenant Assistance Policy
Ail reasonable efforts will be made to avoid involuntary displace-
ment of tenants due to rent increases, especially tenants of lower
income. In no case will a very low income family be displaced invol-
untarily by a tenant not of very low income.
Each tenant in a unit to be rehabilitated under the Program will
be counseled about the effect of the rehabilitation on him/her. The
RRHA will insure that information is provided to all tenants, and
individual counseling afforded to all those in jeopardy of being
displaced involuntarily. This counseling will at least include
description of alternative housing opportunities, ways to search for
suitable alternative arrangements, and tenant rights under the Federal
Fair Housing law. Tenants qualifying for Section 8 assistance will be
offered such subsidy either to stay in the unit after its repair, to
move to another unit in the project, or another project rehabilitated
under the Program, or to move to another qualified unit in the City.
Direct referrals to other apartments also may be made. No tenant
offered decent, safe, and sanitary housing at an affordable rent (as
defined in 24 CFR 511.10(h)(1) will be considered to be displaced.
Any tenant involuntarily displaced by the Rental Rehabilitation
Program shall receive priority consideration for available Section 8
and public housing units administered by the RRHA.
Office of the CJly CJef~
May 28, 1987
File #60-9
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28657, amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1986-87 Airport Fund
Appropriation Ordinance, appropriating $42,600.00 for the
purchase a rebuilt 1968 Walter Crash Fire Rescue vehicle for use
at Roanoke Regional Airport, which Ordinance was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Tuesday, May 26, 1987.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enco
cc:
Mr. Jack C. Smith, Chairman, Airport Advisory Co~ission, 14
West Kirk Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, Chairman, Roanoke Regional Airport
Commission
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. Robert C. Poole, Manager, Airport
Room456 Munlcll~lBulldlng 215 Church Ave~ue, S.W. Roanoke, Vlrginla24011 (703)98t-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 26th day of May, 1987.
No. 28657.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1986-87 Airport 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 Airport Fund Appro-
priation Ordinance be, and the same are hereby, amended and re-
ordained, to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Operating $2,313,732
Capital Outlay (1) ................................ 48,000
Retained Earnings
Unrestricted Retained Earnings (2) ................. $3,812,442
(1) Veh. Equip.
~) Retained Earnings
Unrestricted
(A004-056-4404-9010)
(X004-3336)
$ 42,500
(42,500)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CITY r~ "',
- ' ~r F!Pc
Roanoke, Virginia
May 26, 1987
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Airport Crash Fire Rescue Equipment
I. Background:
Airports that are served by commercial air carriers are required
to have manned crash fire rescue (CFR) vehicles available during
operational hours.
Federal Air Regulations, Part 139, Airport Certification, define
number of vehicles and fire extinguishing capability according to
number of flights and size of aircraft.
Co
Roanoke Regional Airport, at this time, has only the minimum CFR
vehicle response capability due to recent removal from service
two "Walter's" reserve CFR vehicles that have major mechanical
problems.
Do
Rebuilding either one of the two 1958-59 Walter's would include
replacing the drive train and overhaul of the pumping system.
These two vehicles were purchased from military surplus approxi-
mately 25 years ago. Parts are no longer available for these
vehicles.
II. Current Situation:
A. Present CFR vehicles, a 1972 Ansul and a 1977 Oshkosh, are in
good condition and parts are readily available.
Recently revised airport certification requirements pending ap-
proval by the Department of Transportation will require jet
service to be curtailed to less than five flights per day at
Roanoke if one CFR vehicle is out of service more than 48 hours.
Present requirements allow 10 days to restore vehicle to service.
In this context, the purchase would be considered to be an emer-
gency.
Negotiations with a Dallas, Texas company that rebuilds CFR equip-
ment have resulted in finding a used 1968 Walter 1500 gallon crash
vehicle that will be overhauled and delivered to the City. This
is the only known source practically available for a comparable
vehicle.
Page 2
Do
City Garage has sent a mechanic to inspect vehicle in Dallas,
Texas and he reports vehicle is in good condition and company
will deliver in best operating condition.
III. Issues in order of consideration:
A. Airport certification status
B. New CFR vehicle
C. Re-power one out of service vehicle
D. Funding availability
IV. Alternatives:
Purchase a rebuilt 1968 Walter 1500 gallon CFR vehicle from Crash
Rescue Equipment Service, Inc., of Dallas, Texas, for $42,500 and
appropriate funding from previous years' retained earnings.
Airport certification status for jet aircraft operations
would be maintained if existing CFR vehicle is out of
service over 48 hours.
2. New CFR vehicle would cost in range of $250,000 to
$300,000.
3. Re-power one out of service vehicle would cost $35,000,
providing used parts can be found.
4. Funding availability would have to be by an additional
appropriation.
B. Do not purchase rebuilt CFR vehicle.
1. Airport certification status would be subject to keeping
present CFR equipment in service according to FAA standards.
2. New CFR vehicle could be purchased.
3. Re-power one out of service vehicle for approximately $35,000
plus pump system overhaul, if parts can be found.
4. Funding availability would have to be by an additional appro-
priation.
V. Recommendation is that Council:
A. Approve purchase of a 1968 Walter CFR vehicle from Crash Rescue
Equipment Service, Inc. at negotiated price of $42,500 without
seeking bids as CFR equipment are custom built vehicles and indi-
cated seller is the only source practically available for com-
parable vehicle.
Page 3
Appropriate $42,500 from previous years' retained earnings in
the Airport Fund to the Vehicular Equipment Account No. 004-
056-4404-9010.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
NRH:KBK:afm
CC:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Chairman and Members, Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
Chairman and Members, Airport Advisory Commission
Director of Utilities & Operations
Airport Manager
Office of the City Clerk
May 28, 1987
File #9
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28658, authorizing the
purchase of a crash fire rescue vehicle for use at the Roanoke
Regional Airport, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of
the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, May 26,
1987.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP : ra
Enco
cc:
Mr. Jack C. Smith, Chairman, Airport Advisory Commission, 14
West Kirk Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, Chairman, Roanoke Regional Airport
Corrgnission
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. Robert C. Poole, Manager, Airport
Room456 MunlclpalBuilding 215 C~urch Avenue, S.W. Roanoke. Virginia 24011 (703)981-254t
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The_26th day of May, 1987.
No. 28658.
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the purchase of
vehicle for use at the Airport, upon certain
and providing for an emergency.
a crash fire rescue
terms and conditions
BE IT OP. DAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The offer of Crash Rescue Equipment Service, Inc., of
Dallas, Texas, to the City to furnish a rebuilt 1968 Walter 1500
gallon CFR vehicle for the sum of $42,500.00, said seller being
the only source practically available for such vehicle, as more
specifically set forth in the report to this Council dated
May 26, 1987, is hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City's Manager of General Services is authorized
directed to
porating in
nance.
3.
municipal
ordinance
and
issue the requisite purchase order therefor, inter-
the said order the terms and provisions of this ordi-
In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this
shall be in full force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Office of the City Clerk
June 3, 1987
File #20
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
At a regular meeting of Council held on Tuesday, May 26, 1987,
you were requested to investigate the traffic situation on
Williamson Road, specifically on Friday and Saturday nights.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Room456 MunlclpalBulldlng 2150hurchA~ue, S.W. Roanoke, Vlrglnla24011 (703)981-2541