HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 01-17-89 SpMtgO~ce o~ ~ Mc~or
January 12, 19~9
The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
Pursuant to Section 10, Meetings of Council, Generally, of the
Roanoke City Charter, I am calling a special meeting of the
Roanoke City Council for Tuesday, January 17, 1989, at 12:00
noon, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor of the Municipal
Building. The purpose of the special meeting will be to receive
a report of the City ~4anager relating to the proposed Roanoke
River Flood Reduction Project.
Lunch will be served at 11:30 a.m. in City Council's Conference
Room, prior to the special meeting of Council.
NCT:se
cc: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Sincerel~ ,
Hoel C. Taylor,fMayor
City of Roanoke
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Assistant City Manager
Witburn C. Dibting, Jr., City Attorney
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Room 452 Mun~cioal Building 215 Church Av~oue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 2401 t (703) 98'~-2444
January 25, 1989
FiZe #237
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
GentZemen:
M.. Wilburn C. Dibti~g,
City Attorney
Roanoke, Virginia
A report of the City Manage. with rega.d to the Roanoke River
Flood Reduction Project, was befo.e the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a special meeting held on Tuesday. Janua.y 17, 1989.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted. Council concu.red in the
recorr~nended timetables as submitted in the report, and referred
the matter to the City Attorney for prepa.ation of the necessary
documents for the purpose of holding a public hca.lng on the pro-
ject at a Special Meeting of Council to be held on Monday,
January 30, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. (The City Attorney advised
Council by coi~.,,~nication dated January 20, 1989, that because of
advertising requirements, the earliest date that a public hearing
on the project can be held is Feb.uary 6. 1989. Accordingly,
Council, at its regula, meeting held on Monday, January 23, 1989,
adopted Resolution No. 29436. changing the time of the Februa.y
$, 1989, Council meeting f.om 2:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., in order
to hold the required public hearing with .espect to the Roanoke
River Flood Reduction P.oject).
Since.ely,
Sand.a H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
I~'t~456 ~,ntc~lButk:llt~ 215(~chAYe~'~e $.W Rcx~,~.~,nia24011 (703)981-254~
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling,
Page 2
Janua.y 25, 1989
Jr.
pC:
The Honorable James R. Olin, Member, U. S. Congress, Room
706, First Federal Building, 406 First Street, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 '
Colonel Paul IV. Woodbury, Corps of Engineers, District
Engineer, Department of the Army, p. O. Box 1890.
Wilmington, North Ca.olina 28402-1890
Mr. Fred Cramer, Chairman, Roanoke Valley Bird Club, c/o
Cramer/Graphics. 1320 Thi.d Street, $. W. Roanoke, Virginia
24015-$219
Mr. William H. Tanger, Chairman, F. iends of the Roanoke
River, P. O. Box 1750, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. John Cone, Chairman, Citizens Environmental Council, c/o
Hayes, Seay, Matte.n and Mattern. 1315 F.anklin Road, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Mr. Michael M. Waldvogel, Chairman, City Planning
Cor~ission, 3526 Pens.th Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24014
Members, Roanoke City Planning Comission
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Chairman, Flood Plain Co~r~ittee
Members, Flood Plain Co~lttee
Mr. Joel M. $chlanger, Dl.ector of Finance
Mr. William F. Clark, Di.ector of Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mr. George C. Snead, J.., Directo. of Administration and
Public Safety
Roanoke, Virginia
January 17, 1989
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Please reserve space on Council's agenda for a report pertaining
to the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project.
WRH:KBK:afm
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
January 17, 1989
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project
I. Back~round:
Many meetinKs and written reports have been used to discuss
the subject project. The last report was submitted to Council
on August 8, 1988. Following consideration of that report,
Council elected to:
Hold a referendum on the project at an exact date to be
established, but not later than May~ 1989.
Authorize initiation of technical services for surveying,
appraisals, etc.
3. Reaffirm pro.~ect support.
Not hold the referendum in November, 1988 in order to
provide additional time for the City, and the Corps of
Engineers (COE) to resolve questions regarding certain
design features, project costs and benefits. Also, the
additional time between November, 1988 and the ultimate
referendum date (to occur by May, 1989) was to provide
for completion of the final design memorandum and to make
that document available for public scrutiny prior to the
date of the actual referendum.
5. Authorized initial funding for technical services.
B. Purpose of this briefinK is to:
Report to Council and the public and provide an updat~ on
the project.
Afford Council time to discuss the project and hold such
public meetings as it desires.
Advise Council of the need to vot, by February 6, 1989 to
place this matter to a referendum vote of the citizens of
the City of Roanoke.
Page 2
II.
Co
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
4. Make a recommendation to Council regarding:
a. Scale of the project
b. Budget
c. Method of financing
d. Date for a referendum
Briefing is outlined as follows:
History
Need
Description
Benefits
Concerns
Addressing the concerns
Recent changes
Cost
Budget
Financing
Commitment Qualifications
Schedule
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Briefing:
A.
History:
1. Project study began in 1970.
COE evaluated local options, both as a single project and
as a series of projects, and numerous upstream options.
The option of one project within the corporate limits of
the City of Roanoke was chosen as the most feasible
project with a good chance of success.
Project concepts and estimates for the current project
were defined in the 1984 feasibility study published by
the COE.
Page
Evolution of federal regulations and project concepts of
both needs and benefits have resulted in many project
estimates and decision points. Council's last direct
decision was on June 27, 1988 when Council authorized an
updated letter of intent for a project having an estimate
of $31,000,000 including a non-federal (local) cost of
$14,490,250 and a benefit to cost ratio of 1.15 to 1.0.
Need:
Project need was recognized prior to initiating the
project in 1970 based on flooding prior to that date.
Floods of significance since 1970 have occurred in 1972,
1978, and 1985.
o
Late 1970's and early 1980's also saw the evolution of
the federal flood insurance regulations with maps of
flood ways and flood plains and with legal regulatory
requirements to define and limit future construction in
the flood plain. Construction in flood plains were
allowed prior to this time because local government did
not have authority to preclude construction short of
acquisition, which option is financially prohibitive.
Effects of flooding on lives and property have been and
remain a vital concern of all citizens of the City of
Roanoke, not just on the Roanoke River but in other areas
along creeks and tributaries to the Roanoke River as well
as in neighborhoods such as in the Williamson Road area.
Public properties such as roads, parking lots, bridges,
utility systems and the Sewage Treatment Plant are
subject to extensive damage from the major floods.
5o
Flood stage reduction and dmmage mitigation is vital to
maintaining jobs and the economic base of our City.
City citizens and Council have authorized the expenditure
of millions of dollars to address neighborhood and some
of the smaller tributary flooding problems. Now is the
best opportunity, due to federal funding participation,
for the City citizens and Council to take action to
diminish the effects of flooding along the Roanoke River.
C. Description: The proposed project has the following features:
Channel widening by bench cutting into one side of the
river bank along most of the 10 mile reach of the river
within the City limits.
2. Protective dikes or berms in the areas of:
a. Regional Sewage Treatment Plant
Page 4
b. Victory Stadium area
c. Cleveland Avenue area
Flood proofing of critical buildings at the Sewage
Treatment Plant.
Replacement of two existing low water bridges along Wiley
Drive.
o
A new 12 foot wide and 4.6 mile long recreational trail
from t3th Street bridge, S.E. to Wasena Park with one
required pedestrian bridge across Roanoke River.
Flood warning system to help forecasters and emergency
service personnel better alert citizens of impending
floods and to provide a method of estimating their
significance.
Concerns have been expressed during both public and private
discussions over the past two years regarding:
Aesthetics of the completed project primarily focusing
on:
a. Loss of trees and vegetation
b. Construction of walls and berms
Use of certain material, e.g. concrete walls and rip
rap for construction
Not enough flood stage reduction and why isn't more done
in the areas of:
a. Wider channel cuts
b. Cutting both sides of the river
c. Higher protection berms and dikes
d. Buying out the property subject to flooding
e. Dredging the river
3. Environmental losses or impacts in the areas of:
Loss of habitat for wild animals, birds and fish in
general
b. Endangered or threatened fish species
Visual impact caused by the loss of trees and
shrubbery
Page 5
Potential for loss of business, dwelling units or
decrease in property values in:
Industrial Development and Investment Company
(IDICO) area off 9th Street, S.E.
b. Hannah Trailer Court
Easements along backyards, storage lots, and parking
lots along the river in general
5. Cost
Lost recreational opportunities due to construction in
the City park areas.
7. Potential impact on future projects in the river corridor
8. Limit impact on other areas of flooding in the City.
Addressin~ the concerns is not easy. Not all concerns can be
successfully addressed to the satisfaction of all the
concerned citizens because of conflicting concerns, concerns
are financially prohibitive, or concerns could negatively
impact the purpose of the project (flood stage reductions) to
such a degree that the entire project would be jeopardized.
City staff, community leaders, concerned citizens,
businessmen, the landscape consultant hired by the City and
the COE have all worked to improve the project for the good of
the whole community. Good compromises have been reached.
1. Aesthetics have been enhanced by:
Increasing the amount of replacement trees and
shrubbery to be planted.
Decreasing the number of trees to be removed by
retaining some trees but pruning the lower branches.
Also agreement has been reached that some critical
habitat trees may be retained by securing the trees.
Some concrete walls have been replaced with earthen
berms which will support vegetation.
The City has the option in some areas, which it will
use, of replacing rip rap with other COE approved
bank stabilization material. However, the added
cost will be borne by the City. The COE has also
approved the planting of low growing vegetation in
the rip rap areas to provide screening and improved
habitat.
Flood stage reduction has been increased to the maximum
possible extent while still keeping a financially viable
Page 6
3o
project and recognizing the need to keep or replace
certain trees and vegetation for aesthetic and
environmental reasons. No dredging is to take place in
the river because dredging damages the natural habitat
beyond the level the C0E and the City staff feel is
prudent. Additional flood proofing of critical business
structures using wholly local funds is an option the City
needs to consider.
Environmental losses are a subject of much debate,
however, considerable progress has been made in the areas
of:
a. Improving the seed mixture to support wildlife
Agreement to save critical habitat trees and pruning
lower limbs from other trees rather than cutting all
trees within the project template
c. Increasing the amount of vegetation to be replanted
d. Authorized planting in the rip rap areas
4. Loss of business, dwelling units or property values.
IDICO area impact will be appraised for fair market
value and some business losses will occur. These
losses are felt by City staff to be justifiable in
the context of the overall project. Businesses in
the industrial park are aware that the majority of
the IDICO property will be enhanced by the project.
The amount of construction (bench cut) has been
reduced in the Hannah Court area and the recreation
trail eliminated upstream of Wasena Park. The
result of these two changes will eliminate the need
to relocate permanently the 39 trailers from this
area. Subject to final design and construction
techniques, the trailers may need to be temporarily
moved to allow room for construction equipment to
excavate the bank of the river and construct a
vertical masonry wall to stabilize the bank and
separate the level of the reduced bench cut area and
the areas on which the trailers are parked.
Co
Property rights to be acquired will consist of
perpetual easements in accordance with a decision
informally communicated to the City staff. This
will allow property owners to continue to use their
properties such as for rail operations by the
Norfolk Southern Railway Company, backyards of
private dwellings and storage or parking lots of
commercial or industrial establishments. One
section of the trail in the Hamilton Terrace area
will need to be relocated to the bench cut area or
Page 7
allow some homeowners vehicular access by permit in
order for those homeowners to continue to have
vehicular access to their properties.
Costs have risen in recent years due to inflationary
increases in construction, increase in land values and
City desires to improve the aesthetic, environmental and
recreational impact of the project. There will be
further information regarding costs in the budget section
of this briefing.
Lost recreational opportunities due to construction in
the City park areas will be more than offset by the
addition of the 4.6 mile recreation trail and increased
access points to the river for canoeing and fishing.
o
Potential impact on future projects in the river corridor
has been studied by the City staff and the landscape
consultant (Lardner/Klein) to make sure the flood
reduction project does not eliminate future recreational
and green space planning for the river corridor.
Project does not reduce flooding in other areas of the
City since this is the federally funded and federally
approved project area. This report outlines a plan in
the budget section of this briefing to set aside $500,000
for a revolving buy out/flood proof/resale program for
residential structures that are on the market.
F. Recent Chan~es of note have been:
Reduction of the project cost estimate through the
efforts of the City Office of Real Estate Valuation and
the COE.
2. Approval by the COE for:
a. Increased shrubbery
Allow alternate bank stabilization (other than rip
rap) in areas where technically feasible at City
cost for betterment
Shorten the recreational trail from 9 miles to 4.6 miles,
but widen the trail from 8.0 feet to 12.0 feet, due to
physical barriers, to limit the impact of the project on
Hannah Trailer Court and to control the City's financial
commitment.
Page 8
Lessen the cut into the bank at Hannah Trailer Court but
construct a vertical structural wall in that area and
provide some additional channel widening in the Wasena
Park area.
The City to use local funding saved in change No. 4 above
for critical structure flood proofing upstream of Hannah
Trailer Court to attempt to mitigate the effect to
upstream property owners for the approximate 0.20 foot
stage reduction loss caused by the reduced bench cut at
Hannah Trailer Court.
6. City and COE agreement for:
a. Improved seed mixture for wildlife support
Selection of critical habitat trees to be secured
and retained.
c. Increased shrubbery plantings
Pruning of lower branches from some trees that would
otherwise have to be cut
Planting of low growing vegetation in areas still
requiring to be rip-rapped.
Reduction in project estimate for COE approval project
elements from $31,010,000 which included $14,490,250
non-federal (local) cost to a current estimate of
$27,471,500 to include a non-federal (local) cost of
$10,672,925. Note cost section of this briefing for a
higher estimate of project cost by City staff to include
betterment (project enhancement) costs and inflationary
contingency.
Increase of the benefit cost ratio from 1.15:1.0 to
1.20:1.0.
Cost estimate for City purpose, including a 15% inflation on
structural costs, City only cost for betterment, City only
cost for replacing the low water bridges, and City only cost
for the one pedestrian bridge across the river follows:
Previously Discussed Project
Elements
Total Federal Local
Structural
Flood Warning
Recreation*
Flood Proofing
Incidental Acquisition &
Technical Costs
$28,295,938 $18,551,236 $9,744,702
127,000 86,250 40,750
4,348,448 1,052,687 3,295,761
374,550 256,874 117,676
381~697 0 381~697
$33,527,633 $19,947,047 $13,580,586
Page 9
City project costs outside
of previous project elements:
Reserve fund to purchase,
flood proof and resell vacant
residential structures
located in federally defined
flood plains on a City wide basis
(to maintain housing stock)
Total Federal Local
$ 500,000 0 $ 500,000
Maximum amount to flood proof
critical structures to miti-
gate the impact of decreased
excavation at Hannah Trailer
Court $ 250t000 $ 0 $ 250~000
$34,277,633 $19,947,047 $14,330,586
Complete elimination of the recreational enhancement element would
reduce the recreational element to a local cost of $1,630,125 for
relocation of the low water bridges.
H. Budget for paying the local amount is projected as follows:
1. Estimated City financial commitment
2. Deduct:
$14,330,586
Mo
Land donations
Water and sewer fund
expenditure require-
ments
Funding to date
State funding from
current programs
relating to recrea-
tion
Federal and State reim-
bursements from the
1985 flood damage
-$3,920,000
661,137
650,000
- 782,625
816~824
Total Deductions -$6,830,586
Net Unfunded Local Amount
Suggested Bond Referendum Amount
Required budget amount on an annual
basis is esti~ted as follows:
a. $7,500,000 capitalized over 30 years
-6~83%586
$7,500,000
157,s00,oooI
Page 10
at 7 1/2% interest and uniform annual
payment
$ 635,034
Funding required for annual operations
and maintenance expense
100~000
c. Total additional annual funding needed $ 735~034
Financing for the additional annual project cost needs to be
provided by a new source of revenue or from an increased
amount from an existing source of funding. Attachment "A"
provides base line information from a variety of City revenue
sources.
Commitment qualifications on this or any policy decision to
increase the revenue received from taxes to our citizens
should be as follows:
Tax increase would only occur if the referendum receives
voter approval.
Tax increase would only occur if Congress appropriates
the federal share for this project.
Tax increase would only occur after a public hearing on
that increase after Congress appropriates the federal
share.
Schedule of significant events anticipated to occur is as
follows:
1. Council briefing today
January 17, 1989
Council decision and date(s)
for public hearing on the
project - between
January 17 - February 6,
1989
City Manager hold a public
information meeting if it is
the wish of Council and does
not conflict with any Council
desired public hearing
January 17 - February 3,
1989
4. Planning Commission briefing February 1, 1989
Council decision to place the
matter to referendum and method
of financing
February 6, 1989
Page 11
Hold referendum vote by citizens
(see Attachment "B", Tuesday,
April 11 is suggested rather
than Thursday, April 13)
Tuesday, April 11, 1989
7. Implementation Schedule - See Attachment "C" from the COE
III. Issues:
1. Project scale
2. Benefits
3. Local cost
4. Timing of commitment
5. Funding
IV. Alternatives:
A. Council vote by February 6~ 1989 to take the followinK action:
Request a Court Order placinK the pro~ect on ~
ballot for a referendum vote by the City citizens on
April 11, 1989.
ii.
Support the Roanoke River Flood project to include
the entire pro,ram as outlined in Section II, G.,
Cost, of this report for a locally required funding
effort of $14~330~586 reduced to a net remaining
unfunded cost of $7~500~000 in Section II, H.,
Budget, of this report.
iii.
Authorize, subject to the referendum, the Director
of Finance to sell bond(s) up to the amount of
$7~500~000.
iv.
Establish the intent to pay the annual cost for the
bonded debt retirement and the operations and
maintenance expense by raising the utility tax from
lOZ to not more than
Provide that this support and authority will becomm
wholly the option of City Council? e.g. not an
absolute commitment of Council to the Federal
governments, unless the project is approved for
federal funding by the Congress of the United States
of America and the project awarded for construction
within three years of the date of the approval of
the citizens of the City of Roanoke by referendum
vote. An exception to this requirement is that the
Director of Finance may provide such funding as is
needed, with the additional approval of City
Page 12
Council, for such preliminary expenditures as may be
required to secure the real estate rights and
options that will have to be in the control of the
City prior to the project going to bid.
Project scale is identified as the entire project
including the requisite funding to help mitigate the
effects of flooding in the flood plains city-wide.
Benefits from the project will be maximized. Benefit:
cost ratio is 1.2 to 1.0.
Local costs are identified at $14~330,586. This local
cost is subject to reduction should the Commonwealth of
Virginia provide additional funding for recreational or
the street and bridge relocation elements.
Timin~ of commitment will begin upon passage of the
referendum and extend through the project construction
provided the project is started within three (3) years of
the referendum.
Funding of the anticipated unfunded amount of up to
$7,500,000 will be by an increase in the utility tax from
10% up to 12%.
Council vote by February 6, 1989 to support the project
exceptin~ for any recreational element.
Project scale will be identified as the full project
previously explained exceptin~ for:
a. Recreational trail
b. Pedestrian bridge
c. Real estate and inflationary costs associated to the
recreational element.
Benefits for flood reduction for all elements previously
outlined would be provided. Recreational benefits would
decrease from the level of recreation currently existing
due to the need to construct bench cuts in some of the
existing parks. Benefit:cost ratio is 1.14 to 1.0.
Local cost would decrease from $14,330,586 to
$12~667~950; however, there will also be a reduction in
the anticipated $782~625 State funding for recreational-
elements to $337~500 resulting in a net savings to the
City of $1,220,511 if the recreational element is
deleted.
Timin~ of commitment would still remain for three (3)
years after the passage of the referendum.
Page 13
VI.
Fundin~ of the anticipated unfunded amount of up to
$6,250~000 would be by an increase in the utility tax of
between 1 1/2% and 2%.
Council vote by February 6, 1989 not to continue to support
the pro.~ect and not place the matter before the citizens for a
referendum vote.
1. Pro.~ect scale becomes a moot issue.
2. Benefits from the project will not occur.
Local cost will stop at the current range of $500,000
spent to date for technical services.
4. TiminK of commitment will become a moot issue.
5. Fundin~ for additional expenditures will be unnecessary.
Recommendation: Council decide by February 6, 1989 to place the
full project before the citizens for referendum vote in accordance
with Alternative "A".
RecoKnition: I would like to recognize and express my
appreciation to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (particularly
Colonel Paul Woodbury and his staff), Congressman Jim Olin,
concerned citizens groups, individual citizens and the many
property owners that will be effected by the construction of this
project for helping us devise a project in design concept that will
be beneficial to the City.
WPJ{:KBK:afm
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Attachments
CC:
Congressman Jim Olin
Members, Flood Plain Committee
Chairman & Members, Planning Commission
Corps of Engineers
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Engineer
Friends of the Roanoke River
Citizens Environmental Council
Roanoke Valley Bird Club
ATTACHMENT "A"
Real Estate Tax $1.25 per $100 Assessed Value
$28,500,000 + 125 = $228,000 per 1¢ on tax rate
Personal Property Tax $3.45 per $100 Assessed Value
$11,000,000 + 345 = $32,000 per 1¢ on tax rate
Meals Tax
$4,000,000 + 4
4% of $ of Meal
= $1,000,000 per 1% of Rate
= $ 500,000 per 1/2% of Rate
= $ 250,000 per 1/4% of Rate
Transient Roo~Tax
$750,000 + 4
= $187,500 per 1% of Rate
= $ 93,750 per 1/2% of Rate
= $ 46,875 per 1/4% of Rate
Cigarette Tax $0.0025 per Cigarette (5¢ per 20 pack)
$670,000 + 5¢ = $134,000 per 1¢ per 20 pack
Utility Tax
Based on Today's Economy,
1% Increase = $375,000 Minimum
BOND PROJECTIONS
ROANOKE RIVER CHANNELIZATION PROJECT
SUMMARY
FACE AMOUNT RATE TERM
$7,500,000
7.50%
30 YEARS
25 YEARS
20 YEARS
ANNUAL DEBT
SERVICE
$635,034
672,830
735,691
7,500,000
8.00%
30 YEARS
25 YEARS
20 YEARS
666,206
702,591
763,892
7,500,000
8.50%
30 YEARS
25 YEARS
20 YEARS
697,879
732,838
792,532
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF ROANOKE
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
December 30, 1988
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mark A. Williams, Assistant City Attorney ~b~!
Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project; Bond Referendum
Timing
You have inquired regarding the legal timing requirements for
a referendum to authorize the issuance of bonds of the City for
the proposed Roanoke River Flood Reduction project.
I have discussed this matter briefly with Ms. Audrey
Franklin, Registrar, and also reviewed S24.1-185 of The Code of
Virginia (1950), as amended, a copy of which is attached.
As set forth in the statute, the election or referendum is
required to be held pursuant to court order. No such election
shall be held unless it shall have been ordered at least sixty
days prior to the date for which it is called. Furthermore, no
such special election shall be held within the sixty days prior
to a general or primary election.
It is my understanding that the Virginia Republican Party
primary is scheduled for June 13, 1989. Under the foregoing sta-
tutory time limits, by my estimation, the earliest date that such
a referendum could be held would be April 13, 1989, a Thursday,
which I calculate to be the sixty-first day prior to the primary
election. Using this date for the referendum, under the code
requirements, a special election must be ordered at least sixty
days prior to April 13, 1989, which I calculate to be February
12, 1989, a Sunday. Therefore, the last regularly scheduled
meeting of Council at which a referendum could be authorized
prior to June 13, 1989, the date of the Republican primary, would
be Monday, February 6, 1989.
It should be noted that there does not appear to be any
statutory time limit on holding such a special election after the
June 13, 1989, Republican primary. Nevertheless, practlca~ou-
siderations, including the availability of the voting machines,
may preclude having the referendum immediately following the
Republican primary.
Please contact me if you have
I may be of further assistance in
MAW:sm
Attachment
cc:
any comments or questions or if
this ,matter.
Wilburn C. Dibliug, Jr., City Attorney
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
James D. Grisso, Deputy Director of Finance
Audrey Franklin, City Registrar
John Peters, Project Manager
t 21.1-164
Presiderit and
said petition.
tever a special
resident of the
~g the office to
)e held, and to
county or city
a copy thereof
per of general
:herwise than
flcer ordering
occurs, or at
to § 24.1-79,
ity or town in
be filled and
such officer
in the same
dections shall
or primary
nail be sent to
1970, c. 462:
Y of election law
· & Mary L. Rev.
ermined. _
ice. shall be
.nd certified,
?rtificates of
nd subject to
;o far as may
election, one
-~aring on the
iCode 1950,
§ 24.1-165 ELECTIONS ~ 24.1-165
§ 24.1-165. How elections on questions and I~ropositions may be
called and held, and results ascertained and certffied. -- Notwithstand-
ing any other provision of any law. or of the charter of any city or town. to the
contrary, the provisions of this section shall govern special elections, No
referendum shall be placed on the ballot, unless specifically authorized by
statute, or municipal charter provisions of the Cities of Chesapeake. Norfolk,
Newport News, Virginia Beach and Fairfax existing January 1, 1975, or
municipal charter provisions of the Cities of Hampton and Lynchburg, or, in
the case of a referendum to authorize the issuance of bonds of a city or town,
by statute or by the charter of such city or town. Whenever any question or
proposition is to be submitted to the electors of any county, city or town, the
election on such question or orooosition shall in ~ver¥ case be held pursuant
to court order as provided h~rein. The court order callin a s ecial election
§hall state the question to appear on the ballot and shallgbe e~ered and the
election held within a reasonable period of time subsequent to the receipt of
the request for such special election if such request is found to be in proper
order. No such soecial election shall be held unless it shall havg b~n ordered
at least Sixty days prior to the date for which it is called. No Such special
e~n siaall be held within the sixty days prior to a general or onmarv
election. No rei~renc~um ~hall be held on the same aay as a primary ~lection.
~ of the court order calling a special election shall be sent immediately
to the State Board of Elections by the clerk of the court in which the order was
issued.
The ballot shall be prepared by the appropriate electoral board and
distributed to the appropriate election districts or precincts, and at the time
for such regular election, or on the day fixed for such special election, the
regular election officers shall open a poll and take the sense of the qualified
voters of the county, city, town, ward, district, zone or other local subdivision,
as the case may be, on the question or proposition so submitted to such
electors. All such elections shall be held and conducted in the manner
prescribed by law for other elections, provided, however, that the ballots for
us,e, at any such election shall be printed to read as follows, either'
'Question (here state briefly the question or proposition sub~nitted to the
electors) [] For
[] Against"
or
"Question (here state briefly the question or proposition submitted to the
electors)
[] Yes
[] No"
Whichever is designated by the State Board of Elections as more appropri-
ate for the question.
The squares to be print~t on such ballots shall not be less than one-quarter
nor more than one-half inch in size, and the voting shall be by a positive
affirmative method, which shall be by each elector voting at any such election,
placing.a ch~ck (q) mark, or a cross (X or +) mark, or a line ( -- ) in the
square ~mmediately before the appropriat~ word, indicating how he desires to
vote on the question or proposition so submitted.
The ballots shall be counted and returns made and canvassed as in other
elections, and the resul~ certified by the secretary of the appropriate electoral
board to the State Board of Elections, to the court orderingthe election and to
such other authority as may be propor to accomplish the purpose of such
election. (Cede 1950. § 24-141; 1966, c. 115; 1970, c. 462; 1974, c. 428; 1975. c.
515; 1976, c. 616; 1978, cc. 258, 304; 1979, c. 37; 1980, c. 639; 1981, c. 367;
1982, cc. 498, 650; 1983, c. 461.)
435
ATTACHMENT "C"
IN REPLY REFER TO
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON OISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
January 10, 1989
Civil Engineering Section
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
Roanoke City Manager
Room 364, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Mr. Herbert:
During our meeting on December 16, 1988, concerning the
Roanoke River Flood Reduction project, we agreed to examine two
possible modifications to the p~oJect and report the results. We
have analysed the poeaibility of modifying the excavation plan
for the Hannah Trailer Park area and the affecte of deleting the
excavation at the abandoned city landfill near Tinker Creek.
The ~oet effective elte~nativa to the excavation proposed in
the preliminary General Design Ma~orand,~ (G~) inclndes a
reduced bench width with a vertical retaining wall et the trailer
park and widening the proposed cut through Waeena Park from an
average width of 75 feat to 100 feat. A table is attached
showing the effects on flood stages upstream of the trailer park.
The =avised plan w111 not require the permanent relocation of any
trailers, but some trailers will have to be temporarily relocated
to allow for construction of the retaining wall.
Although the above alternative has a favorabXe benefit-to-
cost ratio~ we still raco~and that the plan aa outlined in the
preliminary GlO! be implemented. However, we understand the
concerns you have about this plan and will implement the
alternative if you so desire, providing you declare your
preference by Janua~ 13, 1989.
The affect on the lave1 of protection for the treatment
plant due to eliminating the bench excavation near Tinker Creek
is a raduc~ion from 50-year to 30-year. The overtopping
frequency for the floodproofing dropped from 100-year to 70-year.
A revised total project cost estimate reflecting the deleted
cut at Tinker Creek and the modififad cut at the trailer park
with retaining wall was is $27,471,500. The benefit to cost
ratio for this plan is 1.20 to 1.
-2-
Revised ~lestone dates for the completion of the ~anoke
R/var project are: Completion of the final G~IM~ April 28, 1989;
complete plans and sPecifications, June 30, 1990. At this time
the project will be in the ready to construct category awaiting
construction funds. After receipt of funds, it will take 3
months to advertise and award a construction contract and 3 years
to complete project construction.
Attachment
Sincerely~
Paul W. Woodbury
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
ROAI~OKE FLOOD REDUCTION PROJECT
Results of Modified Cuts at Wasena Park and Trailer Park
(Elevations in feet,
Flood Event
(R4,10+O0)
Imm. Blv Memorial Ave,
With
GDM Modifications
(R3,40+00)
Hidwa7 of Cleve. Ave. Dike
With
GDM Modifications
(R3,10+O0)
Imm. Blw Bridge St.
With
GDM Modifications
SPF 967.1 968.2
100-YR 951.7 952.0
50-YR 949.1 949.4
10-YR 943.3 943.5
2-YR 937.3 937,4
969.6 970.4 971.9 972.5
953.8 954.0 957.2 957.3
951.3 951.4 955.0 955.1
945,3 945,4 949,2 949.2
939.0 939,1 943,2 943,2
Dtrector of Utilities & Operanons
January 9, 1989
Members, Roanoke City
Flood Plain Committee
Dear Co~,~uittee Members:
Subject: Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project
The time has come. City Manager W. Rober~ Herbert will ma~e a
report to Roanoke City Council durin8 a special called meeting for 12:00
noon, Tuesday, 3anuary 17, 1989. That report, which is still being
formulated, would give a full briefing on the project, cost estimates,
scheduling, and proposed method of funding.
This Committee is already on record in support of the project. We
are still awaiting confirmation in writing from the Corps of Engineers
regardin8 the Corps cost estimate. I believe the Corps estimate will be
at $27,471,500 to include a non-federal (local) share of $10,672,925.
City staff estimate is $34,277,633 to include $14,330,586. Major
differences in the two cost estimates are:
City estimate includes a 15~ inflation figure in anticipation
of rising construction cost.
2. City estimate includes fundin8 for environmental improvements
outside the Corps' defined project scope.
3. City estimate includes the cost of two low water bridge
replacements and one new pedestrian bridse.
4. City estimate includes flood mitisation measures outside the
Corps' defined project scope.
I believe the project to be recommended will widen the 8 foot
recreational trail to 12 feet but delete the section of the trail
upstream of Wasena Park, primarily due to physical constraints.
You are already familiar with most of the project. I cannot tell
you more resardin8 the administration's recommendation until January 17.
On behalf of Mr. Herbert and yours truly, I invite you to the 12:00
noon meetin8 of Roanoke City Council on January 17, 1989 to hear Mr.
Herbert's full project briefing and recommendations and to show your
support for the project.
Roor~ 354 ~4un,c ~a: bu,lcJing 215 Church Av~nu~ S W Roonoke V~rg,ma 24011 ~7C)3) 981 2002
Members, Flood Plain Committee
January 9, 1989
Page 2
KBK:afm
cc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert
Mrs. Mary Parker, City Clerk
Respectfully,
i. Kiser, Chairman
Flood Plain Committee