HOUSING LEGISLATION OF 1966 169 proximately 160,000, and serve a trading area of approximately 500,000 people. Our city is in close proximity to the deep southwest of Virginia, to West Virginia, and the Appalachian region, all of which have received attention by the Federal Government in assistance and benefit programs. Our labor market, wholsale and retail businesses, and medical and other professional services serve and are used by people in all these large areas. Principally, Roanoke is an industrial and transportation center. In both of these fields of enterprises, the city over recent years has experienced many changes and setbacks that have accompanied technological and employment revisions as have occurred in industries such as those on which our city was economically based. Despite these revisions and setbacks, through strong local effort, our community has managed recoveries. Two examples of this have been the development through local, private, and governmental funds of two industrial parks of considerable size that have recovered employment for many of our people who have been victims of the industrial changes over the years. Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Mayor, has there been any Federal aid for those two industrial parks? Mayor DILLARD. No, sir. Mr. WHEELER. No, sir. Mayor DILLARD. None whatever, Senator. Roanoke, as many other cities of comparable size and circumstance, has been seriously concerned with the downgrading of a number of residential and commercial areas within the city. This deterioration has been the outgrowth of two conditions. One of these is the reduction in property values as has appeared within so many cities in older areas and the other has been directly related to changes in employment opportunities and availabilities to which I earlier referred. In full recognition of these circumstances as were affecting the vitality of our city, Roanoke in 1955 was one of the earlier cities in the country to undertake an urban renewal project. This was the Commonwealth urban renewal project, Project UR VA 7-1. It involves 83.5 acres in the geographical center of the city. It was physically commenced in 1956 and represented an expenditure of $4,905,404. The area was substandard residential and through the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority was completely cleared. Prior to the commencement of the project, it produced in local tax revenue, that which could be collected, $12,000. It now produces $25,000 annually, even with a major portion of its area going to nontaxable governmental use. Of the nontaxable use, property valued at $500,000 was sold to the Virginia Department of Highways for construction of interstate highway spur-that is, 581. The city of Roanoke purchased and has paid for, in the amount of $500,000, land for the construction of a civic center. This center is estimated to cost $7 million with construction expected to start in the spring of 1967. Obviously, there is high community interest and prospective pride in the anticipation of such a facility for our area. It will be a combination auditorium-coliseum unit that will provide facilities for cultural, recreational, and educational activities for the entire southwest and western parts of Virginia. The last facility of th community was the American Legion Auditorium, pri which constituted more of an arena and which was des in 1957. Our city, because of its tourist accommodation facili vention city and attracts many National and State gather out a year. From a use objective there are many supp as to the area and community need for such a civic ce offer opportunities in the fields and endeavors of cultu and recreation that our people have never before know However, what might be termed the degree of local pr not the direct concern to your honorable subcommittee o lation at hand. What is significant and unusual ab center project is its direct involvement in urban renewa earlier, the city of Roanoke, through its own funds, pur tion of the Commonwealth redevelopment tract, at a co for the accommodation of this center. Highway develop been constructed and is scheduled for construction within to the Commonwealth tract is oriented to this center. The city has obtained approval from the Federal Go two further urban renewal projects. One immediatel Commonwealth area. This is the Kimball project area, ing of 78 acres of substandard residential property. It an expenditure of $4,070,000. The development of thi resale potential is immediately involved in the anticipati center project. The Commonwealth project and the Kimball project, center area, are within two or three normal city blocks fr business district of Roanoke. The third urban renew which Roanoke has embarked is the Downtown East consisting of 13 acres of substandard commercial and tra properties. The expenditure for the revitalization is $4,042,000. The continued upgrading of Roanoke's ce district, of which the Downtown East project is a sign. also directly related to the potential which the civic cen There is attached to this statement a brief financia these three urban renewal projects. (The summary referred to follows:) URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS-ROANOKE, VA. HOUSING LEGISLATION OF 1966 171 Mayor DILLARD. It is our feeling, and we respectfully submit, this expression to your subcommittee, that the civic center as proposed for Roanoke is tied hand in hand with these three urban renewal projects and with further prospective development under the same Federal programs. We further submit that the city's expenditure toward this civic center is direct expenditure in behalf of these urban renewal programs and their successful accomplishment. It is understood that the Federal Government would permit, if the bill amendment were approved, that the credit could apply to one or more urban renewal programs in order of their accomplishment. It is considered that the Federal participation in the Commonwealth project would not be increased by the passage of this proposed section of the act. It is additionally our belief the civic center represents a direct contribution to the development of the three urban renewal programs in all respects except financially from a legal standpoint. It can be and is justifiable financially. To that end and purpose, we respectfully urge that anticipated outlay of the city of Roanoke for the civic center be permitted to be counted as a grant-in-aid toward urban renewal project VA 7-1 and subsequently Kimball project area, R-46, and Downtown East project, R-46. This would be facilitated by a bill amendment classifying the Roanoke Civic Center as a noncash grant-in-aid to such project for other federally assisted urban renewal projects undertaken in Roanoke, Va. The time and courtesy of this subcommittee are respectfully acknowledged and appreciated. Senator DOUGLAS. Thank you very much, Mayor. Do I understand that the total expenditure on the three urban renewal projects, including local grants-in-aid, amounts to approximately $13 million? Mayor DILLARD. Yes, sir. That is attached. Senator DOUGLAS. And that you expect to net or have netted from land sales a little over $4 million? Mayor DILLARD. Yes, sir. That is correct, Senator. Senator DOUGLAS. Leaving a net project cost of about $8,860,000? Senator DOUGLAS. Now, then, the city's share of this would normally be around $2.8 million? Mayor DILLARD. Yes, sir. That is correct. Senator DOUGLAS. Do I understand that you are asking, therefore, that the expenditures which you make upon this coliseum and civic center would be credited toward that $2.8 million? Mayor DILLARD. Yes, sir. That is true. Mr. HIRST. Yes, sir. Senator DOUGLAS. How much have you paid in already on your share on these projects? Mr. HENLEY. $1,305,404. Senator DOUGLAS. That has been your local contribution? Mr. HENLEY. Yes, sir. This is the current Commonwealth project, which is actively being closed out. In other words, it has gone all the way through, and we are getting ready to close it out. 1 Senator DOUGLAS. The question I want to raise is: W credited to your obligation of $2.8 million, reducing th to $1.5, or is that $2.8 million roughly a a net obligation vious credits have been taken into account? Mr. HENLEY. This is taking that the credits or pooli you get from such projects carries through to other pr on the Commonwealth project, for example, the amoun grant would not be the maximum two-thirds. Neithe city's one-third be required because of the ratio betwee cost and the sale of land. But this is the net effect at Senator DOUGLAS. What would be the added net oblig city were we not. to credit the coliseum and civic cent contribution? Mr. HENLEY. The city's expenditure if this bill passed- Mr. HENLEY. If the bill were not passed, it would cos plus the amount that would be expended on the civic c Senator DOUGLAS. Which amount? Mr. HENLEY. In round figures, $2.8 million. Senator DOUGLAS. I see. How much do you plan to coliseum and civic center? Mr. HENLEY. $7 million. Mayor DILLARD. It may be $7.5 million. Senator DOUGLAS. So, in effect, these expenditures w and wipe off the remaining $2.8 million? Mr. HENLEY. That is right; yes, sir. Mr. WHEELER. Yes, sir. Senator DOUGLAS. How far will the civic center be s each one of these three urban renewal projects? What i Mr. HENLEY. Sir, I have a map. Mr. HIRST. Geographically it would be located withi the first project that the mayor referred to, the Common Senator DOUGLAS. In the center? Mr. HIRST. It would be in the center, geographically project, the Kimball project, that the mayor referred the Commonwealth project. I would say it possibly, within about five city blocks. No; it is not that far. is about two city blocks. The third project, the downtown east project, wou mately three or four city blocks from that. Geograp the core of the city that is being rebuilt through this p Senator DOUGLAS. Would you submit for the record It need not be in such detail as the one they are unwrapp would you submit a small one so that we can study th connection between the civic center and these urban re Mr. HIRST. Yes, sir. This can be done and will be d (Mayor Dillard later supplied maps of Roanoke areas for inclusion in the record.) |