The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5/28/2024 - City Council - Agenda -Regular City Counci l Meeting AGENDA Tuesday, May 28, 2024, 6:30 P M R egular S ession 6:30 P.M. C ouncil C hambers , C ity Hall, 114 North Broad S treet, S alem, Virginia 24153 WORK SE SSI ON A M E N D E D A G E N D A W OR K SE SSIO N IS CANCELLED FOR M AY 28, 2024. RE GU L AR SE S SI ON 1.C all to Order 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Bid Openings, Awards, Recognitions A.P roclamation - Stroke Smart Salem 4.C onsent Agenda A.Citizen Comments C omments from the public, limited to five minutes, on matters not already having a public hearing at the same meeting. B.Minutes C onsider acceptance of the May 13, 2024, Regular Meeting minutes. C .F inancial Reports C onsider acceptance of the Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for the ten months ending April 2024. 5.Old Business 6.New Business A.Salem City School Board Hold a public hearing and receive the views of citizens within the School Division regarding the School Board appointment for the unexpired term of Rachel T hompson ending December 31, 2026. (As advertised in the May 2, 2024, issue of the Salem Times-Register.) B.Conveyance of P roperty Hold a public hearing and consider authorizing the City Manager to finalize and execute documents on the sale of a portion of Tax Map # 91-1-2.1 consisting of an approximate 867 square feet; together with a permanent drainage easement consisting of an approximate 1,139 square feet; together with a temporary easement consisting of an approximate 1,499 square feet, to the C ommonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation. (Advertised in the May 23, 2024, issue of the Salem Times-Register.) C .P roposed Real E state Tax Rate for F iscal Year 2024-2025 Hold a public hearing on the effective real estate tax rate for fiscal year 2024-2025. D.Tax Rates Resolution C onsider adoption of Resolution 1468, a resolution imposing taxes on real estate, tangible personal property, machinery and tools, and all legal subjects of taxation for C ity purposes, including the property of railroad, express, telephone, telegraph, water hear (gas), light and power companies. Audit - Finance Committe E.Job Classes and P ay Ranges 2024-2025 C onsider adoption of Resolution 1469 amending the schematic list of job classes and pay ranges previously set forth J une 12, 2023 to be part of the 2024-2025 fiscal year budget. Audit - Finance C ommittee F.P roposed Budget for F iscal Year 2024-2025 Hold a public hearing on the proposed budget for fiscal year 2024-2025. G.Salem School Div ision Budget C onsider adoption of Resolution 1470 approving the Salem School Division budget for fiscal year 2024-2025. Agenda amended due to a typographical error in the attached resolution. Audit - Finance Committee H.B udget Adoption Ordinance C onsider an ordinance on first reading adopting the budget for fiscal year 2024-2025. A summary of the proposed budget was advertised in the Salem Times Register on May 2, 2024 and May 9, 2024. Audit - Finance C ommittee I.B udget Appropriation Ordinance C onsider an ordinance on first reading appropriating funds for the fiscal year 2024-2025 budget. Audit - Finance C ommittee J .Resilience P lan C onsider the adoption of Resolution 1467 adopting the Resilience Plan. 7.Adjournment City Council Meeting MINUTES Monday, May 13, 2024, 6:30 PM Work Session is cancelled for May 13, 2024 Regular Session 6:30 P.M. Community Room, Salem Civic Center, 1001 Roanoke Boulevard, Salem, Virginia 24153 WORK SESSION WORK SESSION IS CANCELLED REGULAR SESSION 1.Call to Order A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia, was called to order at 6:30 p.m., there being present the following members to wit: Renée Ferris Turk, Mayor; James W. Wallace, III, Vice-Mayor; Councilmembers: Byron Randolph Foley, William D. Jones, and H. Hunter Holliday; with Renée Ferris Turk, Mayor, presiding together with Chris Dorsey, City Manager; Rob Light, Assistant City Manager and Clerk of Council; Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance; Chuck Van Allman, Director of Community Development; Mike Stevens, Director of Communications; and Jim Guynn, City Attorney. 2.Pledge of Allegiance 3.Bid Openings, Awards, Recognitions There were none this evening. 4.Consent Agenda William Jones motioned to change the order of the agenda and move item 6A (the public hearing) to the last item. H Hunter Holliday seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace A.Citizen Comments Comments from the public, limited to five minutes, on matters not already having a public hearing at the same meeting. John Breen, 142 Bogey Lane, expressed concern with the budget process and setting Item#4B Date: 5/28/2024 of the tax rate. He made note of specific line items from the budget that he had questions and concerns about. Mr. Breen requested that Council hold a dedicated budget question and answer session and allow questions to be asked by the public and answered at the public hearing. B. Minutes Consider acceptance of the April 22, 2024, Work Session and Regular Meeting minutes, the April 23, 2024, Special Meeting Budget Work Session minutes, and the April 24, 2024, Special Meeting Budget Work Session minutes. The minutes were approved as written. 5. Old Business There was no old business this evening. 6. New Business A. Appropriation of Funds Consider request to adjust the Civic Center Operating Budget. Audit - Finance Committee James Wallace motioned to increase the Show Revenue and Show Expense budgets for the Civic Center by $600,000 due to higher than budgeted show activity in the current fiscal year. Randy Foley seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace B. Redi-Mix Consider setting bond for erosion and sediment control and landscaping for Redi-Mix. Audit - Finance Committee Vice-Mayor Wallace noted that this was good news. He shared that one of our businesses was going to reopen after being dormant for a while. James Wallace motioned to bond the project for Ready-Mix, located at 2200, 2250, and 2260 Salem Industrial Drive in the amount of $13,205, for a time frame for completion set at twelve (12) months. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace C. New Metal Building - 68 St. John Road Consider setting bond for erosion and sediment control and landscaping for the New Metal Building - 68 St. John Rd project. Audit - Finance Committee The City Engineer's office has reviewed the estimate for erosion and sediment control and landscaping for New Metal Building located at 68 St. John Road. James Wallace motioned to bond the project in the amount of $13,158 for a time frame for completion set at twelve (12) months. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace D. Boards and Commissions Consider appointments to various boards and commissions. Mayor Turk noted that these boards and commissions are served by our public as well as by members of our City staff. She encouraged those present to go online and watch for vacancies and alternate positions they might have interest in. Randy Foley motioned to recommend Steve Belanger for Circuit Court reappointment as a full member for a full five-year term ending June 5, 2029 to the Board of Zoning Appeals; recommend reappointing Wendel Ingram for a three-year term ending June 11, 2027, to the Real Estate Tax Relief Review Board; recommend reappointing H. Hunter Holliday and James W. Wallace, III, for three-year terms ending June 30, 2027, to the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission; and recommend appointing Rosemarie Jordan as Member and Chris Dorsey as alternate for the remainder of the terms ending December 13, 2024, to the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority. William Jones seconded the motion. Ayes: Foley, Holliday, Jones, Turk, Wallace E. Public Hearing Hold public hearing to consider the request of Virginia Baptist Children's Home (dba HopeTree Family Services), property owner, for rezoning the properties located at 1000 block Red Ln and a portion of 860 Mount Vernon Lane (Tax Map #'s 41-1-1, 41-1-2, 41-1-3, 41-1-4, 41-1-5, 41-1-6, and a portion of 44-3-10) from RSF Residential Single Family to PUD Planned Unit District. (Advertised in the May 2nd and 9th, 2024 issues of the Salem Times-Register). This is a public hearing only. There will be no formal action taken at this meeting. This item was moved to the end of the agenda this evening by vote at the beginning of the meeting. Mayor Turk noted that we would now return to Item 6A. She noted that this evening the public hearing only would be held and that no formal action would be taken. She expressed appreciation by Council for the respect that had been shown and how great everyone had been to work with to this point. She added that Council had loved the opportunity to have conversations with everyone. Mayor Turk expressed that Council had been addressed a number of times, had met with the Planning Commission, had met with Community Development, and had met with various citizens. She noted that many emails had also been received. Since August 2023, Council has had a total of 29 speakers that had addressed them in Council meetings through the Citizen Comment period regarding Hope Tree. Mayor Turk added that council appreciates being able to hear and listen to our citizens. She also noted that a Joint Meeting had been held with Council, the Planning Commission, and Hope Tree and that Council understands the concerns. She shared that for tonight’s public hearing, each speaker will be allotted three minutes and went over a few guidelines to help the process to run smoothly. Mayor Turk asked Community Development to begin by sharing some of the information that had been received from Hope Tree and from the Developers. This was in the form of fourteen points that included information in response to questions that Council had requested answers for. She asked that Mary Ellen Wines, the Zoning Administrator from Community Development, come forward and give a synopsis of some of the points that have been clarified and restricted up to this point. Mayor Turk opened the public hearing. Mary Ellen Wines noted that her purpose this evening was not to support or oppose this rezoning request but rather to provide factual information about this application and its evolution since it arrived in Community Development in the latter stages of 2023. Ms. Wines provided a summary of highlights and major changes in the petitioner’s application since the original application was received. She remarked that throughout this process the Hope Tree project team had been responsive to addressing the concerns of both City staff and Mattern & Craig. Staff feels that the current form of the plan satisfies the minimum requirements of the PUD District in the zoning ordinance. A final draft of the PUD document was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on April 10, 2024. Nancy Reynolds, 925 Saddle Drive, was the first citizen to appear before Council. She noted that she was here this evening on behalf of her homeowners association and that they were unanimously opposed to the rezoning. She expressed concerns related to Virginia State Code and Salem Zoning Code in relation to this proposed rezoning. She also expressed concerns about the impact on property values of surrounding neighbors. Paul Dotson, 927 Saddle Drive, and noted that his property adjoins the Baptist Home property. He stated that he is opposed to the rezoning. Robert Walker, 425 N. Shanks Street, expressed opposition to the Hope Tree rezoning proposal. He shared concerns that this project was too large for this location and in relation to traffic. Dick Fowler, 604 Red Lane, expressed opposition to the Hope Tree rezoning. He voiced concern in relation to traffic and the ability of the surrounding streets to support the resulting traffic increase. George Henry, 801 N. Broad Street, expressed opposition to the Hope Tree rezoning and asked that public comment be held open until the meeting at which a vote is taken. He expressed concerns about the sewer system and storm water runoff as well as traffic. Earl Pettrey, 650 Joan Circle, expressed that he was in favor of the Hope Tree rezoning and that he felt this would draw new young families into the area. Rose Hart, 304 18th Street, SW, Roanoke, expressed opposition to the Hope Tree proposal. She voiced concern for the impact on small businesses in Downtown Salem, traffic, property values, sewage issues, and stormwater runoff. She requested that Council vote against this rezoning request. Victor Delapp, 932 Saddle Drive, noted opposition to the rezoning due to the impact of traffic on safety and property values. Peter Ostaseski, 831 Honeysuckle Road, expressed opposition to the Hope Tree rezoning proposal. He noted concerns in relation to traffic, location, impact of competition for businesses along Main Street, and the impact on established surrounding neighborhoods. Curt Steele, 706 Red Lane, voiced opposition to the Hope Tree rezoning and noted concerns with traffic that would be generated and the impact on quality of life and property values. He proposed approval of a lower-density buildout, preserving the residential character of the neighborhood. Bob Rotanz, 313 N. Broad Street, expressed concern with the PUD for the residents of the neighborhoods in relation to traffic. He proposed stop signs at corners to slow traffic and connecting sidewalks Laura Hart, 514 High Street, requested that any new construction for Hope Tree development include completing sidewalks on High Street, Cleveland, and Hawthorne as well as any neighborhoods for future development. Jane Johnson, 2940 Phillips Brook Lane, spoke in favor of the Hope Tree rezoning. She noted 16 years of service on City Council as well as 2 years of service on the Planning Commission. She has owned a business in downtown Salem for 32 years. She noted that this would offer the potential to add to the tax base, offer a better variety of housing types, and attract younger people to move to Salem, and increase tax revenue. Emily Paine Carter, 335 N. Broad Street, voiced opposition to the Hope Tree proposal. She expressed concerns for the impact on the greenspace, runoff, and City services. Mark Nayden, 352 N. Broad Street, spoke against the Hope Tree rezoning. He expressed the concerns that this proposal was not compatible with the current Comprehensive Plan and for the impact it could have on existing commercial businesses in downtown Salem. He suggested some alternatives and noted a petition against the rezoning including over 600 signatures. Ashby Garst, 130 Rutledge Drive, spoke for the Hope Tree rezoning proposal. She referenced a petition in support of the Hope Tree rezoning. She noted the benefits of a safe, walkable neighborhood including food and retail and job opportunities for a declining population. Kevin Conlan, 532 High Street, spoke requesting sidewalks for the benefit of walkers. Chris McCart, 316 N. Broad Street, spoke against the Hope Tree rezoning, She expressed concern that too many questions remain unanswered. She specifically spoke with regards to the impact on traffic on the dispersal zone, ability of existing neighborhoods to utilize Hope Tree greenspace, the amount of greenspace that will remain, the housing market for the proposed housing, and questioned if there was a need for more commercial space. She asked that Council vote ”no” now and gather more information. Doug McCart, 316 N. Broad Street, urged Council to vote against the Hope Tree rezoning request. He expressed that the main reason the request should be denied was the commercial aspect and the impact of the commercial vehicles that would be required to service this on the neighborhood roads. Russ Pruitt, 400 N. Broad Street, voiced that he was opposed to the Hope Tree redevelopment, and he encouraged City Council to also opposed the project. He noted that he did not feel this proposal was in line with the current Comprehensive Plan and encouraged City Council to focus attention on the completion of the downtown revitalization project. Mike Kummer, 916 Red Lane, expressed support for the Hope Tree rezoning project. He noted that his family had lived in this location for nearly 70 years. He shared his opinion that this proposal offered options that would preserve historic buildings and greenspace on the property and that commercial ventures created would be welcomed. Todd Leeson, 212 N. Broad Street, referenced a letter that he and his wife, Whitney Leeson had submitted to Council on Aprill 22nd and requested that Council reference this as well as a letter from another neighbor that was unable to speak this evening. He spoke against the Hope Tree rezoning and expressed concern that this was not the right location for this project, for the density of the project, and for the infrastructure, and urged Council to vote against this proposal. Madeline Grochowski, 440 Ingle Ct., expressed concerns about quality of life, safety, and potential impact on the school system in opposition of the Hope Tree rezoning request. She also referenced sidewalks. Jennifer Thomas, 916 Red Lane, spoke in favor of the Hope Tree rezoning proposal. She noted experience in City Planning and that she had visited a similar project with similar topography and acreage in Black Mountain, North Carolina, and that these experiences have led her to support the rezoning. She noted that the plan strategically addressed traffic issues and the addition of limited commercial uses would decrease vehicle trips. She added that the plan preserves historic buildings and walking space and would offer a new opportunity for revenue. Lisa Miller, 405 Apperson Drive, referenced a petition signed by over 600 citizens in opposition to the proposed rezoning and expressed opposition to the rezoning proposal as a realtor. She expressed the opinion that more commercial space was not needed, noted vacant commercial space in existence, and expressed that the current proposal would not meet the needs of the current housing market and would make it harder on current landlords. Michael Lane, 422 Academy Street, expressed opposition to the Hope Tree rezoning in his capacity as a residential home builder. He expressed the opinion that the topography of Hope Tree was not suitable for building the proposed development. Brian Boggs, 731 Cherrywood Road, noted that his perspective was from 10 years of experience as a commercial real estate appraiser in Florida. He expressed opposition to the proposed project and noted concerns with density. He also noted that there there was not information in regards to setbacks, buffers, green area, and donating land. Caroline Baine, 721 Academy Street, expressed opposition to the Hope Tree proposal. She expressed concern specifically about safety and noted a number of wrecks at a four-way stop. In addition, she shared personal traffic counts for this location she indicated was not included in the traffic counts. She also noted concerns about the routing of the construction traffic and noted that she felt this was not the right location for this proposal. Mike Elmore, 622 Chamberlain Lane, expressed support for the Hope Tree proposed rezoning. He noted that he had been a resident of the Hope Tree, Virginia Baptist Children’s Home himself and was currently a member of the Board and serving on the Property Committee. He expressed the importance for him of the City continuing to value the partnership with Hope Tree and encouraged Council to support this application in order to strengthen Hope Tree’s future to continue to provide programs such as residential care, foster care, adoption services, educational services, Hope Tree Academy, and Adult Developmental Ministries, as well as others. Stella Reinhard, 213 N. Broad Street, requested that the public comment period be allowed to remain open for the citizens to be able to address any changes to the current plan that were submitted for the meeting at which Council would vote. She voiced concerns that the only portion that should be considered for rezoning was the portion that was being considered for sale to the developers. She also expressed concern on the lack of access to I-81, the lack of entrances, and stormwater runoff. She noted that she felt there was a need for further traffic, environmental impact, and services impact studies. In addition, she expressed the opinion that this historic center and greenspace should be preserved. Gretchen Boise, 224 Academy Street, expressed opposition to the Hope Tree rezoning. She expressed concern at the impact of this proposal on the greenspace and history of Hope Tree. Mayor Turk asked if anyone had been missed and wished to speak. Mayor Turk closed the public hearing and noted that no action would take place this evening. She expressed appreciation and respect for everyone that had come forward to speak and share information with Council this evening. She reiterated that no vote would be taken tonight and this this would probably take place at the June 10th meeting to enable Council to have time to ask questions and work with Community Development and the developers. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Schedule A Current Year Current Year % of Prior Year Budget Year to Date Budget Year to Date Variance Revenues: Beginning Balance 7-1-23 26,962,223$ -$ 0%-$ -$ General Property Taxes 47,435,126 19,701,732 42%17,741,153 1,960,579 Other Local Taxes 27,410,800 21,835,969 80%21,233,195 602,774 Permits and Licenses 356,740 251,568 71%303,172 (51,604) Fines and Forfeitures 119,000 95,880 81%100,373 (4,494) Revenue from Use of Money and Property 5,332,180 6,827,507 128%3,839,652 2,987,855 Charges for Services 3,680,126 2,853,833 78%2,662,266 191,567 Payment in Lieu of Taxes from Electric Fund 3,160,000 2,633,333 83%3,160,000 (526,667) Payment in Lieu of Taxes from Water Fund 145,395 121,671 84%130,970 (9,299) Miscellaneous Revenue 646,839 559,287 86%580,255 (20,968) Non-Categorical Aid 3,690,450 811,605 22%888,832 (77,227) Shared Expense 1,711,395 1,285,385 75%1,137,820 147,565 Categorical Aid 9,380,781 7,465,720 80%6,444,172 1,021,548 Non-Revenue Receipts 34,180 34,177 100%89,666 (55,489) Transfer From Other Funds 5,396,700 5,319,145 99%20,829,626 (15,510,481) Total Revenues 135,461,935 69,796,811 52%79,141,152 (9,344,341) Expenditures: General Government 10,479,288 8,004,093 76%7,644,896 359,197 Judicial Administration 3,163,592 2,440,484 77%2,088,643 351,841 Public Safety 25,985,650 19,061,435 73%16,320,035 2,741,400 Public Works 14,052,839 9,333,139 66%7,574,354 1,758,785 Health and Welfare 6,492,410 5,119,793 79%4,038,984 1,080,809 Education 25,651,617 23,387,553 91%22,408,754 978,799 Parks, Recreation and Cultural 8,944,123 6,071,158 68%5,608,638 462,520 Community Development 3,833,234 2,822,411 74%3,491,858 (669,447) Non-Departmental 1,271,995 1,467,833 115%1,457,454 10,379 Transfers Out 34,733,226 32,604,364 94%24,748,835 7,855,529 Contingency 853,961 - 0%- - Total Expenditures 135,461,935 110,312,263 81%95,382,451 14,929,812 Revenues Over/(Under) Expenditures -$ (40,515,452)$ (16,241,299)$ (24,274,153)$ City of Salem, Virginia General Fund Statement of Revenues and Expenditures For Ten Months Ending April 30, 2024 Item #4C Date: 5/28/2024 Schedule B - 50,000.00 100,000.00 150,000.00 200,000.00 250,000.00 300,000.00 350,000.00 400,000.00 450,000.00 500,000.00 550,000.00 600,000.00 650,000.00 700,000.00 750,000.00 800,000.00 850,000.00 900,000.00 950,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,050,000.00 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June City of Salem Sales Tax Summary For Fiscal Years 2021 -2024 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 Schedule C 50,000.00 100,000.00 150,000.00 200,000.00 250,000.00 300,000.00 350,000.00 400,000.00 450,000.00 500,000.00 550,000.00 600,000.00 650,000.00 700,000.00 750,000.00 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June City of Salem Meals Tax Summary For Fiscal Years 2021 -2024 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 Schedule D - 25,000.00 50,000.00 75,000.00 100,000.00 125,000.00 150,000.00 175,000.00 200,000.00 225,000.00 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June City of Salem Lodging Tax Summary For Fiscal Years 2021 -2024 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 City of Salem, Virginia Special Revenue Fund Statement of Revenues and Expenditures For Period Ending April 30, 2024 Schedule E Project Total Available Year To Budget To Date Encumbrances Project Balance Date Fund Balance, July 1, 2023 -$ Revenues: American Rescue Plan Act Funding 4,914,423$ 4,914,423$ -$ 4,914,423$ -$ -$ American Rescue Plan Act Funding-NEU 26,250,208 26,250,208 - 26,250,208 - 5,319,145 ARPA - VA Tourism Recovery Program 70,000 70,000 - 70,000 - 38,755 ARPA - Sports Marketing Incentive Program 25,650 25,650 - 25,650 - 20,150 ARPA - Law Enforcement Grant Program 215,000 215,000 - 215,000 - 215,000 Total Revenues 31,475,281 31,475,281 - 31,475,281 - 5,593,050 Expenditures: Tourism Initiative 4,000 4,000 - 4,000 - - VA Tourism Recovery Program 70,000 70,000 - 70,000 - 38,755 Sports Marketing Incentive Program 25,650 25,650 - 25,650 - 20,150 Law Enforcement Grant Program 215,000 215,000 - 215,000 - 215,000 Transfer to General Fund 31,160,631 31,160,631 - 31,160,631 - 5,319,145 Total Expenditures 31,475,281$ 31,475,281$ -$ 31,475,281$ -$ 5,593,050 Fund Balance, April 30, 2024 -$ City of Salem, Virginia Debt Outstanding For Period Ending April 30, 2024 Schedule F Balance Principal Balance 7/1/2023 Issuances Payments 4/30/2024 City Debt Outstanding 2011 Union First Market Refunding Bonds 379,962$ -$ (379,962)$ -$ 2013 Public Improvement Bonds 977,550 - (89,425) 888,125 2016B Public Improvement Bonds 441,146 - (143,433) 297,713 2019 Public Improvement Bonds 4,273,000 - (208,000) 4,065,000 2020 Public Improvement Bonds 1,935,000 - (235,000) 1,700,000 2020 Public Improvement Refunding Bonds 4,703,652 - (298,592) 4,405,060 2021 Public Improvement Refunding Bonds 1,166,000 - (361,000) 805,000 2022B Public Improvement Bonds 14,491,000 - - 14,491,000 Total City Debt Outstanding 28,367,310 - (1,715,412) 26,651,898 School Debt Outstanding 2011 Union First Market Refunding Bonds 665,038 - (665,038) - 2012A Public Improvement Bonds 4,772,500 - (477,250) 4,295,250 2013 Public Improvement Bonds 3,012,450 - (275,575) 2,736,875 2020 Public Improvement Bonds 23,565,000 - (170,000) 23,395,000 Total School Debt Outstanding 32,014,988 - (1,587,863) 30,427,125 Total Debt Outstanding 60,382,298$ -$ (3,303,275)$ 57,079,023$ City of Salem, Virginia Capital Projects Fund Statement of Revenues and Expenditures For Period Ending April 30, 2024 Schedule G Project Total Available Year To Budget To Date Encumbrances Project Balance Date Fund Balance, July 1, 2023 21,420,610$ Revenues: Federal Grants 13,560,359$ 1,835,933$ -$ 1,835,933$ 11,724,426$ 242,854$ State Grants 17,515,640 2,755,762 - 2,755,762 14,759,878 1,131,259 Proceeds From Debt Issuance 42,015,146 42,015,145 - 42,015,145 1 - Interest Income 813,126 813,125 - 813,125 1 129,936 Transfer From General Fund 28,644,299 28,344,297 - 28,344,297 300,002 8,489,034 Total Revenues 102,548,570 75,764,262 - 75,764,262 26,784,308 9,993,082 Expenditures: Next Generation 911 378,493 187,161 30,609 217,770 160,723 - Fire Station #2 Renovations 432,000 82,544 38,873 121,417 310,583 76,311 Fire Station #2 Storage Building 515,000 - - - 515,000 - Fire Station #1 Renovations 654,000 3,360 17,000 20,360 633,640 3,360 Fire Station #3 Renovations 454,000 6,943 4,951 11,894 442,106 6,943 Colorado St Bridge Replacement 11,778,826 2,756,101 3,884,093 6,640,194 5,138,632 1,958,495 Apperson Drive Bridge Replacement 9,784,451 784,559 266,125 1,050,684 8,733,767 36,556 Jury Room Expansion 739,580 61,667 677,913 739,580 - 29,434 Apperson Drive Bridge Repairs #1800 682,432 74,772 49,360 124,132 558,300 74,772 Valleydale Streetscape Improvements 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000 - Upland Drive Storm Drain and Curb & Gutter 125,000 - - - 125,000 - Hanging Rock Battlefield Phase 2 1,456,304 1,456,303 - 1,456,303 1 25,159 Western Roanoke River Greenway 50,000 1,500 - 1,500 48,500 - Elizabeth Campus Greenway 2,252,578 185,558 12,790 198,348 2,054,230 27,180 Moyer Sports Complex Renovation 27,903,295 20,748,516 5,630,859 26,379,375 1,523,920 8,374,973 Mason Creek Greenway Phase 3 2,610,681 224,380 252,754 477,134 2,133,547 51,114 Library Flooring Replacement 190,000 - - - 190,000 - Library Co-working Space 155,000 - - - 155,000 - Civic Center East/West Fields Restroom 220,000 - 221,070 221,070 (1,070) - Longwood Park Restroom Replacement #2 180,000 - 129,261 129,261 50,739 - Civic Center West Field Lighting Upgrades 250,000 112,749 137,266 250,015 (15) 112,749 Kiwanis Park Wall Pads 110,000 - 93,448 93,448 16,552 - Library Lawn Special Events Space 500,000 - - - 500,000 - Flood Mitigation-CFPF 78,962 74,520 4,442 78,962 - 65,245 Downtown Impr - E Main St/Union St 2,325,959 2,325,959 - 2,325,959 - 314,943 Downtown Impr - E Main St/Market St 5,440,677 482,603 3,712,544 4,195,147 1,245,530 276,540 Downtown Impr - E Main St/White Oak 2,311,825 29,243 32,688 61,931 2,249,894 12,963 Capital Projects Local Reserve 397,629 - - - 397,629 - Downtown Improvements Reserve 90,350 - - - 90,350 - City of Salem, Virginia Capital Projects Fund Statement of Revenues and Expenditures For Period Ending April 30, 2024 Schedule G Project Total Available Year To Budget To Date Encumbrances Project Balance Date Excess Local Funding Reserve 1,832,220 - - - 1,832,220 - Arbitrage 149,308 149,307 - 149,307 1 149,307 Transfer to Schools-2020 Bonds 27,000,000 27,000,000 - 27,000,000 - 801,131 Total Expenditures 102,548,570$ 56,747,745$ 15,196,046$ 71,943,791$ 30,604,779$ 12,397,175 Fund Balance, April 30, 2024 19,016,517$ City of Salem, Virginia Capital Reserve Fund Statement of Revenues and Expenditures For Period Ending April 30, 2024 Schedule H Project Total Available Year To Budget To Date Encumbrances Project Balance Date Fund Balance, July 1, 2023 -$ Revenues: Transfer From General Fund 17,026,870$ 17,026,870$ -$ 17,026,870$ -$ 17,026,870$ Total Revenues 17,026,870 17,026,870 - 17,026,870 - 17,026,870 Expenditures: Capital Reserve 17,026,870 - - - 17,026,870 - Total Expenditures 17,026,870$ -$ -$ -$ 17,026,870$ - Fund Balance, April 30, 2024 17,026,870$ Schedule I Operating Revenues Current Year Budget Current Year Year to Date % of Budget Prior Year Year to Date Variance Sale of Power 46,790,745$ 36,459,656$ 78%33,854,333$ 2,605,323$ Other Electric Revenue 654,799 582,298 89%543,466 38,832 Reserve for Encumbrances 1,703,227 - 0%- - Appropriated from Net Position 3,300,000 - 0%- - Total Operating Revenues 52,448,771 37,041,954 71%34,397,799 2,644,155 . Operating Expenses Other Power Generation - Operation 125,000 40,054 32%63,452 (23,398) Other Power Generation - Maintenance 94,253 56,813 60%19,947 36,866 Purchased Power 28,030,000 21,441,213 76%19,754,254 1,686,959 Transmission - Operation 9,736,000 8,231,149 85%7,911,259 319,890 Transmission - Maintenance 41,339 5,072 12%10,436 (5,364) Distribution - Operations 1,142,527 934,553 82%886,925 47,628 Distribution - Maintenance 1,541,782 1,311,340 85%1,292,672 18,668 Customer Service 662,562 522,520 79%487,975 34,545 Administration & General - Operation 2,641,681 844,031 32%1,020,216 (176,185) Administration & General - Maintenance 239,359 220,570 92%169,736 50,834 Depreciation - 1,407,048 0%1,178,682 228,366 Capital 4,858,117 1,389,910 29%1,456,898 (66,988) Contingency 176,151 - 0%- - Total Operating Expenses 49,288,771 36,404,273 74%34,252,452 2,151,821 Income (loss) Before Transfers 3,160,000 637,681 145,347 492,334 Transfers (Payment in Lieu of Taxes)(3,160,000) (2,633,333) 83%(3,160,000) 526,667 Income (loss)-$ (1,995,652)$ (3,014,653)$ 1,019,001$ Income (loss)-$ (3,991,304)$ (6,029,306)$ 2,038,002$ City of Salem, Virginia Electric Fund Statement of Operations For Ten Months Ending April 30, 2024 Schedule J Operating Revenues Current Year Budget Current Year Year to Date % of Budget Prior Year Year to Date Variance Services 7,400,000$ 6,212,893$ 84%5,902,844$ 310,049$ Other Revenue 464,459 341,846 74%299,530 42,316 Water Federal Grants Revenue - - 0%800 (800) Gain On Sale Of Assets 1,040 1,040 100%7,800 (6,760) Reserve for Encumbrances 741,086 - 0%- - Appropriated from Net Position 1,320,000 - 0%- - Total Operating Revenues 9,926,585 6,555,779 66%6,210,974 344,805 . Operating Expenses Salaries of Personnel 986,455 811,975 82%779,666 32,309 Fringe Benefits 465,075 377,772 81%356,100 21,672 Contractual Services 673,414 486,449 72%497,315 (10,866) Printing and Binding 2,500 754 30%565 189 Advertising 1,000 - 0%- - Utilities 421,200 370,973 88%336,646 34,327 Communications 5,800 3,350 58%3,976 (626) Insurance 38,000 34,426 91%32,318 2,108 Travel and Training 9,800 6,134 63%5,436 698 Miscellaneous 65,730 58,318 89%57,540 778 Materials and Supplies 317,076 199,949 63%179,776 20,173 Depreciation - 710,362 0%712,484 (2,122) Capital 516,451 151,301 29%872,677 (721,376) Contingency 155,423 - 0%- - Total Production Expenses 3,657,924 3,211,763 88%3,834,499 (622,736) Salaries of Personnel 750,853 559,279 74%453,954 105,325 Fringe Benefits 361,704 261,305 72%209,178 52,127 Contractual Services 874,867 794,028 91%687,210 106,818 Printing and Binding - 136 0%- 136 Communications 4,950 3,924 79%4,162 (238) Insurance 32,000 34,275 107%29,734 4,541 Lease/Rent of Equipment 2,000 1,126 56%1,430 (304) Travel and Training 8,300 1,562 19%2,894 (1,332) Miscellaneous 35,530 26,797 75%23,599 3,198 Miscellaneous Credits (255,000) (321,166) 126%(262,080) (59,086) Materials and Supplies 182,374 163,219 89%131,275 31,944 Depreciation - 170,202 0%90,749 79,453 Capital 2,531,668 189,745 7%1,042,487 (852,742) Interest Obligations 1,594,020 204,326 13%250,088 (45,762) Total Distribution Expenses 6,123,266 2,088,758 34%2,664,680 (575,922) Income (loss) Before Transfers 145,395 1,255,258 (288,205)1,543,463 Transfers (Payment in Lieu of taxes)(145,395)(121,672) 84%(130,970) 9,298 Income (loss)-$ 1,133,586$ (419,175)$ 1,552,761$ - Production Distribution City of Salem, Virginia Water Fund Statement of Operations For Ten Months Ending April 30, 2024 Schedule K Operating Revenues Current Year Budget Current Year Year to Date % of Budget Prior Year Year to Date Variance Services 6,997,000$ 5,876,272$ 84%5,676,035$ 200,237$ Other Revenue 149,896 133,378 89%156,903 (23,525) Reserve for Encumbrances 668,181 - 0%- - Total Operating Revenues 7,815,077 6,009,650 77%5,832,938 176,712 . Operating Expenses Salaries of Personnel 853,377 647,683 76%621,915 25,768 Fringe Benefits 402,342 303,825 76%280,621 23,204 Contractual Services 3,519,196 2,137,303 61%2,022,236 115,067 Printing and Binding 1,500 633 42%144 489 Advertising 1,500 - 0%- - Utilities 4,500 4,043 90%3,447 596 Communications 14,850 11,407 77%14,576 (3,169) Insurance 18,500 13,362 72%12,918 444 Lease/Rent of Equipment 3,000 1,126 38%1,430 (304) Travel and Training 12,000 3,304 28%5,752 (2,448) Miscellaneous 39,030 36,888 95%31,061 5,827 Miscellaneous Credits (325,000) (165,585) 51%(147,744) (17,841) Materials and Supplies 86,289 46,503 54%43,333 3,170 Depreciation - 1,191,754 0%1,142,521 49,233 Capital 1,372,678 195,445 14%106,290 89,155 Interest Obligations 1,666,581 72,283 4%71,225 1,058 Contingency 144,734 - 0%- - Total Operating Expenses 7,815,077 4,499,974 58%4,209,725 290,249 Income (loss) before Transfers - 1,509,676 1,623,213 (113,537) Income (loss)-$ 1,509,676$ 1,623,213$ (113,537)$ City of Salem, Virginia Sewer Fund Statement of Operations For Ten Months Ending April 30, 2024 Schedule L Operating Revenues Current Year Budget Current Year Year to Date % of Budget Prior Year Year to Date Variance Shows/rentals 359,850$ 370,357$ 103%382,957$ (12,600)$ Box office shows 1,500,000 1,886,499 126%1,286,111 600,388 Catering and concessions - - 0%158,666 (158,666) Merchandise and commissions 177,500 336,420 190%179,812 156,608 Static advertising 55,000 29,500 54%41,500 (12,000) Miscellaneous income 15,000 22,740 152%23,236 (496) Interest Income - 1,391 0%547 844 Salem Fair 603,000 609,818 101%536,021 73,797 Reserve for encumbrances 309,197 - 0%- - Gain on Sale of Assets 834 26,034 3122%- 26,034 Appropriated from Net Position 100,500 - 0%- - Total Operating Revenues 3,120,881 3,282,759 105%2,608,850 673,909 Operating Expenses Salaries of personnel 1,421,099 1,114,535 78%1,044,415 70,120 Fringe benefits 571,127 414,727 73%378,528 36,199 Maintenance and contractual services 287,968 190,740 66%265,368 (74,628) Printing and binding 500 - 0%1,000 (1,000) Advertising 23,000 18,443 80%20,764 (2,321) Utilities 295,000 249,531 85%268,527 (18,996) Communications 13,900 8,575 62%10,416 (1,841) Insurance 28,500 29,351 103%30,924 (1,573) Leases and Rentals 3,200 3,294 103%1,885 1,409 Travel and training 8,150 7,359 90%8,511 (1,152) Miscellaneous 99,268 91,802 92%80,078 11,724 Show expense 1,296,992 2,062,963 159%1,372,796 690,167 Fair expense 546,100 624,734 114%560,359 64,375 Materials and supplies 81,500 56,838 70%28,468 28,370 Capital 1,093,563 600,842 55%60,408 540,434 Depreciation - 227,546 0%228,557 (1,011) Total Operating Expenses 5,769,867 5,701,280 99%4,361,004 1,340,276 Income (loss) Before Transfers (2,648,986)(2,418,521) (1,752,154)(666,367) Transfers 2,648,986 1,542,488 58%1,340,973 201,515 Income (loss)-$ (876,033)$ (411,181)$ (464,852)$ 0.00 City of Salem, Virginia Salem Civic Center Statement of Operations For Ten Months Ending April 30, 2024 Schedule M Operating Revenues: Current Year Budget Current Year Year to Date % of Budget Prior Year Year to Date Variance Catering 516,682$ 753,357$ 146%614,353$ 139,004$ Concessions 137,833 199,984 145%148,933 51,051 Moyer Concessions 25,000 - 0%- - Salem High Concessions 6,606 6,847 104%6,067 780 Total Operating Revenues 686,121 960,188 140%769,353 190,835 . Operating Expenses: Salaries of personnel 289,671 230,565 80%195,146 35,419 Fringe benefits 111,668 78,982 71%61,066 17,916 Contractual services 9,465 6,516 69%8,633 (2,117) Printing and binding 300 - 0%325 (325) Laundry and Cleaning 2,500 - 0%- - Communications 200 152 76%135 17 Insurance 1,800 1,877 104%1,521 356 Travel and training - 179 0%30 149 Miscellaneous 19,216 24,009 125%157,503 (133,494) Materials and supplies 203,081 242,339 119%197,571 44,768 Capital 60,000 73 0%- 73 Depreciation - 2,947 0%3,653 (706) Total Catering Expenses 697,901 587,639 84%625,583 (37,944) Salaries of Personnel 53,832 53,951 100%36,292 17,659 Fringe Benefits 18,808 12,902 69%9,413 3,489 Contractual services 4,000 22,172 554%11,054 11,118 Miscellaneous 150 (113) -75%54,577 (54,690) Materials and Supplies 27,500 66,387 241%40,789 25,598 Total Concessions Expenses 104,290 155,299 149%152,125 3,174 Salaries of Personnel 9,745 - 0%- - Fringe Benefits 4,484 - 0%- - Contractual services 2,500 - 0%- - Materials and Supplies 13,329 - 0%- - Total Moyer Expenses 30,058 - 0%- - Salaries of Personnel 2,272 1,820 80%2,071 (251) Fringe Benefits 209 498 238%756 (258) Contractual - 1,005 0%- 1,005 Miscellaneous - (9) 0%- (9) Materials and Supplies 1,807 2,142 119%1,315 827 Total Salem High Expenses 4,288 5,456 127%4,142 1,314 Income (loss) Before Transfers (150,416)211,794 (12,497)224,291 Transfers 150,416 - 0%- - Income (loss)-$ 211,794$ (12,497)$ 224,291$ Moyer Concessions Salem High Concessions City of Salem, Virginia Salem Catering and Concessions Statement of Operations For Ten Months Ending April 30, 2024 Catering Concessions City of Salem, Virginia Water and Sewer Capital Fund Statement of Revenues and Expenditures For Period Ending April 30, 2024 Schedule N Project Total Available Year To Budget To Date Encumbrances Project Balance Date Fund Balance, July 1, 2023 10,218,902$ Revenues: Transfer From General Fund 13,575,000$ 13,575,000$ -$ 13,575,000$ -$ 3,356,098$ Total Revenues 13,575,000 13,575,000 - 13,575,000 - 3,356,098 Expenditures: North Salem Water Improvements 6,200,000 - - - 6,200,000 - Roanoke River Upper Sewer Rehab 7,000,000 - - - 7,000,000 - Wiley Ct Sewer Improvements 375,000 - - - 375,000 - Total Expenditures 13,575,000$ -$ -$ -$ 13,575,000$ - Fund Balance, April 30, 2024 13,575,000$ Schedule O Budget Current Year Year to Date Percent to Date Prior Year Year to Date Variance Beginning Net Position -$ 7,846,412$ 6,036,231$ 1,810,181$ Revenue Premiums Paid - City 6,060,000 4,367,440 72% 4,165,084 202,356 Premiums Paid - School 5,240,000 3,751,495 72% 3,554,663 196,832 Premiums Paid - Retirees 765,000 562,225 73% 610,170 (47,945) Dental Premiums Paid 591,050 447,282 76% 438,792 8,490 Interest Earnings 90,000 337,151 375% 197,344 139,807 Miscellaneous 5,000 16,249 325% 4,467 11,782 Total Year to Date Revenues 12,751,050 9,481,842 74% 8,970,520 511,322 Expenses Health Claims 11,545,772 7,861,481 68% 7,088,623 772,858 Dental Claims 591,050 404,446 68% 394,094 10,352 Employee Health Clinic 511,332 329,028 64% 314,640 14,388 Consulting Services 96,896 62,570 65% 62,038 532 Miscellaneous 6,000 4,170 70% 3,889 281 Total Year to Date Expenses 12,751,050 8,661,695 68% 7,863,284 798,411 Ending Net Position -$ 8,666,559$ 7,143,467$ 1,523,092$ City of Salem, Virginia Health Insurance Fund Statement of Revenues and Expenses For Nine Months Ending March 31, 2024 City of Salem, Virginia Schedule of Deposits and Investments For Period Ending April 30, 2024 Schedule P FV as a Cash Value Net Change Fair Value % of 4/30/2024 in Fair Value 4/30/2024 Portfolio Demand & Time Deposits Concentration Account 45,831,388$ -$ 45,831,388$ 29.3% Payroll Account 10,133 - 10,133 0.0% Revenue Recovery Account 77,950 - 77,950 0.0% Utility Billing Account 55,494 - 55,494 0.0% Box Office Account 1,002,861 - 1,002,861 0.6% Held as Fiscal Agent of: Cardinal Academy 720,917 - 720,917 0.5% Court Community Corrections 1,398,730 - 1,398,730 0.9% Held on Behalf of: Economic Development Authority 535,182 - 535,182 0.3% Total Demand & Time Deposits 49,632,655 - 49,632,655 31.6% Investments Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP) 106,925,102 - 106,925,102 68.3% Held on Behalf of: Economic Development Authority LGIP 147,415 - 147,415 0.1% Total Investments 107,072,517 - 107,072,517 68.4% Total Deposits and Investments 156,705,172$ -$ 156,705,172$ 100.0% Item #6A Date: 5/28/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: May 28, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Hold a public hearing and receive the views of citizens within the School Division regarding the School Board appointment for the unexpired term of Rachel Thompson ending December 31, 2026. (As advertised in the May 2, 2024, issue of the Salem Times-Register.) SUBMITTED BY: Chris Dorsey, City Manager SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: City Council is holding a public hearing pursuant to section 22.1 -29.1 of the Code of Virginia as amended to receive citizen views regarding filling the unexpired term ending December 31, 2026, of Rachel Thompson for the City of Salem School Board. As advertised in the Thursday, May 2nd edition of the Salem Times-Register, all candidates seeking appointment must submit a letter of interest and resume prior to the end of this public hearing. Applications received by the Clerk’s office prior to the issuance of this agenda package are included for review. FISCAL IMPACT: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council conduct a public hearing on this item. City of Salem Boards & Commissions Application Form Completing this form is one way to indicate your interest in being considered for appointment to some of the Boards and Commissions for the City of Salem. Only City residents will be considered for service on a Board or Commission. All appointments and re-appointments remain at the discretion of City Council. Please complete and either mail this form to: City of Salem, Attention: Rob Light, Assistant City Manager, P.O. Box 869, Salem, Virginia 24153; email to hrlight@salemva.gov or FAX to (540) 375-4048. Any questions please call the office at 540-375-3017. List a maximum of three (3) Boards, Commissions, Committees or Authorities on which you are interested in serving. 1. 2. 3. Mr. Mrs. Name: Date: ____________ Ms. Home Address: (Zip) Occupation: ________________________________ Employed by: ______________________________________ Home Phone No.: Business Phone No. Fax No. E-Mail: Do you live in the City of Salem? Yes ! No ! Are you currently a member of a City Board, Commission, Committee or Authority? Yes ! No ! If yes, please list: What talent(s) and/or experience can you bring to the Board(s)? What do you feel you can contribute to the Board(s) and to the community that may not be evident from information already on this form? Please use this space for any additional information you would like to provide: A resume or separate sheet with additional information may be included. Attendance requirements: City Council requires appointees to attend at least 75% of the yearly committee meetings. Absences may be excused because of personal illness or serious illness of members of the immediate family, death of a family member, unscheduled or unforeseen business trips, and emergency work assignments only. All other absences are recorded as unexcused. In light of the above, will you be able to attend at least 75% of the regular meetings of the boards to which you may be appointed? Yes ! No ! Salem School Board X Macel H. Janoschka 4/26/24 200 Bentwood Court 24153 Attorney First Truth Law, PLLC 540.761.3372 540.242.1210, ext. 703 maceljanoschka@gmail.com X X Economic Development Authority Please see attached letter of interest. Please see attached letter of interest. X Macel Hubbard Janoschka 200 Bentwood Court Salem, Virginia 24153 (540) 761-3372 maceljanoschka@gmail.com April 29, 2024 Salem City Council – c/o llharris@salemva.gov 114 North Broad Street Salem, VA 24153 Dear Mayor Turk, Vice Mayor Wallace, Mr. Foley, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Holliday: I write to express my interest in the open seat on the Salem School Board. As you likely know, I currently serve on the city’s Economic Development Authority. I very much appreciate the opportunity and Council’s support of me in this capacity. However, after much thought and consideration, I strongly believe that my background and experience would be much more beneficial in service to Salem’s school system. My background as an attorney and my extensive experience serving on community boards will allow me to bring a valuable perspective to the board. Should you disagree, I will gladly continue to serve Salem in my role as an EDA member. My oldest son, Ben, is an eighth grader at Andrew Lewis Middle School who is a member of the Salem High School JV lacrosse team. Lacrosse is his life these days and I am witnessing what it means to be a student-athlete in today’s world. My youngest son, Harrison, is a fifth grader at South Salem Elementary School. Harrison is in the gifted program and his unique way of looking at the world and approaching problems never ceases to amaze me. My husband, Stephen, is the technology education teacher and robotics coach at Salem High School. He has given me his full support to pursue this board opening. Ben started school at South Salem Elementary School in 2015. Since then, I have been significantly involved within our schools. My extensive service within the school system, which is outlined in my attached resume, has provided me with valuable insights into the needs and aspirations of our students, educators, and families. The experience has also enabled me to collaborate closely with various stakeholders, advocate for necessary resources and support, and to contribute to the development of policies and programs that support student success and well-being. I am particularly proud of my participation in the Virginia PTA’s Lobby Day, where I traveled to Richmond to advocate for Salem City Schools at the General Assembly during the 2020 session. I was the only representative from Salem and enjoyed meeting some of our local legislators and advocating for our schools. This experience reinforced my commitment to being a vocal and effective advocate for our students and educators. I also have an extensive amount of community board service as demonstrated by my attached resume. My experience serving as the president of Mill Mountain Theatre’s Board of Directors during the challenging times of COVID-19 has honed my ability to navigate crises, adapt to rapidly changing circumstances, and lead with resilience and innovation. I am proud of the initiatives we implemented to ensure the theater’s sustainability and continued community engagement despite the various challenges. As an attorney, I have developed analytical and problem-solving skills that are crucial for effective governance, and I understand the necessity of confidentiality. I routinely evaluate complex issues, weigh various perspectives, and make informed decisions, all while maintaining confidential information. I am confident my background and these experiences have equipped me with the leadership and strategic planning skills necessary to help guide our school systems effectively. I hope to speak with each of you further regarding my interest. In the meantime, if there is any additional information I can provide, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Macel H. Janoschka Enclosures Macel Hubbard Janoschka 200 Bentwood Court Salem, Virginia 24153 (540) 761-3372 maceljanoschka@gmail.com macel@firsttruthlaw.com PROFESSIONAL Admitted to practice in Virginia and U.S. District Courts for Western District of Virginia and Eastern District of Virginia. EDUCATION HOLLINS UNIVERSITY, Roanoke, VA Certificate in Professional Leadership, May 2011 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF LAW, Columbia, SC J.D. Awarded, May 2006 VIRGINIA TECH, Blacksburg, VA B.A. in Political Science, May 2003 EXPERIENCE FIRST TRUTH LAW, PLLC, Smith Mountain Lake, VA Attorney, September 2022- present - Plaintiff’s practice with a focus on personal injury and medical malpractice. FRITH ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke, VA Principal, January 2014- August 2022 Associate, March 2011- January 2014 - Focus on civil litigation defense with an emphasis on nursing home malpractice, premises liability, automobile liability and workers compensation. GENTRY LOCKE RAKES AND MOORE, Roanoke, VA Associate, September 2007-March 2011 - Represented employers in workers’ compensation matters; represented insureds in General District and Circuit Court; prepared coverage opinions; drafted pleadings and memoranda of law; performed legal research. 23rd JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF VIRGINIA, Roanoke, VA Judicial Law Clerk, Roanoke City Circuit Court, September 2006- September 2007 - Provided legal research for Circuit Court judges; drafted memoranda and opinions; observed General District and Circuit Court proceedings. PUBLICATIONS Co-author, The Insured’s Duty to Give Timely Notice Under a Virginia Liability Insurance Policy, JOURNAL OF CIVIL LITIGATION, Summer 2010. Co-Author, What Women Really Want, VSB Young Lawyers Conference Docket Call, Vol. 26 No. 4 (Spring 2010). Co-author, When are Your Premises "Vacant" for Purposes of Insurance Coverage?, JOURNAL OF CIVIL LITIGATION, Spring 2008. Co-author, Managing White Collar Legal Issues, Chapter 13, Tools for Combating White Collar Crime: Utilizing the FBI and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Thompson Reuters/Aspatore, 2008). Co-author, The Law of Damages in Virginia, Chapter 11, Punitive Damages (2nd ed. 2008). SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS Speaker, “Professionalism and the Client,” Virginia State Bar Professionalism for Law Students Program, Liberty University School of Law, April 2024 Speaker, “Professionalism: Wellness and Work-Life Balance,” Virginia State Bar Harry L. Carrico Professionalism Course, August 2023, June 2022, July 2021 Speaker, “Professionalism and the Client,” Virginia State Bar Professionalism for Law Students Program, Washington and Lee School of Law, November 2023, November 2022 Moderator, Salem City Schools’ City Council Candidate Forum, October 2022 Speaker, “Professionalism and the Client,” Virginia State Bar Professionalism for Law Students Program, University of Virginia, March 2022 Speaker, “Introduction to General District Court,” Roanoke Valley Paralegal Association, March 11, 2021 Speaker, “How to Try a Case in General District Court,” Virginia Association of Defense Attorney’s Young Lawyer Boot Camp, December 4, 2020 Moderator, Salem City Schools’ City Council Candidate Forum, April 2018 Moderator, Roanoke Bar Association’s 2016 Bench-Bar Conference, February 26, 2016 Speaker, “Discovery Issues: Surveillance and Social Media,” Advanced Workers Compensation Seminar, October 9, 2015. Guest Speaker, “Networking,” Virginia Tech College of Liberal Arts & Science Professional Development course, November 5, 2014. Speaker, “Post-Accident Primary,” Decision 2009: Virginia Employment Law Caucus presented by Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, April 9 & 16, 2008. AWARDS Virginia’s 2024 Class of Influential Women of Law, Virginia Lawyers Weekly Virgina’s 2020 Class of Leaders in the Law, Virginia Lawyers Weekly Forty Under Forty Class of 2020, Roanoker Magazine Roanoke Bar Association Young Lawyer of the Year (2017) Member, 2016 Inaugural Class of Virginia Lawyers Weekly Up and Coming Attorneys Recipient, Virginia State Bar Young Lawyers Conference Outstanding Service Award (2009) Virginia SuperLawyers Rising Star, 2013 Personal Injury Defense Virginia SuperLawyers Rising Star, 2014-2017, Medical Malpractice Defense Virginia SuperLawyers Rising Star, 2018-2022, Personal Injury Defense Virginia SuperLawyer, 2023-2024, Personal Injury- Plaintiffs OTHER Current Community/Bar Involvement Salem Economic Development Authority, Member, 2019-present Ted Dalton American Inn of Court, Master of the Bench, 2022- present -Philanthropy Chair, September 2023-May 2024 Virginia State Bar Litigation Section, Board of Governors, 2022-present CHIP of Roanoke Valley, Board Member, 2022-present -Executive Committee, 2023- present Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, Member, 2022-present Virginia Women Attorneys Association, Member, 2022-present Past Community/Bar Involvement Virginia State Bar Committee on Lawyer Well Being, Member, 2021-2023 Virginia State Bar Harry L. Carrico Professionalism Course, Faculty¸ 2020-2023 Mill Mountain Theatre, Board of Directors, 2016- 2022 - President, 2020-2022 Roanoke Bar Association, Board of Directors, 2014- 2023 -President, 2021-2022 Roanoke Law Foundation, Board of Trustees, 2019-2023 -Chair, 2022-2023 Virginia Association of Defense Attorneys, Member, 2007-2022 Junior League of Roanoke Valley, Inc., 2008- 2018 - Finance Vice President, 2011-2012 - President-Elect, 2012-2013 - President, 2013-2014 Virginia State Bar Young Lawyers Conference - Minority Pre-Law Conference Co-Chair, 2008-2009 - Member, Board of Governors, 2010-2014 VSB/VBA Joint ADR Committee, Young Lawyer Liaison, 2014- 2015 Family Service of Roanoke Valley, Board of Directors, 2015- 2018 Blue Ridge Legal Services Pro Bono Hotline, Volunteer, 2008-2018 Roanoke Bar Association Barrister Book Buddies, Volunteer, 2011-2017 Ted Dalton American Inn of Court, Associate Member, 2013-2016 Salem Board of Zoning Appeals, Alternate Member, 2018-2019 Turn the Page, Inc., Grants Committee Member, 2017-2019 Salem City Schools Involvement Andrew Lewis Middle School PTSA, President, 2021-present South Salem PTA Board, Various positions, 2015-present Salem Council of PTAs, President, 2018-2022 Salem City Schools Family Engagement Committee, 2022-present Comprehensive Planning Committee, 2020, 2022, 2024 ALMS Community Advisory Committee, 2023- present Profile of a Graduate Team, 2023 From:James Garst To:Laura Lea Harris Subject:Letter of Support for Macel Janoschka Date:Tuesday, May 14, 2024 12:40:16 PM Dear Members of Salem City Council - I am writing to you to express my full support of Mrs. Macel Janoschka to become a member of the school board for Salem City Schools. I have had the privilege of knowing Macel for the past twenty years. Macel will make an excellent addition to the school board for a variety of reasons. First, and most importantly in my opinion, is that Macel is a person of action. She has the unique ability to effectively lead a group of individuals, but also is not afraid to roll her sleeves up and get a little dirty doing the work. I have witnessed her ability to get things done as she served as PTA President while I was the principal at Andrew Lewis Middle School. She was able to work to build a great working team that ultimately served the faculty and students of ALMS. In addition to serving as president, she has also served as president of the Salem City Central Council of PTA's, a true example of a servant leader. She has also served on numerous planning committees for the school division as well. Being an effective member of any school board requires one to be able to think both constructively and proactively. Macel currently works as an attorney, which provides her with an analytical skill set to weigh all potential outcomes of a situation that may arise. Macel is incredibly collaborative and would work well with the current membership of the School Board. She also has the ability to foresee potential problems before they come to fruition. Macel has received numerous awards as an attorney for clear and consistent leadership characteristics. As a current teacher at Salem High School (and former Principal at ALMS), I am comforted by the fact that someone as qualified as Macel is could potentially serve on the school board. Macel's leadership, intelligence,and analytical skills, as well as her effective communication skills will serve her well. Her many skills and experiences will allow her to collaborate effectively with all stakeholders to implement positive and effective change for our school division. She, more than many, can lead meaningful change for Salem City Schools to achieve their goals of returning to the top 10% of all public schools in the state of Virginia. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 540-558-8301 or jgast@salem.k12.va.us. Sincerely, James F. Garst (Jamie) This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From:Jenny Atkinson To:Laura Lea Harris Subject:[Ext.] Salem City School Board Date:Wednesday, May 22, 2024 7:49:24 AM CAUTION: This message has originated from an external source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to this email. Hi Laura Lea, I am writing on behalf of Macel Janoschka for the vacant school board seat. I’ve known Macel for over four years. We met through PTA as we both serve on multiple executive boards at the elementary, middle and council levels. Macel is the right fit for the vacant position. She is active in school activities as well as part of several committees in which principals recommended her. Macel has all the qualities needed to serve on the school board. She truly listens to people, problem-solves and sees projects and tasks through. Macel serves in many different ways within the elementary and middle schools and is very influential. She is a strong leader who communicates exactly what is needed. Because of her involvement she has the knowledge and understanding of what is currently going on in our community and ideas to improve and grow. Her background in law brings a level of knowledge needed. Macel Janoschka is the right fit for the vacant school board seat. She will representand be the voice for the students, parents and employees of Salem City Schools. Thanks, Jenny Atkinson 540-537-8481 S A L E M C I T Y C O U N C I L , 357 Penguin Lane, Salem, VA 24153 chelseadyerhomes@gmail.com 540 797-4555CHELSEA DYER Please allow this letter to serve as my notice of interest to serve on the Salem City School Board, to fill the unexpired term of Rachel Thompson, with service beginning July 1, 2024 and expiring on December 31, 2026 . Since I previously applied in 2023, my enthusiasm for the position has not wavered. I would be a dedicated addition to the school board with a fresh prospective and heart to serve not only the students and staff in our school system but, the community as as a whole. I would bring my background in business and building construction to the board, as well as a solution based mind set. It is important to me to that our school system continues to thrive and be highly regarded as we face both new challenges, and opportunities. This is important not only for our current students, teachers and staff, including my own children, but to ensure that the Salem City School system has a clear path for success and achievable long term goals. If I was nominated for the Salem City School board position, I would strive to serve all students and faculty members. I feel it is the school boards job to plan and set a path way that empowers everyone under their direction to succeed. The challenge is that this path is different for each individual and is ever evolving. Therefore the School Board has to strike a balance between the traditions of what we know works and modern, forward thinking to best serve the community. Although I am not originally from Salem, I have made it my home and carved out my place in the community. From my time at G & H Contracting, administrating the construction of South Salem Elementary School, to serving on the Salem Sport Foundation board, raising funds and supporting student athletes at Salem High School, I am emersed in the Salem Community and see serving on the school board as another way to stay involved and shape the future of the community, who’s base is truly the school system. I would be honored to serve my community as a member of the School Board. Thank you, Chelsea Dyer References Kristyn Schmidt Former City of Salem Principal 540 798-7866 Jim Sweetwood Roanoke Valley Association of REALTORS Director of Communications and Events 540 772-0526 jim@rvar.com Stephanie Varney Divine FOG Realty Managing Broker 540 798-0529 stephanie@roanokevalleyliving.com S U M M A R Y E D U C A T I O N 357 Penguin Lane, Salem, VA 24153 chelseadyerhomes@gmail.com 540 797-4555CHELSEA DYER Dedicated and motivated community member and parent with over ten years of experience serving her community with an emphasis on volunteering with families, children, students and professionally. Strong ability to identify and mitigate potential issues and see projects through to completion. Possess exceptional communication and interpersonal skills and is able to relate to and serve a broad range of students and peers. Strong organization and planning skills Exceptional written and verbal communication Ability to work independently and as part of a team Detail-oriented and able to handle multiple tasks simultaneously Experience in review, setting, approving and managing budgets Experience with multiple municipality construction projects including design and budgeting Real Estate Associate Brokers License Class A Residential and Commercial Contractors License Annual Home Show Committee | 2022 - Present Roanoke Regional Home Builders Association Bachelor's Degree in Building Construction Minor in Real Estate 2007 – 2011 2003 - 2007 Virginia Tech Northside High School Divine FOG Realty | 2021 - Present Gwyn and Harmon REALTORS | 2013 - 2021 REALTOR G & H Contraction, Inc. | 2009 - 2017 Assistant Project Manager Economic Development Committee | 2024 - Present Grievance Committee | 2021 - Present Affiliates Committee | 2016 - Present Roanoke Valley Association of REALTORS Board Member | 2015 - Present Salem Sports Foundation President | 2024 - 2026 VP of Volunteers | 2022 - 2024 Teacher Appreciation | 2022 - 2024 G. W. Carver Elementary PTA Alternate | 2020 - Present City of Salem Board of Building Appeals Sustainer | 2022 - Present Member Advisor | 2018 - 2020 New Member Co-Chair | 2016 - 2018 New Member Committee | 2013 - 2016 Junior League Roanoke Valley S K I L L S C E R T I F I C A T I O N S P R O F E S S I O N A L E X P E R I E N C E C O M M U N I T Y I N V O L V M E N T Item # 6B Date: 5/28/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: May 28, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Hold a public hearing and consider authorizing the City Manager to finalize and execute documents on the sale of a portion of Tax Map # 91-1-2.1 consisting of an approximate 867 square feet; together with a permanent drainage easement consisting of an approximate 1,139 square feet; together with a temporary easement consisting of an approximate 1,499 square feet, to the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation. (Advertised in the May 23, 2024, issue of the Salem Times-Register.) SUBMITTED BY: Jim Guynn, City Attorney SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The City of Salem owns parcel 91-1-2.1 comprised of approximately 1.8 acres for the purposes of maintaining a stormwater facility. Due to the widening of the north bound lanes on interstate I-81, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requires small areas of this parcel to purchase (@867 square feet), granting of a permanent drainage easement (@1,139 square feet), and granting of a temporary construction easement (@1,499 square feet). These applicable sections do not impact the use of the property for future stormwater needs. The City maintains overhead electric lines that cross the property to be conveyed. The agreement and subsequent recorded deed will include a clause that VDOT will compensate the City for the cost of relocation or removal of these lines in the event that any future transportation project necessitates. FISCAL IMPACT: The Commonwealth of Virginia will pay the City $7,135.00 for the land and easements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council conduct a public hearing as required for the conveyance of real property and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the appropriate documents for the sale and easements in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Item #6C Date: 5/28/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: May 28, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Public hearing on effective real estate tax rate for fiscal year 2024- 2025 SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 58.1-3321, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, when the total assessed value of real property, excluding additional assessments due to new construction or improvements to property, exceeds last year's total assessed value of real property by 1% or more, the effective tax rate increase must be calculated. The City’s real property assessments, excluding new construction and improvements to property, increased 9.97% over the previous year. Therefore, the City must calculate the effective tax rate increase, advertise the effective tax rate increase and conduct a public hearing pertaining to the effective tax rate increase. The calculated effective tax rate increase is 9.97%. The advertisement was published in the Salem Times Register on May 16, 2024 as required by the Code of Virginia. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing. No action is required by Council at this time. Item #6D Date: 5/28/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: May 28, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Request to levy the following tax rates for the 2024-2025 fiscal year: a) Real Estate tax rate of $1.20 per $100 assessed valuation b) Personal property tax rate of $3.40 per $100 assessed valuation c) Machinery and tools tax rate of $3.20 per $100 assessed valuation SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Chapter 8, Section 8.3 of the City Charter requires the City Council to annually lay a tax levy for the ensuing fiscal year on all property, real and personal, subject to taxation for city purposes. State law requires a public hearing be held when the assessment increase for real estate is in excess of 1 percent or a tax rate change is proposed in real estate, personal property or machinery and tools tax. The 2025 reassessment increased the assessed value by more than 1%. A public hearing was held on May 28, 2024. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution which sets the tax rates for the 2024- 2025 fiscal year. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, MAY 28, 2024: RESOLUTION 1468 A RESOLUTION IMPOSING TAXES ON REAL ESTATE, TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY, MACHINERY AND TOOLS, AND ALL LEGAL SUBJECTS OF TAXATION FOR CITY PURPOSES, INCLUDING THE PROPERTY OF RAILROAD, EXPRESS, TELEPHONE, TELEGRAPH, WATER, HEAT (GAS), LIGHT, AND POWER COMPANIES BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that taxes be and are hereby levied for the support of the City government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024, and ending June 30, 2025, as follows: 1. Upon all real estate and improvements thereon (not exempt from taxation by law) within the City, there shall be and is hereby levied a tax of one dollar and twenty cents ($1.20) on every one hundred dollars ($100.00) assessed valuation thereof; 2. Upon all tangible personal property (except as hereinafter excepted), and other and sundry legal subjects of taxation, including the property of railroad, express, telephone, telegraph, water, heat (gas), light and power companies (not exempt from taxation by law), there shall be and is hereby levied a tax of three dollars and forty ($3.40) on every one hundred dollars ($100.00) assessed valuation thereof; provided, however, those certain household goods and personal effects classified in Section 58.1-3504 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended to date, are hereby exempted from this levy. 3. Upon all machinery and tools, there shall be and is hereby levied a tax of three dollars and twenty cents ($3.20) on every one hundred dollars ($100) assessed valuation thereof. This resolution shall be in full force and effect on July 1, 2024. Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows: H. Hunter Holliday – William D. Jones – Byron Randolph Foley – James W. Wallace III – Renee F. Turk – ATTEST: H. Robert Light Clerk of Council City of Salem, Virginia Item #6E Date: 5/28/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: May 28, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution adopting the City Job Class List and Pay Scale SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie B. Jordan, Finance Director SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The City annually approves the schematic list of job classes and the pay scale that is included in the budget. The attached pay scale reflects an increase of 2% for each range. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the attached resolution that adopts the schematic list of job classes and the pay scale for FY2024-2025. City of Salem, Virginia Schematic List of Positions - Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Job Title Grade Min Mid Max Account Services Supervisor 33 $ 64,024.69 $ 83,232.10 $ 102,439.51 Accountant 30 $ 55,306.94 $ 71,899.02 $ 88,491.10 Accounting Assistant 22 $ 37,433.91 $ 48,664.09 $ 59,894.26 Accounting Manager 36 $ 74,116.59 $ 96,351.56 $ 118,586.54 Accounting Technician 23 $ 39,305.61 $ 51,097.29 $ 62,888.97 Accreditation Manager 27 $ 47,776.21 $ 62,109.08 $ 76,441.94 Administrative Assistant 21 $ 35,651.35 $ 46,346.75 $ 57,042.15 Animal Control Officer 29 $ 52,673.27 $ 68,475.26 $ 84,277.24 Animal Shelter Manager 33 $ 64,024.69 $ 83,232.10 $ 102,439.51 Animal Shelter Worker 21 $ 35,651.35 $ 46,346.75 $ 57,042.15 Applications Manager 36 $ 74,116.59 $ 96,351.56 $ 118,586.54 Assistant Chef 20 $ 33,953.66 $ 44,139.76 $ 54,325.86 Assistant Chief WTP Operator 31 $ 58,072.28 $ 75,493.97 $ 92,915.66 Assistant Commonwealth Attorney 34 $ 67,225.93 $ 87,393.71 $ 107,561.49 Assistant Director of Civic Facilities 39 $ 85,799.21 $ 111,538.98 $ 137,278.74 Assistant Director of Community Development/Engineer 40 $ 90,089.17 $ 117,115.93 $ 144,142.68 Assistant Director of Electric Utility 40 $ 90,089.17 $ 117,115.93 $ 144,142.68 Assistant Director of Finance 39 $ 85,799.21 $ 111,538.98 $ 137,278.74 Assistant Director of Human Resources 39 $ 85,799.21 $ 111,538.98 $ 137,278.74 Assistant Director of Parks & Recreation 39 $ 85,799.21 $ 111,538.98 $ 137,278.74 Assistant Director of Water and Sewer 40 $ 90,089.17 $ 117,115.93 $ 144,142.68 Assistant Food and Beverage Manager 26 $ 45,501.15 $ 59,151.50 $ 72,801.85 Assistant Recreation Program Supervisor 25 $ 43,334.43 $ 56,334.76 $ 69,335.09 Assistant Telecommunicator Manager 32 $ 60,975.90 $ 79,268.67 $ 97,561.44 Assistant to the City Manager 34 $ 67,225.93 $ 87,393.71 $ 107,561.49 Assistant Utility Lines Manager 31 $ 58,072.28 $ 75,493.97 $ 92,915.66 Assistant Utility Maintenance Manager 31 $ 58,072.28 $ 75,493.97 $ 92,915.66 Asst Dir of Streets and GM-Street Super 40 $ 90,089.17 $ 117,115.93 $ 144,142.68 Automotive Mechanic 26 $ 45,501.15 $ 59,151.50 $ 72,801.85 Automotive Service Worker 21 $ 35,651.35 $ 46,346.75 $ 57,042.15 Box Office Supervisor 28 $ 50,165.02 $ 65,214.53 $ 80,264.04 Building Engineer 30 $ 55,306.94 $ 71,899.02 $ 88,491.10 Building Maintenance Assistant 23 $ 39,305.61 $ 51,097.29 $ 62,888.97 Building Maintenance Superintendent 34 $ 67,225.93 $ 87,393.71 $ 107,561.49 Building Maintenance Technician I 26 $ 45,501.15 $ 59,151.50 $ 72,801.85 Building Maintenance Technician II 28 $ 50,165.02 $ 65,214.53 $ 80,264.04 Building Maintenance Technician III 30 $ 55,306.94 $ 71,899.02 $ 88,491.10 Building Official 36 $ 74,116.59 $ 96,351.56 $ 118,586.54 Business Analyst I 28 $ 50,165.02 $ 65,214.53 $ 80,264.04 Business Analyst II 31 $ 58,072.28 $ 75,493.97 $ 92,915.66 Business Analyst III 33 $ 64,024.69 $ 83,232.10 $ 102,439.51 Captain Deputy Sheriff 36 $ 74,116.59 $ 96,351.56 $ 118,586.54 Chef 25 $ 43,334.43 $ 56,334.76 $ 69,335.09 Chief Deputy Commissioner of the Revenue 32 $ 60,975.90 $ 79,268.67 $ 97,561.44 Chief Deputy Court Clerk I 32 $ 60,975.90 $ 79,268.67 $ 97,561.44 City of Salem, Virginia Schematic List of Positions - Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Job Title Grade Min Mid Max Chief Deputy Treasurer 32 $ 60,975.90 $ 79,268.67 $ 97,561.44 Chief of Police 44 $ 109,503.95 $ 142,355.14 $ 175,206.33 Chief WTP Operator 34 $ 67,225.93 $ 87,393.71 $ 107,561.49 Childrens Services Supervisor 30 $ 55,306.94 $ 71,899.02 $ 88,491.10 City Assessor 42 $ 99,323.31 $ 129,120.31 $ 158,917.30 City Garage Supervisor 30 $ 55,306.94 $ 71,899.02 $ 88,491.10 City Horticulturist 34 $ 67,225.93 $ 87,393.71 $ 107,561.49 Civic Center Booking Coordinator 22 $ 37,433.91 $ 48,664.09 $ 59,894.26 Civic Center Events & Production Manager 33 $ 64,024.69 $ 83,232.10 $ 102,439.51 Civic Center Events Manager 31 $ 58,072.28 $ 75,493.97 $ 92,915.66 Civic Center Mechanic 26 $ 45,501.15 $ 59,151.50 $ 72,801.85 Civic Center Operations Supervisor 25 $ 43,334.43 $ 56,334.76 $ 69,335.09 Civic Center Operations Worker 20 $ 33,953.66 $ 44,139.76 $ 54,325.86 Civic Center Public Relations Associate 20 $ 33,953.66 $ 44,139.76 $ 54,325.86 Civic Facilities Sales Representative 29 $ 52,673.27 $ 68,475.26 $ 84,277.24 Civil Engineer I 33 $ 64,024.69 $ 83,232.10 $ 102,439.51 Civil Engineer II 35 $ 70,587.22 $ 91,763.39 $ 112,939.56 Codes Compliance Investigator I 25 $ 43,334.43 $ 56,334.76 $ 69,335.09 Codes Enforcement Officer I 26 $ 45,501.15 $ 59,151.50 $ 72,801.85 Codes Enforcement Officer II 28 $ 50,165.02 $ 65,214.53 $ 80,264.04 Communications Specialist 28 $ 50,165.02 $ 65,214.53 $ 80,264.04 Construction Inspector 26 $ 45,501.15 $ 59,151.50 $ 72,801.85 Construction Project Manager 32 $ 60,975.90 $ 79,268.67 $ 97,561.44 Crime Analyst 28 $ 50,165.02 $ 65,214.53 $ 80,264.04 Custodian 20 $ 33,953.66 $ 44,139.76 $ 54,325.86 Deputy Chief of Police 41 $ 94,593.63 $ 122,971.72 $ 151,349.81 Deputy City Clerk-Executive Assistant 28 $ 50,165.02 $ 65,214.53 $ 80,264.04 Deputy Commissioner of the Revenue II 24 $ 41,270.89 $ 53,652.16 $ 66,033.42 Deputy Commonwealth Attorney 39 $ 85,799.21 $ 111,538.98 $ 137,278.74 Deputy Court Clerk II 22 $ 37,433.91 $ 48,664.09 $ 59,894.26 Deputy Court Clerk III 26 $ 45,501.15 $ 59,151.50 $ 72,801.85 Deputy Fire Chief 40 $ 90,089.17 $ 117,115.93 $ 144,142.68 Deputy Registrar 23 $ 39,305.61 $ 51,097.29 $ 62,888.97 Deputy Sheriff I 28 $ 50,165.02 $ 65,214.53 $ 80,264.04 Deputy Sheriff II 30 $ 55,306.94 $ 71,899.02 $ 88,491.10 Deputy Treasurer I 22 $ 37,433.91 $ 48,664.09 $ 59,894.26 Deputy Treasurer II 24 $ 41,270.89 $ 53,652.16 $ 66,033.42 Director of Civic Facilities 43 $ 104,289.48 $ 135,576.32 $ 166,863.17 Director of Communications 42 $ 99,323.31 $ 129,120.31 $ 158,917.30 Director of Community Development 44 $ 109,503.95 $ 142,355.14 $ 175,206.33 Director of Economic Development 43 $ 104,289.48 $ 135,576.32 $ 166,863.17 Director of Electric Utility 44 $ 109,503.95 $ 142,355.14 $ 175,206.33 Director of Finance 44 $ 109,503.95 $ 142,355.14 $ 175,206.33 Director of Human Resources 43 $ 104,289.48 $ 135,576.32 $ 166,863.17 Director of Parks and Recreation 43 $ 104,289.48 $ 135,576.32 $ 166,863.17 Director of Streets and General Maint 43 $ 104,289.48 $ 135,576.32 $ 166,863.17 City of Salem, Virginia Schematic List of Positions - Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Job Title Grade Min Mid Max Director of Technology Systems 44 $ 109,503.95 $ 142,355.14 $ 175,206.33 Director of Water and Sewer 43 $ 104,289.48 $ 135,576.32 $ 166,863.17 Economic Development Specialist 25 $ 43,334.43 $ 56,334.76 $ 69,335.09 Electric Line Crew Leader 35 $ 70,587.22 $ 91,763.39 $ 112,939.56 Electric Line Supervisor 36 $ 74,116.59 $ 96,351.56 $ 118,586.54 Electric Line Technician I 28 $ 50,165.02 $ 65,214.53 $ 80,264.04 Electric Line Technician II 33 $ 64,024.69 $ 83,232.10 $ 102,439.51 Electric Meter Technician 23 $ 39,305.61 $ 51,097.29 $ 62,888.97 Electrical Engineer 37 $ 77,822.42 $ 101,169.14 $ 124,515.86 Electrical Engineering Technician 30 $ 55,306.94 $ 71,899.02 $ 88,491.10 EMS Billing Specialist 21 $ 35,651.35 $ 46,346.75 $ 57,042.15 EMS Captain 35 $ 70,587.22 $ 91,763.39 $ 112,939.56 EMS Coordinator 38 $ 81,713.54 $ 106,227.60 $ 130,741.66 Equipment Operator I 23 $ 39,305.61 $ 51,097.29 $ 62,888.97 Equipment Operator II 25 $ 43,334.43 $ 56,334.76 $ 69,335.09 Equipment Operator III 27 $ 47,776.21 $ 62,109.08 $ 76,441.94 Evidence Technician 21 $ 35,651.35 $ 46,346.75 $ 57,042.15 Financial Services Supervisor 34 $ 67,225.93 $ 87,393.71 $ 107,561.49 Fire Administrative Captain 35 $ 70,587.22 $ 91,763.39 $ 112,939.56 Fire and EMS Training Officer 38 $ 81,713.54 $ 106,227.60 $ 130,741.66 Fire Battalion Chief Administration 38 $ 81,713.54 $ 106,227.60 $ 130,741.66 Fire Battalion Chief Operations 38 $ 81,713.54 $ 106,227.60 $ 130,741.66 Fire Captain 35 $ 70,587.22 $ 91,763.39 $ 112,939.56 Fire Chief 44 $ 109,503.95 $ 142,355.14 $ 175,206.33 Firefighter EMT 28 $ 50,165.02 $ 65,214.53 $ 80,264.04 Firefighter Paramedic 31 $ 58,072.28 $ 75,493.97 $ 92,915.66 Fleet Management Superintendent 34 $ 67,225.93 $ 87,393.71 $ 107,561.49 Food and Beverage Manager 31 $ 58,072.28 $ 75,493.97 $ 92,915.66 GIS Analyst 27 $ 47,776.21 $ 62,109.08 $ 76,441.94 GIS Manager 36 $ 74,116.59 $ 96,351.56 $ 118,586.54 Human Resource Technician 23 $ 39,305.61 $ 51,097.29 $ 62,888.97 Human Resources Data Specialist 25 $ 43,334.43 $ 56,334.76 $ 69,335.09 Human Resources Generalist 30 $ 55,306.94 $ 71,899.02 $ 88,491.10 Inventory and Procurement Specialist 24 $ 41,270.89 $ 53,652.16 $ 66,033.42 Inventory Assistant 20 $ 33,953.66 $ 44,139.76 $ 54,325.86 Inventory Technician 23 $ 39,305.61 $ 51,097.29 $ 62,888.97 Laborer 20 $ 33,953.66 $ 44,139.76 $ 54,325.86 Lead Lineman 34 $ 67,225.93 $ 87,393.71 $ 107,561.49 Legal Administrator 26 $ 45,501.15 $ 59,151.50 $ 72,801.85 Librarian 29 $ 52,673.27 $ 68,475.26 $ 84,277.24 Library Director 42 $ 99,323.31 $ 129,120.31 $ 158,917.30 Library Technician 22 $ 37,433.91 $ 48,664.09 $ 59,894.26 Lieutenant Deputy Sheriff 35 $ 70,587.22 $ 91,763.39 $ 112,939.56 Maintenance-Construction Worker I 21 $ 35,651.35 $ 46,346.75 $ 57,042.15 Maintenance-Construction Worker II 22 $ 37,433.91 $ 48,664.09 $ 59,894.26 Major Deputy Sheriff 37 $ 77,822.42 $ 101,169.14 $ 124,515.86 City of Salem, Virginia Schematic List of Positions - Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Job Title Grade Min Mid Max Master Deputy Sheriff 31 $ 58,072.28 $ 75,493.97 $ 92,915.66 Master Deputy Sheriff II 32 $ 60,975.90 $ 79,268.67 $ 97,561.44 Master Police Officer 31 $ 58,072.28 $ 75,493.97 $ 92,915.66 Meter Reader 21 $ 35,651.35 $ 46,346.75 $ 57,042.15 Meter Service Supervisor 28 $ 50,165.02 $ 65,214.53 $ 80,264.04 Network Administrator 34 $ 67,225.93 $ 87,393.71 $ 107,561.49 Organizational Development and Training Coordinator 32 $ 60,975.90 $ 79,268.67 $ 97,561.44 Paralegal 23 $ 39,305.61 $ 51,097.29 $ 62,888.97 Parks and Recreation Superintendent 36 $ 74,116.59 $ 96,351.56 $ 118,586.54 Payroll Manager 33 $ 64,024.69 $ 83,232.10 $ 102,439.51 Payroll Technician 25 $ 43,334.43 $ 56,334.76 $ 69,335.09 Permit Technician 23 $ 39,305.61 $ 51,097.29 $ 62,888.97 Planner I 33 $ 64,024.69 $ 83,232.10 $ 102,439.51 Planner II 35 $ 70,587.22 $ 91,763.39 $ 112,939.56 Planning and Zoning Administrator 36 $ 74,116.59 $ 96,351.56 $ 118,586.54 Police Captain 38 $ 81,713.54 $ 106,227.60 $ 130,741.66 Police Lieutenant 35 $ 70,587.22 $ 91,763.39 $ 112,939.56 Police Officer 29 $ 52,673.27 $ 68,475.26 $ 84,277.24 Police Records Specialist 21 $ 35,651.35 $ 46,346.75 $ 57,042.15 Police Sergeant 33 $ 64,024.69 $ 83,232.10 $ 102,439.51 Process Improvement-Business Effectiveness Director 42 $ 99,323.31 $ 129,120.31 $ 158,917.30 Project Manager 36 $ 74,116.59 $ 96,351.56 $ 118,586.54 Purchasing Manager 31 $ 58,072.28 $ 75,493.97 $ 92,915.66 Real Estate Appraiser 27 $ 47,776.21 $ 62,109.08 $ 76,441.94 Recreation Maintenance Worker 20 $ 33,953.66 $ 44,139.76 $ 54,325.86 Recreation Program Supervisor I 27 $ 47,776.21 $ 62,109.08 $ 76,441.94 Recreation Program Supervisor II 29 $ 52,673.27 $ 68,475.26 $ 84,277.24 Recreation Site Supervisor 24 $ 41,270.89 $ 53,652.16 $ 66,033.42 Risk Manager 31 $ 58,072.28 $ 75,493.97 $ 92,915.66 Sanitation Equipment Operator 25 $ 43,334.43 $ 56,334.76 $ 69,335.09 Sanitation Superintendent 34 $ 67,225.93 $ 87,393.71 $ 107,561.49 Sanitation Worker 22 $ 37,433.91 $ 48,664.09 $ 59,894.26 Scanning-Imaging Technician 21 $ 35,651.35 $ 46,346.75 $ 57,042.15 Senior Accountant 32 $ 60,975.90 $ 79,268.67 $ 97,561.44 Senior Administrative Assistant 23 $ 39,305.61 $ 51,097.29 $ 62,888.97 Senior Animal Control Officer 30 $ 55,306.94 $ 71,899.02 $ 88,491.10 Senior Automotive Mechanic 28 $ 50,165.02 $ 65,214.53 $ 80,264.04 Senior Codes Compliance Investigator 32 $ 60,975.90 $ 79,268.67 $ 97,561.44 Senior Firefighter EMT 29 $ 52,673.27 $ 68,475.26 $ 84,277.24 Senior Firefighter Paramedic 32 $ 60,975.90 $ 79,268.67 $ 97,561.44 Senior Librarian 30 $ 55,306.94 $ 71,899.02 $ 88,491.10 Senior Library Assistant 22 $ 37,433.91 $ 48,664.09 $ 59,894.26 Senior Meter Reader 23 $ 39,305.61 $ 51,097.29 $ 62,888.97 Senior Police Officer 30 $ 55,306.94 $ 71,899.02 $ 88,491.10 Senior Police Records Specialist 22 $ 37,433.91 $ 48,664.09 $ 59,894.26 Senior Programmer Analyst 33 $ 64,024.69 $ 83,232.10 $ 102,439.51 City of Salem, Virginia Schematic List of Positions - Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Job Title Grade Min Mid Max Senior Real Estate Appraiser 30 $ 55,306.94 $ 71,899.02 $ 88,491.10 Senior Tax Technician 24 $ 41,270.89 $ 53,652.16 $ 66,033.42 Senior WTP Operator 28 $ 50,165.02 $ 65,214.53 $ 80,264.04 Sergeant Deputy Sheriff 33 $ 64,024.69 $ 83,232.10 $ 102,439.51 Small Engine Mechanic 25 $ 43,334.43 $ 56,334.76 $ 69,335.09 Stormwater Manager 35 $ 70,587.22 $ 91,763.39 $ 112,939.56 Streets Crew Supervisor 29 $ 52,673.27 $ 68,475.26 $ 84,277.24 Streets Superintendent 34 $ 67,225.93 $ 87,393.71 $ 107,561.49 Tax Specialist 26 $ 45,501.15 $ 59,151.50 $ 72,801.85 Tax Supervisor 28 $ 50,165.02 $ 65,214.53 $ 80,264.04 Technical Services Supervisor 30 $ 55,306.94 $ 71,899.02 $ 88,491.10 Technology Manager 36 $ 74,116.59 $ 96,351.56 $ 118,586.54 Technology Support Specialist 28 $ 50,165.02 $ 65,214.53 $ 80,264.04 Telecommunications Manager 38 $ 81,713.54 $ 106,227.60 $ 130,741.66 Telecommunicator I 25 $ 43,334.43 $ 56,334.76 $ 69,335.09 Telecommunicator II 27 $ 47,776.21 $ 62,109.08 $ 76,441.94 Transfer Clerk 23 $ 39,305.61 $ 51,097.29 $ 62,888.97 Tree Trimmer 25 $ 43,334.43 $ 56,334.76 $ 69,335.09 Utility Asset Manager 38 $ 81,713.54 $ 106,227.60 $ 130,741.66 Utility Billing Specialist 24 $ 41,270.89 $ 53,652.16 $ 66,033.42 Utility Lines Crew Supervisor 29 $ 52,673.27 $ 68,475.26 $ 84,277.24 Utility Lines Manager 34 $ 67,225.93 $ 87,393.71 $ 107,561.49 Utility Lines Technician I 21 $ 35,651.35 $ 46,346.75 $ 57,042.15 Utility Lines Technician II 23 $ 39,305.61 $ 51,097.29 $ 62,888.97 Utility Locator 24 $ 41,270.89 $ 53,652.16 $ 66,033.42 Utility Maintenance Manager 34 $ 67,225.93 $ 87,393.71 $ 107,561.49 Utility Maintenance Mechanic 25 $ 43,334.43 $ 56,334.76 $ 69,335.09 Utility Maintenance Technician 23 $ 39,305.61 $ 51,097.29 $ 62,888.97 Water Meter Mechanic 23 $ 39,305.61 $ 51,097.29 $ 62,888.97 Water Quality Manager 28 $ 50,165.02 $ 65,214.53 $ 80,264.04 WTP Operator Class I 27 $ 47,776.21 $ 62,109.08 $ 76,441.94 WTP Operator Class II 25 $ 43,334.43 $ 56,334.76 $ 69,335.09 WTP Operator III 23 $ 39,305.61 $ 51,097.29 $ 62,888.97 WTP Operator Trainee 22 $ 37,433.91 $ 48,664.09 $ 59,894.26 Range Range Range Range Minimum Midpoint Maximum 20 33,953.66$ 44,139.76$ 54,325.86$ 21 35,651.35$ 46,346.75$ 57,042.15$ 22 37,433.91$ 48,664.09$ 59,894.26$ 23 39,305.61$ 51,097.29$ 62,888.97$ 24 41,270.89$ 53,652.16$ 66,033.42$ 25 43,334.43$ 56,334.76$ 69,335.09$ 26 45,501.15$ 59,151.50$ 72,801.85$ 27 47,776.21$ 62,109.08$ 76,441.94$ 28 50,165.02$ 65,214.53$ 80,264.04$ 29 52,673.27$ 68,475.26$ 84,277.24$ 30 55,306.94$ 71,899.02$ 88,491.10$ 31 58,072.28$ 75,493.97$ 92,915.66$ 32 60,975.90$ 79,268.67$ 97,561.44$ 33 64,024.69$ 83,232.10$ 102,439.51$ 34 67,225.93$ 87,393.71$ 107,561.49$ 35 70,587.22$ 91,763.39$ 112,939.56$ 36 74,116.59$ 96,351.56$ 118,586.54$ 37 77,822.42$ 101,169.14$ 124,515.86$ 38 81,713.54$ 106,227.60$ 130,741.66$ 39 85,799.21$ 111,538.98$ 137,278.74$ 40 90,089.17$ 117,115.93$ 144,142.68$ 41 94,593.63$ 122,971.72$ 151,349.81$ 42 99,323.31$ 129,120.31$ 158,917.30$ 43 104,289.48$ 135,576.32$ 166,863.17$ 44 109,503.95$ 142,355.14$ 175,206.33$ 45 114,979.15$ 149,472.90$ 183,966.64$ City of Salem, Virginia Pay Scale for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, MAY 28, 2024: RESOLUTION 1469 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that the following schematic list of job classes and pay ranges adopted by Resolution 1455 on June 12, 2023, shall be amended and be a part of the 2024-2025 fiscal year budget; and the effective date of the implementation of this pay plan shall be July 1, 2024: Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows: H. Hunter Holliday – William D. Jones – Byron Randolph Foley – James W. Wallace III – Renee F. Turk – ATTEST: H. Robert Light Clerk of Council City of Salem, Virginia Item #6F Date: 5/28/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: May 28, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Hold a public hearing on the proposed budget for fiscal year 2024-2025 SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This time has been set aside for a public hearing on the proposed annual budget for fiscal year 2024-2025. The proposed budget was presented to the City Council on April 8, 2024 and advertised in the Salem Times Register on May 2, 2024 and May 9, 2024. A copy of the proposed budget was made available on the City website https://salemva.gov/214/Annual- Budgets. The School’s budget is included in the overall City budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing. Item #6G Date: 5/28/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: May 28, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution approving the Salem City Schools fiscal year 2024-2025 budget SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Attached is a resolution approving the fiscal year 2024-2025 budget for the Salem City Schools. The budget was approved by the School Board on March 21, 2024. The proposed budget is available for review on the School’s website at https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/slmsdva/Board.nsf/Public . The approval of the FY 2024-2025 budget for Salem City Schools is being requested to fulfill our legal requirement of approving the budget. The budget is prepared for informative and fiscal planning purposes only and does not actually commit or appropriate funds for expenditure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the attached resolution approving the budget for Salem City Schools for the 2024-2025 fiscal year. Salem City Schools Summary of Proposed Budget As of April 9,2024 Attachment A FY 2025 Note: This page is shown for general comparison of totals only. This schedule is based on the original adopted budget whereas the detailed budget shows any budget amendments year to date which may differ School Operating Fund Budget FY 2024 Adopted Budget FY 2025 Proposed Budget as of 4/9/2024 Increase (Decrease) of FY 25 from FY 24 Adopted Increase (Decrease) % Revenue State Revenue, excluding Sales Tax (1)$22,968,335 $25,731,101 $2,762,766 12.0%(1)44.66% Sales Tax 4,416,377 4,423,748 7,371 0.2%(2)7.68% Subtotal-All State Revenue $27,384,712 $30,154,849 $2,770,137 10.1%52.34% Federal Revenue 3,858,581 4,001,953 143,372 3.7%(3)6.95% Local Revenue 22,896,130 22,896,130 0 0.0%(4)39.74% Other Revenue 512,774 564,441 51,667 10.1%(5)0.98% Total School Fund Revenue Budget $54,652,197 $57,617,373 $2,965,176 5.4%100.00% Expenditures Central Administration $2,250,233 $2,241,116 ($9,117)-0.4%(6)3.8% Instruction-Centralized Cost 6,268,772 8,006,950 1,738,178 27.7%(7)13.7% Salem High School 11,674,534 12,488,351 813,817 7.0%(8)21.3% Andrew Lewis Middle School 8,156,251 8,685,037 528,786 6.5%(8)14.8% G. W. Carver 4,272,609 4,510,800 238,191 5.6%(8)7.7% West Salem 3,830,062 4,120,481 290,419 7.6%(8)7.0% South Salem 3,707,351 3,910,007 202,656 5.5%(8)6.7% East Salem 4,067,130 4,442,495 375,365 9.2%(8)7.6% Attendance and Health 1,748,187 1,755,883 7,696 0.4%(8)3.0% Transportation 2,349,216 2,476,100 126,884 5.4%(8)4.2% Special Purpose Grants 3,858,581 4,001,953 143,372 3.7%(3)6.8% Non Departmental (Incl Debt Service)2,469,271 1,863,200 (606,071)-24.5%(9)3.2% Total School Fund Expenditure Budget $54,652,197 $58,502,373 $3,850,176 7.0%100.0% Budget Shortfall ($885,000) (6) Reflects changes in salaries due to raises and changes in personnel. Also includes addition/removal of positions as directed by the need of the division. (7) Reflects changes in salaries due to raises and changes in personnel. Also includes addition/removal of positions as directed by the need of the division and those no longer funded by ESSER or ALL In Tutoring grant funds. Includes increases in textbooks and instructional software licensing fee increases. (8) Reflects changes in salaries due to raises and changes in personnel. Also includes addition/removal of positions as directed by the need of the division and those no longer funded by ESSER or ALL In Tutoring grant funds. (9) Temporary account for an average 4% Salary Increase of $1,505,495 placeholder and a $259,008 placeholder for the health insurance increases. Also included a proposed laptop lease of $98,697. (1) State revenue changes due to rebenchmarking year outcomes and an anticipated Compensation Supplement update. (2) Sales tax is budgeted using local estimate (i.e. State's estimate less $100,000). (3) Reflects mostly the FY 24 Amended budget as it is the most updated Federal grant information received. Includes updates of the ESSER Federal COVID-19 related grants anticipated carryover amounts (only 1 left), to include the reduction of grants that have been spent. Includes a new Youth Tobacco Use Prevention grant of $159,000 (4) Reflects level funding from the City with a overall shortfall of the budget. The hope is that he City would be able to increase the local funding to close the budget gap and balance the budget. (5) Includes an increase in Broadband lease contributions per the fee schedule as well as an increase for a contingency budget for mid-year changes in the amount of $50,000. Summary of FY25 Amended Budget Proposal Adoption 04092024 Attachment A Cafeteria Fund Budget FY 2024 Adopted Budget FY 2025 Proposed Budget as of 4/9/2024 Increase (Decrease) of FY 25 from FY 24 Adopted Increase (Decrease) % Revenue Salem High School $732,705 $782,705 $50,000 6.8%31.2% Andrew Lewis Middle School 532,713 552,713 20,000 3.8%22.1% G W Carver 329,333 384,333 55,000 16.7%15.3% West Salem 242,824 262,824 20,000 8.2%10.5% South Salem 221,716 241,716 20,000 9.0%9.6% East Salem 226,405 281,405 55,000 24.3%11.2% $2,285,696 $2,505,696 $220,000 9.6%100.0% Expenditures Salem High School $832,383 $882,383 $50,000 6.0%35.2% Andrew Lewis Middle School 522,615 542,615 20,000 3.8%21.7% G W Carver 248,756 303,756 55,000 22.1%12.1% West Salem 238,282 258,282 20,000 8.4%10.3% South Salem 219,335 239,335 20,000 9.1%9.6% East Salem 224,325 279,325 55,000 24.5%11.1% Total Cafeteria Fund Budget $2,285,696 $2,505,696 $220,000 9.6%100.0% $56,937,893 $61,008,069 $4,070,176 7.1% Total Proposed School Budget (School Operating, Grant and Cafeteria) Summary of FY25 Amended Budget Proposal Adoption 04092024 Attachment A IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, May 28, 2024: RESOLUTION 1470 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SALEM CITY SCHOOLS FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 BUDGET WHEREAS, Section 22.1-93 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, provides that the governing body of the City shall prepare and approve an annual budget; and WHEREAS, said budget shall be prepared and approved for informative and fiscal planning purposes only; and WHEREAS, the Salem City School Board approved their fiscal year 2024-2025 budget on March 21, 2024, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA that the Salem City Schools budget for the fiscal year 2024-2025 as shown on the attached schedules is hereby approved. Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows: H. Hunter Holliday – William D. Jones – Byron Randolph Foley – James W. Wallace III – Renee F. Turk – ATTEST: _________________ H. Robert Light Clerk of Council City of Salem, Virginia Item #6H Date: 5/28/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: May 28, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Consider on first reading the ordinance adopting the fiscal year 2024- 2025 budget SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The adoption of the FY 2024-2025 budget is being requested to fulfill our legal requirement of adopting and having a first and second reading of the adoption ordinance before July 1. Approval of the City budget is for informative and fiscal planning purposes only and does not actually commit or appropriate funds for expenditure. The commitment of funds will not occur until the approval of the second reading of the FY 2024-2025 appropriation ordinance. Attached are revisions to the proposed budget that was presented on April 8, 2024. Also attached is the ordinance adopting the fiscal year 2024-2025 budget for the City of Salem. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the attached ordinance for adoption of the budget for the 2024- 2025 fiscal year. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2024. WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2503 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, provides that the governing body of the City shall prepare and approve an annual budget; and WHEREAS, said budget shall be prepared and approved for informative and fiscal planning purposes only; and WHEREAS, the budget contains a complete itemized and classified plan of all contemplated expenditures and all estimated revenues for the ensuing year; and WHEREAS, a brief synopsis of said budget was published as required by the provisions of Section 15.2-2506 of the State Code, and the public hearing as required thereon was held on May 28, 2024; WHEREAS, in the opinion of Council an emergency exists, therefore, the fact of the existence of such emergency is hereby now declared to exist and this ordinance is so adopted and shall be in full force and effect on July 1, 2024. NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Council of the City of Salem Virginia that the budget for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2024 is hereby adopted. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 2024. Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows: H. Hunter Holliday – William D. Jones – Byron Randolph Foley – James W. Wallace III – Renee F. Turk – Passed: Effective: /s/ Renee F. Turk Mayor ATTEST: H. Robert Light Clerk of Council City of Salem, Virginia Item #6I Date: 5/28/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY HALL MEETING DATE: May 28, 2024 AGENDA ITEM: Consider on first reading the ordinance to appropriate funds for the fiscal year 2024-2025 budget SUBMITTED BY: Rosemarie B. Jordan, Director of Finance SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The fiscal year 2024-2025 budget was presented to the Council on April 8, 2024 and advertised in the Salem Times Register on May 2, 2024 and May 9, 2024. A copy of the proposed budget was made available to the public on the City website https://salemva.gov/214/Annual-Budgets. The School’s budget is included in the overall City budget . In addition to adopting the annual budget, the local government must appropriate the funds. This is the first reading of the ordinance to appropriate funds for the fiscal year 2024-2025 budget. A second reading is scheduled for June 24, 2024 following adoption of the budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the first reading of the fiscal year 2024-2025 budget appropriation ordinance. AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2024, AS AMENDED. WHEREAS, this budget is in accordance with the provisions of Section 8.3 of the Charter of the City of Salem, and the applicable state laws; and WHEREAS, noted in this budget is the following:  The budget incorporates revenue increases in real estate, sales, business license, meals and lodging taxes and interest earnings. The general fund has a 4.9% increase projected for revenues.  The budget incorporates up to a 4% pay raise for full-time employees.  The General Fund budget includes $6,123,033 for capital purchases and $1,010,475 in reserve for any emergencies. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict wit h the provisions of this ordinance be and the same are hereby repealed. NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia that the funds for operation of the City of Salem for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 20 24 are hereby appropriated. Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows: H. Hunter Holliday – William D. Jones – Byron Randolph Foley – James W. Wallace III – Renee F. Turk – Passed: Effective: /s/ Renee F. Turk Mayor ATTEST: H. Robert Light Clerk of Council City of Salem, Virginia Item # 6J Date: 5/28/2024 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA HELD AT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEETING DATE: 5/28/2024 AGENDA ITEM: Consider the adoption of Resolution 1467 adopting the Resilience Plan. SUBMITTED BY: William L. Simpson, Jr., P.E. – Assistant Director of Community Development/City Engineer SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The City of Salem has applied for funds from the Virginia Community Flood Preparedness Fund (CFPF) to develop a master plan for the City to help identify and mitigate flooding and drainage areas, known as the Resilience Plan. This plan is the first step toward increasing the City’s flood resilience, i.e., the ability to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from threats resulting from flooding, with minimum damage to social well-being, health, the economy, and the environment. With the adoption of this plan, the City will be able to apply for more CFPF grant funds for specific mitigation projects. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City of Salem. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve the Flood Resilience Plan. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, MAY 28, 2024: RESOLUTION 1467 ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF SALEM FLOOD RESILIENCE PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Salem experiences flooding events on a regular basis; and WHEREAS, the City of Salem has applied for funds from the Virginia Community Flood Preparedness Fund (CFPF) to develop a Resilience Plan; and WHEREAS, the Resilience Plan is a document developed to help identify and mitigate flood prone areas, and allow the City to apply for further State funds for these projects . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Salem does hereby adopt the Flood Resilience Plan; and, Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows: H. Hunter Holliday - William D. Jones Byron Randolph Foley – James W. Wallace, III – Renée F. Turk - ATTEST: _________________________________ H. Robert Light Clerk of Council City of Salem, Virginia For Virginia Community Flood Preparedness Fund by Department of Conservation and Recreation in cooperation with the Virginia Resources Authority Prepared by: City of Salem Resilience Plan 2023 City of Salem Resilience Plan i 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Salem’s History ................................................................................................................. 3 2.0 NATURAL HAZARDS & VULNERABILITIES ............................................................................. 5 2.1 Flooding and Related Natural Hazards ............................................................................. 6 2.1.1 Flooding ............................................................................................................................ 6 2.1.2 Hurricanes & Tropical Storms .......................................................................................... 9 2.1.3 Landslides ....................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.4 Dam Safety ..................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 The Changing Climate ..................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Critical Facilities .............................................................................................................. 14 2.4 Vulnerable Populations .................................................................................................. 16 3.0 CURRENT EFFORTS TO REDUCE FLOODING & DEVELOP RESILIENCE ................................ 19 3.1 Community Education and Engagement ....................................................................... 19 3.1.1 Council and Committee Involvement ............................................................................ 20 3.1.2 Community Education .................................................................................................... 20 3.1.3 Public Meetings .............................................................................................................. 21 3.2 City Plans & Ordinances ................................................................................................. 21 3.3 Federal, State, and Local Programs ................................................................................ 26 3.3.1 FEMA National Flood Insurance Program ...................................................................... 26 3.3.2 IFLOWS ........................................................................................................................... 26 3.3.3 MS4 ................................................................................................................................. 27 3.4 Regional Efforts & Partners ............................................................................................ 27 3.5 Engineered Defenses ...................................................................................................... 29 3.5.1 Detention ....................................................................................................................... 30 3.5.2 Retention ........................................................................................................................ 31 3.5.3 Infiltration ....................................................................................................................... 31 3.5.4 Bioretention ................................................................................................................... 32 3.5.5 UGDS .............................................................................................................................. 33 3.5.6 Manufactured ................................................................................................................. 34 3.5.7 Permeable Pavement ..................................................................................................... 35 3.6 Environmental Assets ..................................................................................................... 36 3.6.1 Forests & Trees ............................................................................................................... 36 3.6.2 Vacant Parcels & Open Space ........................................................................................ 40 3.6.3 Floodplain ....................................................................................................................... 40 3.6.4 Greenways ...................................................................................................................... 41 3.6.5 Nature-based Solutions .................................................................................................. 42 4.0 A PLAN FOR RESILIENCE ..................................................................................................... 43 4.1 Community Feedback ..................................................................................................... 43 4.2 Gap Analysis ................................................................................................................... 48 4.3 Priority Recommendations ............................................................................................ 49 4.3.1 Projects ........................................................................................................................... 51 City of Salem Resilience Plan ii 2023 4.3.2 Studies ............................................................................................................................ 77 4.3.3 Capacity Building & Planning ......................................................................................... 78 5.0 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 82 6.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 82 FIGURES Figure 1: Rescue operation on East Main Street, Salem, VA (Carpenter, 1990)…………………………..4 Figure 2: Salem’s Flood-prone Areas .............................................................................................. 5 Figure 3: Watersheds in Salem ....................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4: Estimated Residential Flooding ....................................................................................... 9 Figure 5: Virginia IDF curve output example ................................................................................ 12 Figure 6: Salem’s Critical Facilities ................................................................................................ 15 Figure 7: Variables and themes included in the Social Vulnerability Index .................................. 17 Figure 8: Salem’s RLAs and Social Vulnerability ........................................................................... 19 Figure 9: Salem’s Urban Forest Overlay District ........................................................................... 25 Figure 10: Salem’s Approved Tree Species ................................................................................... 25 Figure 11: Salem’s Stormwater BMPs ........................................................................................... 30 Figure 12: Typical Dry Detention Basin Section ............................................................................ 31 Figure 13: Typical Retention Facility Plan ..................................................................................... 31 Figure 14: Possible Infiltration Facility Section ............................................................................. 32 Figure 15: Typical Bioretention Facility Schematic ....................................................................... 33 Figure 16: Typical UGDS ................................................................................................................ 34 Figure 17: Typical CDS Schematic ................................................................................................. 35 Figure 18: Typical Permeable Pavement Section ......................................................................... 36 Figure 19: Relationship between Natural Features and Impervious Cover with Surface Runoff (EPA, 2003) .................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 20: UTC Cover (Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission et al., 2010) ................ 38 Figure 21: UTC Potential Cover (Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission et al., 2010) . 39 Figure 22: Salem’s Vacant Parcels & City Owned Properties ....................................................... 40 Figure 23: Salem’s Greenways, Trails, and Public Parks ............................................................... 42 Figure 24: Potential Project Sites .................................................................................................. 52 TABLES Table 1: Projected Changes in Precipitation for the City of Salem using the Projected Intensity- Duration-Frequency Curve Data Tool for Virginia ........................................................................ 13 Table 2: Intersect between Social Vulnerability and RLAs in Salem, Virginia .............................. 18 Table 3: Comprehensive Plan Themes and Objectives that Increase Flood Resiliency ................ 22 Table 4: Ordinances Regarding Flood Resilience .......................................................................... 23 Table 5: Demographic and Flood Risk Responses......................................................................... 43 Table 6: Priority Recommendations and Commonwealth Resilience Planning Principles Matrix 50 APPENDIX A: SCORING MATRIX & CRITERIA City of Salem Resilience Plan iii 2023 ACRONYMS Base Flood Elevation BFE Best Management Practices BMPs Capital Improvement Plan CIP Cooperating Technical Partners CTP Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps DFIRM Department of Conservation and Recreation DCR Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA FEMA Community Rating System CRS Flood Insurance Rate Maps FIRM Floodplain Overlay District FOD Green Infrastructure GI Integrated Flood Observing and Warning System IFLOWS Intensity-duration-frequency IDF International Panel on Climate Change IPCC Miles per Hour mph Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MS4 National Flood Insurance Program NFIP Regional Stormwater Advisory Committee RCSWAC Repetitive Loss Areas RLAs Representative Concentration Pathways RCPs Roanoke Valley – Alleghany Regional RVAR Roanoke Valley Alleghany Planning Commission RVAPC Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission RVARC Roanoke Valley Regional Stormwater Management Plan RVR SMP Social Vulnerability Index SVI Stormwater Management Plan SWMP Total Maximum Daily Load TMDL Underground Detention System UGDS Urban Tree Canopy UTC Virginia Department of Environmental Quality DEQ Virginia’s Stormwater Management Program VSMP Watershed Management Plans WMPs City of Salem Resilience Plan 1 2023 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Salem presents this Resilience Plan as an important first step toward increasing the City’s flood resilience, i.e., the ability to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from threats resulting from flooding, with minimum damage to social well-being, health, the economy, and the environment. The overarching goal is to plan the actions and measures necessary to balance growth with the need to build greater resilience in natural and human systems. The City formed a team comprised of Community Development personnel from the engineering department and hired Wetland Studies and Solutions Inc. (WSSI) to assist with developing a framework for achieving that goal. The team researched Salem’s history and documented resilience initiatives already implemented by the City or in collaboration with regional partners. A thorough review of City plans, protocols, policies, and programs took place, focusing on resiliency, stormwater management, floodplain management, severe weather events, and comprehensive planning. The team then evaluated the City’s environmental assets and engineered defenses to understand the green and gray infrastructure defense measures already in place for flood protection. To ensure future climatic conditions and vulnerable populations were considered, literature was reviewed to find the best models available for consideration. Further, the community engagement survey provided valuable feedback to better understand the demographics affected by flooding and specific needs. The team combined the findings on flooding and natural hazards with vulnerability assessments to determine where the socially vulnerable populations intersected with those hazards. During the final phase of the research, the team synthesized all the findings from the literature review, models, analyses, and community engagement survey to create the gap analysis and apply a ranking matrix to prioritize project evaluation and implementation. Drawing from existing ordinances and policies, the gap analysis identifies studies and projects the City could expand upon or create to boost resilience. The matrix was used to score the final list of studies and projects, using a weighted system for prioritization. Before its adoption by the City Council, the entire team meticulously reviewed the completed Plan to provide a foundation for forthcoming studies and projects aimed at bolstering Salem's flood resilience. Additionally, it serves as a basis for applying for state funding to support resiliency efforts. While the Plan's initial development phase is complete, the City remains committed to engaging with the community to improve its understanding of flooding issues and resilience. Therefore, this Plan remains open to future revisions that deal with the evolving concepts of flood resilience and community perspectives. It's important to note that this Plan focuses solely on flood resilience, but its methods were developed to be adapted for broader resilience applications. 1.0 INTRODUCTION Following the guidance of the Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Plan (2021), the City of Salem defines resilience as the capability of individuals and communities to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from significant multi-hazard threats with minimum damage to social City of Salem Resilience Plan 2 2023 well-being, health, the economy, and the environment. As the City increasingly faces the realities of heavier precipitation and storm events, the need to build greater flood resilience in communities has become a prevailing priority. The Resilience Plan lays out Salem’s approach to flood protection and adaptation, focused on making adjustments in natural or human systems to the changing environment to moderate the negative effects of climate change and help citizens better prepare for and deal with those challenges. The City of Salem’s Resilience Plan is guided by the following five core principles: 1. Project-based with projects focused on flood control and resilience. 2. Incorporates green infrastructure and nature-based infrastructure to the maximum extent possible. 3. Includes considerations of all parts of a locality regardless of socioeconomics or race, working to identify and address socioeconomic inequities and enhance equity through adaptation and protection efforts. 4. Includes coordination with other local and inter jurisdictional projects, plans, and activities and understands fiscal realities, focusing on the most cost-effective solutions for protection and adaptation of communities, businesses, and critical infrastructure. 5. Based on the best available science, and incorporates climate change, sea level rise, storm surge (where appropriate), and current flood maps. Salem recognizes that in most cases, additional funding mechanisms will be necessary to implement the measures needed to increase the resilience of homes, businesses, and infrastructure. The City also recognizes that low-income and minority communities are particularly vulnerable due to several factors. Therefore, the studies and projects recommended in this Plan strive to alleviate inequities and maximize the effectiveness of limited resources. The overarching goal is to plan the actions and measures necessary to adapt to the changing climate system, balancing growth with the need to build greater resilience in natural and human systems. This Resilience Plan provides a framework for achieving that goal which includes the following main sections: • Section 1.0 - Characterizes resilience and outlines the principles that guide the development of this Plan. • Section 2.0 - Evaluates natural hazards and social vulnerabilities to help the City prioritize areas experiencing heavy vulnerability and repetitive loss. • Section 3.0 - Reviews the impact of Salem’s ongoing efforts on flood resilience. • Section 4.0 - Identifies where gaps exist and evaluates additional measures. Their alignment with the five guiding principles is presented in the final sections, including a discussion of each and the findings from preliminary field assessments. The City intends for the Plan to be regularly updated to maintain its utility in the face of both changing conditions and new information. City of Salem Resilience Plan 3 2023 1.1 Salem’s History Salem was the first locality established in the Roanoke Valley in 1802, and the growth rate that followed in the last two centuries has left very little developable land within the City’s boundaries (City of Salem, 2012). Often restricted to the flat floodplain areas near water bodies, various areas within the City of Salem are susceptible to flooding (City of Salem, n.d.). Therefore, it is important for Salem residents and businesses to take the actions necessary to increase their flood resilience which is the ability to prevent flooding and cope with damage incurred from flood events (Cutter et al., 2008). To start, it is important to take a look at the history of Salem’s development and historical flood events, as these often reveal the actions and measures needed to help build greater future resilience in prevention and recovery. Situated in the Shenandoah Valley between the Allegheny and Blue Ridge Mountains on the Roanoke River, Salem is a prime location for interstate commerce and development. In 1816, the Roanoke Navigation Company was established on the Roanoke River to promote riverboat traffic, which led to Salem’s first population boom (City of Salem, 2012). In 1920, Salem’s population was 4,159 residents and a large increase occurred between 1950 and 1960, growing the town by 135%, from 6,823 to 16,058 residents. In the next decade, Salem experienced a 37% increase in population. Salem’s population is currently 25,346 residents (US Census Bureau, 2020), and as the City becomes more urbanized and developed, the likelihood and severity of flooding increases (National Academies, 2019). Development often replaces the previously existing topsoil, vegetation, and varying elevations (permeable surfaces that hold water) with roads, parking lots, and buildings (impermeable surfaces that do not hold water) (Konrad, 2016). This accelerates the rate of stormwater, as it flows from land into nearby waterways, raising water levels quickly and increasing the chance of flooding (National Academies, 2019). However, Salem does require all new development to comply with Virginia stormwater management criteria which often requires stormwater management facilities to control runoff. Salem’s proximity to the Roanoke River has historically exacerbated the effects of flooding because of the vastness of impervious surfaces and mountainous terrain, providing ideal conditions for flood waters to collect and build strength quickly. This heightens the flood hazard in Salem within the City’s six watersheds: Barnhardt Watershed, Butt Hollow Watershed, Cole Branch Watershed, Dry Branch Watershed, Mason Watershed, and Gish Branch Watershed. Since 1877, over 17 large floods have occurred in the Roanoke Valley with four of the largest happening in the past 20 years (RVAR Commission, 2019). The four largest floods on record occurred in June 1972, April 1978, November 1985, and April 1992. The 1972 flood on the Roanoke River, resulting from Tropical Storm Agnes, was a 50-year flood (i.e., a flood that has a 1 in 50 chance of occurring in any given year) damaging approximately 400 homes in the Roanoke-Salem area. On November 5, 1985, a 200-year flood event (i.e., a flood that has a 1 in 200 chance of occurring in a given year) inundated the Roanoke Valley when heavy storms from the remnants of Hurricane Juan stalled over the area (Corrigan, 2020). Damage to the Roanoke- Salem area cost an estimated $440 million, and the floodwaters were so high in Salem, hundreds of residents had to be rescued by boat and helicopter (Carpenter, 1990; Corrigan, 2020) (Figure 1). City of Salem Resilience Plan 4 2023 Figure 1: Rescue operation on East Main Street, Salem, VA (Carpenter, 1990) While the most severe flooding on the Roanoke River is usually the result of heavy rains from tropical storms and hurricanes, tributary stream flooding from local thunderstorms or frontal systems are more frequent and just as damaging to people and property (Dewberry & Davis, 1997). The most severe flooding in Salem occurs along the major waterways, roads, and Repetitive Loss Areas (RLAs) shown in Figure 2. The many flood-prone roads in Salem include the following: Apperson Drive, Colorado Street, East Main Street, East Riverside Drive, Electric Road, Epperly Lane, Front Street, Homer Lane, Lancing Drive, Mill Lane, Pine Bluff, River Side Drive, Sycamore Drive, Union Street, West Main Street, and Wildwood Road (RVAR Commission, 2019). The RLAs are defined as follows: • Two or more claims of more than $1,000 paid by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) within any rolling ten-year period since 1978; • Four or more separate claims exceeding $5,000 or more; or • At least two separate claims that cumulatively exceed the structure’s market value (Roanoke Stormwater, 2021). City of Salem Resilience Plan 5 2023 Figure 2: Salem’s Flood-prone Areas With 104 RLAs costing an average of $152,307 a year (RVAR Commission, 2019), Salem ranks in the top 10 communities for repetitive loss claims in Virginia (VA DCR, 2005). To combat this, the Severe Repetitive Loss Grant program was created to help implement mitigation projects for repetitive loss properties. Mitigation projects have included acquisition or relocation of at-risk structures and conversion of the property to open space, elevation of existing structures, or dry floodproofing historic properties (FEMA, 2011). As of 2018 (FEMA), Salem has acquired and demolished 18 residential flood-prone structures and obtained grant funding to floodproof a large business. Although actions have already been taken, additional flood resilience measures are needed in these areas to become more prepared and resilient to flooding. 2.0 NATURAL HAZARDS & VULNERABILITIES Natural hazard events can impose long-lasting effects that impact people and the natural systems on which they depend for sustenance, protection, livelihoods, and recreation (Summers et al., 2018). In planning for resilience, the increasing prominence of extreme weather events makes it critical for Salem to examine its vulnerability and recoverability. The following sections evaluate the risk that natural hazards impose and level of social vulnerability, which can ultimately help Salem identify areas to target for improvement to reduce vulnerabilities and increase resilience to these events. City of Salem Resilience Plan 6 2023 2.1 Flooding and Related Natural Hazards The Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (2019) identifies the areas in Salem most vulnerable to flooding and related natural hazards. This data is summarized below, providing baseline justification for future studies and projects aimed at increasing resiliency. 2.1.1 Flooding Widespread flooding or flash flooding primarily occurs in the City of Salem during heavy precipitation and storm events. Streams fill up quickly from the heavy rain, allowing floodwater to flow through steep terrain and pick up velocity, before rushing into developed areas. The floodplain, the natural area of land adjacent to streams and rivers, is the first line of defense against flooding, yet development often prevents the floodplain from being able to fully absorb the floodwaters. The houses, businesses, and associated impervious surfaces (e.g., parking lots) located in Salem’s floodplain do not absorb and slow water the way natural floodplains do, causing floodwaters to pick up speed and inflict even more damage. Further, gray infrastructure measures, such as culverts, are sometimes overwhelmed when heavy rain falls in a short period of time, extending the flooding into adjacent areas. For these reasons, the RVAR Commission (2019) found that Salem has a high probability of flooding and is highly vulnerable to it. The City of Salem’s repetitive loss data helps planners identify areas experiencing repetitive flooding, or RLAs. The RLAs in each watershed are summarized below and depicted in Figure 3. City of Salem Resilience Plan 7 2023 Figure 3: Watersheds in Salem Barnhardt Creek Barnhardt Creek is located in southern Salem, and as of 2019, there were approximately 30 homes located in the Barnhardt Creek floodplain, with 20 experiencing heavy flooding. Major flooding issues on Barnhardt Creek is upstream of Cravens Creek Road (located in the westernmost part of Roanoke City at the border with the City of Salem), and upstream of Electric Road – State Route 419 in the Farmingdale subdivision (located between Rt. 685 and Rt. 419 at the junction of Roanoke County, the City of Salem, and City of Roanoke) along Lakemont Drive. The Meadow Creek subdivision located in southwest Roanoke County also experiences flooding, both upstream and downstream of Meadow Creek Drive (off of Rt. 686). The Roanoke Valley Regional Stormwater Management Plan (Dewberry & Davis, 1997) estimated that 36 houses in the watershed would be flooded by a 100-year storm event (1% annual chance of flooding). Butt Hollow Creek Butt Hollow Creek is located in the western portion of Salem and flows southeasterly for about three miles to its confluence with the Roanoke River. There are approximately 30 homes located in the Butt Hollow Creek floodplain, and more than 10 experience heavy flooding. The major flooding problems on Butt Hollow Creek are at Routes 11/460 and Butt Hollow Road (Rt. 640) at the western corporate limits of the City of Salem. The Roanoke Valley Regional Stormwater City of Salem Resilience Plan 8 2023 Management Plan estimated that 29 houses in the watershed would be flooded by a 100-year storm event. Cole Hollow Brook From 3,020 feet above sea level on Fort Lewis Mountain, Cole Hollow Brook flows southwesterly and then southeasterly for about 4 miles until its confluence with the Roanoke River in Salem. The southern portion of this watershed is in Salem at Rt. 618 and Rt. 11. Approximately 45 buildings/homes in west Salem along Cole Hollow Brook are located in the 100-year floodplain, with more than 10 experiencing heavy flooding. One of the major flooding problems on Cole Hollow Brook is upstream of West Main Street in the City of Salem at Horner Lane, and another is downstream of Interstate 81 in the Mitchell subdivision in west Salem along Windsor Avenue. The Roanoke Valley Regional Stormwater Management Plan estimated that 43 houses in the watershed would be flooded by a 100-year storm event. Dry Branch The southern portion of the Dry Branch watershed is in northern Salem. The major flooding problems occur in the Hockman Subdivision at Dry Branch’s crossing of East Main Street (Rt. 11) and Burwell Street and at the Cameron Court subdivision at Dry Branch’s crossing of Carrollton Avenue in Salem. The Roanoke Valley Regional Stormwater Management Plan estimated that 149 houses in the watershed would be flooded by a 100-year storm event. Gish Branch Originating on Fort Lewis Mountain in north Roanoke County, the Gish Branch watershed descends from 3,080 feet above sea level. It flows in a southeasterly direction for about 3.5 miles until its confluence with Mason Creek in the City of Salem. Gish Branch lies wholly within north central Roanoke County and the north central portion of Salem. Approximately 11 homes along Gish Branch on North Mill Road (Rt. 631) are located in the floodplain, with more than 8 experiencing frequent flooding. One of the major flooding problems on Gish Branch is upstream of Kessler Mill Road (Rt. 630) in east Salem, where several homes and a commercial building are regularly inundated. The Roanoke Valley Regional Stormwater Management Plan estimated that 12 houses in the watershed would be flooded by a 100-year storm event. Mason Creek Originating at an elevation of 3,260 feet above sea level on Fort Lewis Mountain in northern Roanoke County near Big Bear Rock Gap, the Mason Creek watershed is a 29.6 square mile drainage basin. It includes the Gish Branch watershed and is in north central Roanoke County, eastern Salem, and western City of Roanoke. The watershed is fan-shaped and has a length of about 8.5 miles and a maximum width of 9 miles near its headwaters. From Fort Lewis Mountain, Mason Creek flows northeasterly for about seven miles to Mason Cove where it turns and flows southeasterly 7.5 miles to its confluence with the Roanoke River in the City of Salem. Buildings and roads located in the floodplain experience regular flooding, and excessive debris accumulation clogs exacerbates flooding issues. In the downstream portion of Mason Creek, the major flooding problems are at two trailer parks, the Salem Village Trailer Park (south of the City of Salem Resilience Plan 9 2023 intersection of Rt. 460 and Kessler Mill Road in Salem) and a trailer park located along Schrader Street in eastern Salem, south of the Salem Turnpike (Rt. 460). These trailer parks are subject to frequent flooding. Another major problem in the Mason Creek watershed is in the vicinity of East Main Street, where several buildings and houses are frequently inundated, including the Lakeside Plaza Shopping Center. Other areas vulnerable to flooding include North Electric Road to Janee Drive (north of Interstate 81), Janee Drive to Carvins Cove Road, Carvins Cove Road to Catawba Valley Road, and Catawba Valley Road to Plunkett Road (all sections parallel Mason Creek and Kessler Mill Road from the City of Salem and then north along Catawba Road, Rt. 311, into Roanoke County). The Roanoke Valley Regional Stormwater Management Plan estimated that 519 houses in the watershed would be flooded by a 100-year storm event. Figure 4 shows that Mason Creek and Dry Branch watershed have a greater number of houses that are vulnerable to flood hazards. Figure 4: Estimated Residential Flooding 2.1.2 Hurricanes & Tropical Storms Since 1932, 25 hurricanes and tropical storms have brought damaging floods to the City of Salem (Homefacts, 2023). While hurricanes have a constant speed exceeding 74 miles per hour (mph), some of the greatest rainfall amounts are brought by much slower (1 to 10 mph) yet tenacious tropical systems. Widespread rainfall between 6 and 12 inches or more is common during a hurricane or tropical storm, frequently producing deadly and destructive floods. The risk from flooding depends on several factors: the speed of the storm, its interactions with other weather systems, the terrain it encounters, and ground saturation. Though coastal storms have a higher risk of flooding associated with storm surges, large amounts of rain can occur more than 100 miles inland, where flash floods and landslides are typically the major threats to Salem residents. Though the RVAR Commission (2019) found that Salem has a low probability of a hurricane hazard occurrence, the City has a medium to high vulnerability to hurricanes because when they 36 29 43 149 12 519 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Barnhardt Creek Butt Hollow Creek Cole Hollow Brook Dry Branch Gish Branch Mason Creek Estimated Houses in the Watershed that would be Flooded by a 100-year Storm Event City of Salem Resilience Plan 10 2023 do occur, the result is often very damaging. Unfortunately, the National Weather Service and other agencies are currently unable to predict the occurrence and location of future hurricanes, though they can track them once they’ve been identified. Based on past events and a changing climate system, it is likely that hurricane and tropical storm flooding will continue to pose a problem for Salem; therefore, studies and projects are needed to reduce vulnerability and boost resiliency. 2.1.3 Landslides Landslides and the resulting debris flows in Salem are most often the result of unusually heavy rain from hurricanes and intense storms saturating the soil and reducing the ability of steep slopes to resist the downslope pull of gravity. The debris flows, ranging from watery mud to thick, rocky mud (like wet cement), are dense enough to carry boulders, trees, and cars down the slope. Landslides are unpredictable and can be very damaging to people and property. The best defense is to prevent erosion, which increases the inherent weaknesses in rock or soil, by implementing best management practices (BMPs) that stabilize the soil, especially on slopes. Nature-based BMPs, such as tree canopy and land conservation, prevent erosion and changes in stormwater runoff and drainage, providing some of the most effective ways to prevent landslides from occurring. Primarily due to the mountainous terrain and high probability and vulnerability to flooding, the RVAR Commission (2019) found that Salem has a medium probability of a landslide occurring. Yet, due to the stabilizing vegetation and tree canopy found on most slopes, Salem’s vulnerability to landslides is low. 2.1.4 Dam Safety Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) is responsible for ensuring compliance with dam safety laws and is the lead state agency for assessing and mitigating flood risks related to dams. Owned by the Western Virginia Water Authority, the Clifford D. Craig Memorial Dam at the Spring Hollow Reservoir was classified by DCR as a High Hazard dam, with an inundation zone that flows through the City of Salem adjacent to the Roanoke River. This means that, upon failure, this dam would cause probable loss of life or serious economic damage. However, the dam at Spring Hollow is of a type that has never experienced a structural failure and is unaffected by rainfall or peak mean flow of any rivers or streams. However, if the dam fails, inundation would significantly raise the Roanoke River levels in the City. The Western Virginia Water Authority inspects the dam annually to ensure it is structurally sound. In the unlikely event of a catastrophic dam failure, or if conditions should occur that would increase the likelihood of such an event occurring, the public would be notified through all major media outlets. Salem residents can also register their phone number with the Western Virginia Water Authority through their Everbridge notification system, a free service with an automated phone dialing system that notifies customers of important information including safety issues and water service interruptions. City of Salem Resilience Plan 11 2023 2.2 The Changing Climate The climate is changing, evidenced by the increase in global surface temperature of 1.09°C above historic baseline levels (IPCC, 2023). According to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is likely that warming will continue to increase and exceed 1.5°C during the 21st century. Using the EPA CREAT Climate Scenarios Projection Map (n.d.), the City of Salem should expect an estimated 5.3% increase in average annual precipitation by 2035 and a 10.3% increase by 2060. EPA’s Streamflow Projections Map (n.d.) shows that by the end of the century, high streamflows in the City could be more than 1.5 times what they are now. In the near term, the projected increase in frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation would increase rain- generated local flooding, and the changes in floods, landslides, and water availability would potentially lead to severe consequences for people, infrastructure, and the economy in Salem’s mountain region. Stormwater BMPs, both grey (pipes, tanks, concrete channels, etc.) and green (vegetated practices like rain gardens, grassed swales, etc.), help Salem guard against the effects of climate change and prepare for the projected increase in precipitation and storm events. Conventional BMP design has relied on historic climate data, which may not prove resilient enough to the increases in precipitation volume (Job, 2020). As the climate continues to warm and precipitation becomes more extreme, scientists (Job, 2020; Montalto et al., 2021; Wood, 2021) anticipate the following BMP performance changes: • Decreased pollutant load reduction. • Increased peak flows above design standards. • Increased downstream channel erosion. • Shifting vegetation palettes in bioretention systems. • More mobilized sediment in the contributing drainage area. • Rising water tables, with unknown impacts on pollutant removal efficiency. • Increased vulnerability of streams and stormwater channels to erosion. • Loss of capacity and damage experienced at the outfall. • Increased erosion, sedimentation, and leaching and resuspension in ponds. • Flooding through inlets and exceeded soil infiltration capacity. • Impacted stream restoration structural elements due to increased erosion, inaccurate predictions of design parameters (width, depth, meander radii, etc.), poor reference site selection, and shifting design principles. As a result, the increase in runoff volumes, peak discharges, and duration of flow velocities will likely result in culvert failures, scour, and stream bank erosion, allowing floodwaters to carry point (from a single source) and nonpoint pollution (from many sources) to downstream waterways. The prospect of these climate-related impacts necessitates critical decision-making in system management. These decisions are based in large part on the development of climate change projections (understanding how the Earth will warm) and updated intensity-duration-frequency City of Salem Resilience Plan 12 2023 (IDF) curves (understanding how the precipitation patterns will change), with the overall goal of designing stronger, more resilient stormwater management systems and BMPs. Climate change informed IDF curves, based on multiple global climate models, have recently been developed for Virginia to help localities incorporate climate change projections into local stormwater design standards (https://midatlantic-idf.rcc-acis.org/). The development of these IDF curves was undertaken by a team of individuals from the RAND corporation, Carnegie Mellon University, Cornell University, and a team from NOAA called MARISA. Most cities rely on NOAA’s Atlas 14 as the primary source of IDF curves; however, using Atlas 14 has been a problem for many Virginians, primarily because Atlas 14 does not incorporate data after the year 2000 and relies on flawed assumptions of stationarity (i.e., climate does not change through time) (Miro et al., 2021, August 12). This means that Atlas 14 may underestimate current and future precipitation events. The new Virginia IDF curves improve upon past efforts by incorporating updated and projected climate data (Figure 5). Two representative concentration pathways (RCPs), RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5, are used in the Virginia IDF Curve Data Tool to represent an intermediate scenario and high level of future atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions over time, i.e., an optimistic scenario with low emissions (RCP 4.5) and a worst-case future or business as usual scenario with higher emissions (RCP 8.5). Figure 5: Virginia IDF curve output example Applying the Virginia IDF Curve Data Tool, a data sample of the anticipated changes in precipitation for the City of Salem is shown below in Table 1. The full capabilities of the IDF Curve Data Tool are much more comprehensive. In the table below, the different year storms include the 2-year (50% chance of occurring in one year), 5-year (20%), 10-year (10%), 25-year (4%), 50- year (2%), and 100-year (1%) storms. Two time periods are shown for 2020 - 2070 and 2050 - 2100 to represent future projections, and two scenarios are shown for RCP 4.5 (optimistic, low emissions) and RCP 8.5 (business as usual, high emissions). Since not all rainfall impacts stem from the same storm duration, 1-hour and 24-hour storms are included in the table. Storms that City of Salem Resilience Plan 13 2023 tend to cause damaging urban overland flooding are often short, extreme events, whereas soil saturation and stability may be most impacted by less intense but more persistent and longer storm events (Climatedata.ca, n.d.). Table 1: Projected Changes in Precipitation for the City of Salem using the Projected Intensity- Duration-Frequency Curve Data Tool for Virginia (https://midatlantic-idf.rcc-acis.org/) Year Storm RCP 4.5, 1-hour Years 2020-2070 RCP 4.5, 1-hour Years 2050-2100 RCP 8.5, 1-hour Years 2020-2070 RCP 8.5, 1-hour Years 2050-2100 2-year (50%) 1.43” 1.55” 1.47” 1.56” 5-year (20%) 1.86” 2.06” 1.93” 2.01” 10-year (10%) 2.21” 2.48” 2.31” 2.39” 25-year (4%) 2.69” 3.08” 2.74” 2.88” 50-year (2%) 3.06” 3.53” 3.08” 3.26” 100-year (1%) 3.48” 3.59” 3.45” 3.73” Year Storm RCP 4.5, 24-hour Years 2020-2070 RCP 4.5, 24-hour Years 2050-2100 RCP 8.5, 24-hour Years 2020-2070 RCP 8.5, 24-hour Years 2050-2100 2-year (50%) 3.45” 3.75” 3.55” 3.77” 5-year (20%) 4.48” 4.96” 4.64” 4.84” 10-year (10%) 5.36” 6.02” 5.59” 5.78” 25-year (4%) 6.69” 7.66” 6.81” 7.15” 50-year (2%) 7.82” 9.03” 7.88” 8.34” 100-year (1%) 9.15” 9.45” 9.07” 9.83” Overall, the data shown in the table indicate an upward trend in the severity of precipitation events and storms for the City of Salem. Using the projected climate change data generated by the IDF Curve Data Tool, the City can design more resilient flood mitigation measures and flood control structures, calculate peak runoff for watersheds, and design more resilient culverts and pipes (Ewea et al., 2018). One option is to replace existing IDF curves with the projected IDF curves, which can easily be integrated with existing planning and design criteria. The new criteria could be used to increase the resiliency of planning, designing, and building infrastructure assets (Miro et al., 2021). The IDF Curve Data Tool can also be used to explore anticipated changes across design storms and apply future change factors to existing design guidelines. Still, another option for the City is to incorporate a factor of safety by adding a percentage to existing IDF curves based on the projections or increasing the design storm criteria, for example, by designing for the 15-year, 24-hour instead of the 10-year, 24-hour storm (Wood, 2021). Next steps include coordination among localities to evaluate the climate change data on BMP performance and resilient design options to estimate the impacts of new design criteria on existing and future projects. City of Salem Resilience Plan 14 2023 2.3 Critical Facilities Critical facilities (and critical infrastructure) refer to those assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or cyber, which are so vital that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on physical security, economic vitality, public health or safety, or any combination of thereof at a national, state, or local level. This includes structures from which essential services and functions for victim survival, continuation of public safety actions, and disaster recovery are performed or provided. Disaster or inclement-weather shelters, emergency operation centers; public health, public drinking water, sewer and wastewater facilities are considered critical facilities. The loss of municipal utilities during a major flood has hindered some critical facilities from providing services, and in some cases, the loss of municipal services prevented critical facilities from functioning for weeks after a flood event. Even a minor chance of flooding can present wide-ranging risks to the distribution of services and maintenance offered by the community’s critical facilities. By ensuring Salem’s critical facilities’ functionality during and after a disaster, the City will become more resilient and prepared for flood events. The City of Salem’s critical facilities and their proximity to flood prone areas are shown in Figure 6 (Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2019). The critical facilities are categorized according to the eight descriptions below. The list does not include private utilities (gas/oil lines, electrical supply, communications, fuel storage), state and federal facilities (highways and their associated infrastructure, including bridges), and additional types of linear infrastructure. 1. Essential Facilities: Facilities crucial to the health and welfare of the community including hospitals and other medical facilities, police and fire stations, emergency operations centers, and evacuation shelters. 2. Transportation Systems: Systems that transport people, goods, and services which include airways (airports, heliports); highways (bridges, tunnels, roadbeds, overpasses, transfer centers); Railways (trackage, tunnels, bridges, rail yards, depots); and waterways (canals, locks, seaports, ferries, harbors, drydocks, piers). 3. Lifeline Utility Systems: Systems vital to public health and safety which includes potable water supplies and treatment facilities; wastewater lines and treatment facilities; oil and natural gas lines and supplies; electric power lines and generators; and communications systems. 4. High Potential Loss Facilities: Facilities that would have high costs associated with their damage during a hazardous event including nuclear power plants, dams, and military installations. 5. Hazardous Materials Facilities: Facilities that produce, store, and/or transport industrial/hazardous materials, such as corrosives, explosives, flammable materials, radioactive materials, and toxins. 6. Vulnerable Facilities: Facilities that house vulnerable populations that could lead to high death tolls and injury rates if damaged such as schools, nursing facilities, prisons, major employers and/or financial institutions/centers, and high density residential or commercial centers. City of Salem Resilience Plan 15 2023 7. Archival Facilities: Facilities that have historical value, hold items of historical value, or have a special natural resource value. This includes museums, historical landmarks, recreational areas, parks, and state or federal protected areas. 8. Important Facilities: Facilities that are imperative to recovery in the event of a hazard include government properties and commercial establishments such as grocery stores, hardware stores, and gas stations. (Virginia Agency, 2003) Figure 6: Salem’s Critical Facilities It is important for critical facilities to be located away from high-risk flood hazard areas to ensure essential services continue to function during and after a flood (Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, n.d.). When considering a location for a critical facility, FEMA's guidelines emphasize the importance of conducting flood risk assessments, considering factors such as flood zones, historical flood data, and the potential impact on critical infrastructure before these critical facilities are developed. If these facilities already exist within or in proximity of a floodplain as deemed by the City’s flood zone maps, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standards provide recommendations for elevating critical equipment and systems above potential flood levels, implementing flood-resistant building materials, and employing floodproofing techniques such as sealing vulnerable openings and installing flood barriers. City of Salem Resilience Plan 16 2023 To improve the City’s existing and future building performance, FEMA recommends building owners and operators and key decision makers evaluate the equipment, systems, and functions of current critical facilities and identify vulnerabilities and potential mitigation solutions (Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, n.d.). For example, since roads and streets are often the first areas to flood, all access routes to critical facilities should be raised to or above the base flood elevation (BFE), i.e., the elevation of the 1-percent-annual-chance of a flood event. Some communities already require access routes and streets to be a foot or more above the BFE to ensure essential workers can respond safely to an area during and after a flood. Salem’s Floodplain Management Ordinance (Chapter 106 – Zoning, Article II., Sec. 106-226) requires this protection measure for new and existing properties under construction in the floodplain, and extending this protection to critical facilities would add a necessary level of protection. It is best if mitigation measures designed for critical facilities are site-specific and based on an engineering analysis to ensure effectiveness and feasibility. The illustration from FEMA’s (2007) Design Guide for Improving Critical Facility Safety from Flooding and High Winds shows the earthen levee is best used if a barrier is needed to keep water completely away from a facility, whereas a floodwall can be used when a certain level of flooding water during major storm events is okay. Since both measures are designed to protect the landside area up to a certain flood level, both measures are usually most effective in areas with relatively shallow flooding and little wave action. Failure of either mitigation measure would likely be disastrous, so they are usually designed for a 0.2-percent- annual-chance flood in any given year (in a given year, there is a 2% chance of flooding). It is also important that long-term maintenance, inspections, and repairs are routinely conducted so the measures are not overtopped or breached. Additionally, FEMA encourages the development of flood emergency response plans, including evacuation procedures and relocation strategies for critical facility staff and occupants. Further, the installation of green infrastructure (GI) (e.g., rain garden, green roof, permeable pavement) provides both flood protection and pollution prevention for Salem’s critical utilities. As an example, the Roanoke River and three public wells provide Salem’s water supply, and about four million gallons are treated per day by the City’s water treatment plant prior to distribution (City of Salem, 2012). By soaking up and preventing the release of stormwater, GI measures help prevent flood waters and stormwater pollutants, such as trash, bacteria, and heavy metals, from adversely affecting these municipal utility systems (United State Environmental Protection Agency, 2023). 2.4 Vulnerable Populations Social Vulnerability captures the degree to which a community exhibits certain social conditions that make a community more susceptible to human suffering and financial loss following a flood City of Salem Resilience Plan 17 2023 disaster (Commonwealth of Virginia, 2021). These conditions include disparities in health, income, and access to services related to age, race or ethnicity, language, or other characteristics (CRMP, 2021; HUD, n.d.). As of the 2020 census and the 2021 American Community Survey, a majority of the 25,346 people living in the City of Salem are white (86%), female (52%), and between the ages of 18 and 64 (62%). English is the primary language (95%) for most residents, and a small percentage (7.4%) are foreign-born. Of those under the age of 65, 6.6% have a disability. The median household income is $66,472, a little higher (10%) than the amount in the Roanoke Metro Area ($60,907). Two census tracts (51775010100 and 51775010300) are low- income geographic areas (ACS, 2016-2020). The percentage of people living in poverty is about the same as the rate for Virginia (10%). There are 11,086 housing units, mostly single units (76%), with 35% rental and 65% owned. The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) (CDC/ATSDR, 2018) is a widely accepted approach for quantifying social vulnerability in a city. Developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, SVI was the approach chosen to quantify social vulnerability in Virginia’s Coastal Resilience Master Plan (2021) because it was considered the most publicly accessible, replicable, and acceptable approach used for federal agency grant programs. The Index uses 15 census variables to represent four categories, shown in Figure 7. The SVI is used in this Resilience Plan to identify socially vulnerable areas and help focus flood resilience efforts in these communities. Figure 7: Variables and themes included in the Social Vulnerability Index Using the SVI, Table 2 shows the social vulnerability data for each census tract in the City of Salem. The areas with a high level of vulnerability are located in the 51775010100 and 51775010300 census tracts. The other three census tracts have low social vulnerability. City of Salem Resilience Plan 18 2023 The RLAs shown in Figure 3 are labeled according to their tributary, i.e., HB is in Horners Branch, MC is in Mason Creek, GB is in Gish Branch, BH is in Bowman Hollow, RR is in the Roanoke River, and RRT is in the Roanoke River Tributary (unnamed). The overlap between social vulnerability and RLAs, summarized in Table 2 and illustrated in Figure 8, helps the City prioritize studies and projects in census tracts with high social vulnerability, at least one repetitive loss area, or both. Therefore, a higher priority ranking can be applied to studies or projects located in the 51775010100 and 51775010300 census tracts (high social vulnerability and RLAs) and the 51775010501 and 51775010502 census tracts (low social vulnerability but has RLAs). Projects and studies in the 51775010200 census tract (low social vulnerability and no RLAs) would receive a lower rank. Table 2: Intersect between Social Vulnerability and RLAs in Salem, Virginia Salem Census Tract Level of Social Vulnerability Repetitive Loss Areas 51775010100 High MC-1, MC-2, MC-3, GB-1 51775010200 Low N/A 51775010300 High HB-1, RR-17, RR-32, RR-33, RR-34 51775010501 Low RR-20, RR-21, RR-22, RR-23, RR- 24, RR-25, RR-26, RR-27, RR-28, RR-29, RR-30, RR-31, RRT-1, RRT- 2, RRT-3, RRT-4, RRT-5, RRT-6, BH-1, BH-2 51775010502 Low RR-1, RR-2, RR-3, RR-4, RR-5, RR- 6, RR-7, RR-8, RR-9, RR-10, RR-11, RR-12, RR-13, RR-14, RR-15, RR- 16, RR-18, RR-19 City of Salem Resilience Plan 19 2023 Figure 8: Salem’s RLAs and Social Vulnerability 3.0 CURRENT EFFORTS TO REDUCE FLOODING & DEVELOP RESILIENCE Salem recognizes that securing proper community engagement and mitigation are key to building flood resilience (Ling et al., 2022). The City engages the public through community outreach, city plans and programs, and regional efforts to both educate the public and learn about the local factors influencing flood resilience. The following sections evaluate the impact of Salem’s current efforts on flooding and resilience, and the findings are used later to help identify where gaps exist and additional measures may be necessary to increase the ability of communities to adapt and recover from flood events. 3.1 Community Education and Engagement The City of Salem has developed several programs, plans, and processes to engage the public on flood resiliency. These demonstrate Salem’s commitment to fostering a flood-resilient community, involving a wide range of citizens from all walks of life. By educating and actively involving those directly affected by plans, agencies help ensure community interests are represented during the planning process. Simultaneously, the City gains a greater understanding of how to successfully address local challenges, often leading to more successful resolutions. City of Salem Resilience Plan 20 2023 3.1.1 Council and Committee Involvement Salem remains actively engaged in staying informed in pertinent regional subjects, concerns, and objectives related to stormwater management and the utilization of water resources. This commitment is achieved through collaborations with neighboring communities, municipal entities, statewide agencies, and nonprofit organizations through dedicated committees. These assemblages serve as platforms for discussing pressing local challenges, forming proactive campaigns to enhance public awareness, and the dissemination of actionable measures that empower the community to effectively tackle water-related issues. Salem continues to be an active participant in the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission’s (RVARC) Roanoke River Blueway Committee, Stormwater Advisory Committee, and Regional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Planning Committee. Established in 2013, the Roanoke River Blueway Committee was created to further advance planning, tourism, and outreach regarding the Roanoke River (Roanoke River Blueway, n.d.). The group consists of the City of Salem, neighboring municipalities and counties, the National Park Service, and additional stakeholders. The committee orchestrates events that serve as catalysts for heightened awareness, stewardship, and education concerning the river. Next, the Regional Stormwater Advisory Committee (RCSWAC) includes members from the same cities, counties, and agencies. They discuss current needs for floodplain management and infrastructure projects related to stormwater, along with state and federally mandated stormwater requirements (City of Roanoke, 2018). Last, the Regional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Planning Committee engages with the City of Salem and various other local entities, all dedicated to ensuring their residents are well- informed and equipped to face natural disasters through hazard mitigation strategies. This committee wrote the 2019 Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which provided valuable insights on flooding concerns throughout the region (Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, 2019). Salem has been involved with the Clean Valley Council since 2018, occupying a single position on the Council's Boards of Directors. This council also includes representatives from the City of Roanoke, Town of Vinton, Botetourt County, and Roanoke County. Since the council's inception in 1978, a primary objective has been combating litter through citizen engagement and educational initiatives within the Roanoke Valley and nearby regions. Over time, this mission has expanded to encompass the protection of our waters from impairment and pollution for the availability and prosperity of the community (Clean Valley Council, n.d.). 3.1.2 Community Education As a member of the Clean Valley Council, Salem helps facilitate watershed stewardship and educational activities. At least two events are held every year in which volunteers help remove litter from local roads and waterways. Stream School Seminars are offered to help identify high priority stormwater issues and encourage participants to take action to mitigate negative impacts (City of Salem, 2018). A storm drain stencil marking initiative mobilizes volunteers in hands-on stenciling tasks on drainage inlets, effectively enhancing public awareness and participation. A quarterly Stormwater Newsletter publication informs citizens about excess sediment, pollution prevention, and stormwater events and activities (City of Salem, 2022). Salem also has a City of Salem Resilience Plan 21 2023 Stormwater Comment form online where citizens can submit comments or questions regarding stormwater management. Further, Salem recognizes Virginia Flood Awareness week on their blog and website, describing the purpose of the week with information on flood risk and flood insurance. Here, Virginians can learn about the different types of potential flood risks, flood insurance eligibility, and find contact information for flood insurances agents (City of Salem, 2020). Salem’s Emergency Alert Program allows citizens to sign up to receive emergency messages with critical information. Alerts about emergencies, such as severe weather, road closures and building/neighborhood evacuations, are sent to a person’s choice mode of communication (Everbridge, n.d.). 3.1.3 Public Meetings Public meetings provide Salem citizens an opportunity to openly discuss issues that arise during the planning process. From 2001 to 2012, seven community-wide meetings were held to discuss zoning, land use, government services, education, community appearance, open space, and infrastructure. Some of these discussions turned into initiatives or led to partnerships charged with planning environmental education, stormwater management, and flood reduction facilities and programs. Many of these initiatives were then recommended to City Council for adoption in June 2012. During the creation of the Downtown Plan (2016), much effort was made to inform citizens of the upcoming meetings that would be held through Salems website, flyers, and mailed notices. Multiple meetings were arranged, and on January 20, 2015, an open house was held, providing a forum for the more than 100 attendees to provide input. The City incorporated some of this input into the Downtown Plan. In regard to flood resilience, for example, the public’s concern over the lack of tree canopy led to the planting of additional trees. 3.2 City Plans & Ordinances Several Salem planning documents touch on flood resilience, namely the City of Salem Comprehensive Plan (2012), Downtown Plan (2016), Capital Improvement Plan (2023), and TMDL Action Plans. Objectives within these plans focus on stormwater infrastructure and capital improvements, enhanced tree canopy, and stormwater management. Shown in Table 3 are the four themes and objectives in Salem’s Comprehensive Plan, serving as a call to implement specific flood resilience measures. City of Salem Resilience Plan 22 2023 Table 3: Comprehensive Plan Themes and Objectives that Increase Flood Resiliency Themes Objec�ves Government Services •Expand and improve the use of technology in the dissemina�on of informa�on to the ci�zens of Salem. •Provide effec�ve, �mely, and efficient emergency response to all areas of the City of Salem in a fiscally responsible manner. •As part of the development plan review process, ensure that all structures and land uses comply with the City’s floodplain and stormwater management regula�ons. •Work with neighboring jurisdic�ons on regional stormwater deten�on and flood reduc�on facili�es and programs. •Using available state and federal funding, con�nue to purchase homes within designated floodplains. •Strive to lower the environmental impact of construc�on by exploring ways to encourage developers to use environmentally friendly (green) construc�on techniques on City projects. Land Use and Community Appearance •Expand the specimen list of trees in the Urban Forest Overlay District to include more na�ve species and extend canopy tree requirements to all development. •Work to preserve exis�ng riparian areas along the Roanoke River where appropriate by installing na�ve plan�ngs and reconsider land management prac�ces such as mowing and other ac�vi�es. Open Space •Consider adop�ng zoning amendments that provide developers density and other incen�ves in exchange for the permanent preserva�on of open space areas incorporated as part of new development. •Develop a plan for maintenance and improvement of the Greenway system in Salem through the capital improvement budget and maintenance for riparian areas along the Greenway. Transporta�on and Infrastructure •Con�nue to manage the City’s urban forest by providing services such as maintenance pruning, hazard removal, replacement plan�ng, new tree installa�on, fer�liza�on, and pest control. •Con�nue to improve, monitor, maintain, and repair all streets, curbs, guters, storm drains, sidewalks, and driveway entrances along public roadways. Salem’s Downtown Plan and Capital Improvement Plan play an important role in informing Salem’s current and future flood resilience efforts, as follows: Downtown Plan (2016) – Salem adopted the Downtown Plan in 2016 which informs its citizens on ten themes with goals and strategies to improve Downtown Salem. The plan discusses how, over time, Salem’s mature trees have been removed and replaced with attractive but not useful trees. Instead of large stable trees that take considerable time to grow, smaller less stable trees are preferred due to their ability to grow much faster. City of Salem Resilience Plan 23 2023 However, these smaller trees often lack the tree cover needed to reduce the Urban Heat Island effect, a known cause of increased precipitation in cities. To help alleviate this effect, the Plan calls for the planting of additional trees and green spaces in Salem’s downtown area.  Capital Improvement Plan (2023) –Salem's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes short and long-term financial planning for the capital needs of the City. Salem has budgets for projects that will provide flood mitigation and stormwater management, including storm sewer upgrades, culvert replacements, greenway construction, stormwater ponds construction, and storm drain upgrades and expansions. Salem Ordinances To ensure citizens’ safety and protect against flooding, Salem continues to examine ordinances to find support for additional flood mitigation and prevention. Ordinances most relevant to flood resilience are listed in Table 4, as these include flood mitigation provisions for floodplain management, stormwater management, and impervious surfaces. Table 4: Ordinances Regarding Flood Resilience Ordinance Citation City of Salem Ordinance Chapter 106 – Zoning, Article II., Sec. 106- 226 Floodplain Overlay District (FOD) Chapter 30 – Environment, Article IV. – Stormwater Management Stormwater Management Chapter 106 – Zoning, Article II., Sec. 106- 230 Urban Forest Overlay District Chapter 106 – Zoning, Article IV., Sec. 106- 402 Buffer Yards, Screening, and Landscaping Chapter 106 – Zoning, Article IV., Sec. 106- 404 Off-street Parking Requirements The Floodplain Overlay District Ordinance was adopted in 1993 and revised in 2007 for the purpose of providing safety and protection from flooding. The ordinance aims to prevent health and safety hazards, the loss of property and life, and the extraordinary and unnecessary expenditure of public funds for flood protection and relief by: • restricting the unwise use, development and occupancy of lands subject to inundation; • regulating activities and development which will cause unacceptable increases in flood heights, velocities and frequencies; • requiring all activities and developments that occur in a flood prone area to be protected and/or flood proofed; and • protecting individuals from purchasing land and structures that are unviable for intended uses because of flood hazards. City of Salem Resilience Plan 24 2023 The ordinance also requires the lowest floor elevation of any new residential structure, non- residential structure, or ‘substantial improvements’ to existing buildings constructed within a floodplain to be at least one foot above base flood elevation or floodproofed to a minimum of one foot above the base flood elevation. Substantial improvements are considered any modification, alteration, repair, or reconstruction to an existing structure to an extent or amount of less than 50 percent of its market value. Existing structures and/or uses located in floodways shall not be expanded or enlarged unless the effect of the proposed expansion or enlargement on flood heights is fully offset by accompanying improvements. This enables Salem to be more resilient by managing citizens safety and flood damage in high-risk areas. Similarly, the purpose of the Stormwater Management Ordinance is to protect properties and the general health and safety of the public from flooding and stormwater pollution. To do this, the ordinance requires developers to control the amount and quality of stormwater leaving a construction site and flowing into nearby water resources. BMPs are installed to reduce the magnitude and frequency of flooding, thus preventing siltation, stream bank erosion, and property damage that often accompanies a flood. To prevent damage to downstream properties, the city requires developers to prevent land disturbance activities from increasing stormwater runoff velocity, frequency, duration, and peak flow rate. In addition to BMPs, Salem recognizes that a healthy tree canopy, a nature-based solution, is effective at flood prevention, as trees absorb stormwater through their leaves, branches, and root zones. Salem’s Urban Forest Overlay District Ordinance (Figure 9) helps protect the City’s tree canopy, requiring developers to plant at least one tree per acre from the approved species list shown in Figure 10. All approved trees must have a minimum diameter of three inches, be locally adapted to the area, and be replaced immediately by the owner if the tree is unhealthy, misshapen, or dead. The preservation of appropriate, already existing trees is encouraged and may be required if they are deemed critical for managing stormwater. City of Salem Resilience Plan 25 2023 Figure 9: Salem’s Urban Forest Overlay District Figure 10: Salem’s Approved Tree Species City of Salem Resilience Plan 26 2023 The Buffer Yards, Screening, and Landscaping ordinance increases the City’s flood resilience by requiring interior landscaping in parking lots to reduce the ratio of greenspace to impervious area. Requirements include having at least one deciduous shade tree for every ten parking spaces, a continuous vegetative strip installed between every four rows of parking, large planting islands (over 200 square feet) at the end of parking rows, and planting islands required between every 15 parking spaces to avoid long rows of parked cars. These measures improve stormwater quality and slow the velocity of flood waters. Impervious surfaces are also regulated in the Off-street Parking Requirements ordinance, as it considers the stormwater quality and quantity impacts of adding impervious parking areas. The city engineer can require a developer to use certain paving surfaces and/or construction techniques (e.g., porous-type asphalt paving, detention basins) to minimize surface stormwater runoff if necessary. In combination, these ordinances and mitigations measures help reduce flooding and the associated damage throughout the City of Salem. 3.3 Federal, State, and Local Programs The City of Salem has implemented federal, state, and local programs aimed at protecting and improving the well-being of citizens, infrastructure, and the environment. The programs often incorporate flood resiliency objectives, particularly as society gains an increased understanding of the real impacts of heavier participation and storm events on people, natural landscapes, and the built environment. The following demonstrates the intersect between federal, state, and local programs and Salem’s efforts to increase flood resiliency. 3.3.1 FEMA National Flood Insurance Program The City of Salem participates in FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program, which allows property owners to purchase federally backed flood insurance at discounted rates (City of Salem, n.d.). The program was created and developed through an evolving series of acts from 1968 – 2004, accessible through the FEMA.gov website under Laws and Regulations. The program requires that Salem’s floodplain management regulations meet and enforce federal requirements and regulations (Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, 2019). This includes assisting in the preparation and revision of floodplain maps, regulating development in the mapped floodplains, maintaining records of floodplain development, and assisting residents in obtaining information on flood hazards, floodplain map data, flood insurance, and proper construction measures (FEMA, 2005). If Salem’s Department of Community Development determines that a property is located within the floodplain, the owners are required to obtain an NFIP insurance policy, and Salem currently provides 523 NFIP policies to city residents (City of Salem, n.d). Funding from the federal Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant Program would help further reduce or remove the risk of repetitive flood damage to properties insured by NFIP (FEMA, 2023). 3.3.2 IFLOWS To prepare for a severe flood event, Salem participates in an Integrated Flood Observing and Warning System (IFLOWS) (Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, 2019). IFLOWS was developed by the National Weather Service to issue the earliest possible notification of an City of Salem Resilience Plan 27 2023 approaching flash flood. Radio-transmitted information from strategically placed rain gauges send advanced flood forecast reports to the City Emergency Operation Center, so city officials have as much time as possible to warn the public of an impending flood. There is currently one active IFLOW station in Salem. 3.3.3 MS4 As a regulated small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4), the City of Salem is obligated to meet the requirements of the MS4 General Permit. The MS4 Permit is issued through Virginia’s Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) regulations, which is administered at the state level by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) (City of Salem, 2020). The VSMP requires compliance with state-issued criteria aimed at flooding, water quality, and stream channel erosion prevention. To prevent excessive flooding, Salem relies on ordinances, permits, orders, specific contract language, and interjectional agreements to regulate construction site stormwater runoff (General VPDES Permit, 2005). Post-construction runoff quantity and quality is also managed through the implementation of the Virginia Stormwater Management Program. For example, inspections of all stormwater facilities are required annually or after any storm event that exceeds the emergency spillway, which is an emergency exit for stormwater when a flood event occurs, and water level exceeds the facilities capacity (City of Salem, 2020). The inspections document the state of each component within the facility and any maintenance actions required, so the facility can properly collect the correct volume of stormwater. Routine maintenance helps ensure failure of a stormwater BMP does not cause downstream flooding. This is done in accordance with the MS4 Permit and enforced by Salem through the Post- Construction Stormwater Management program, a series of written procedures that ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance of BMPs for the City (City of Salem, 2020). Salem is required by the MS4 permit to develop Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Action Plans, aimed at reducing the discharge of bacteria, sediment, and PCBs into nearby waterways (General VPDES Permit, 2005). To meet water quality standards, the plans outline a set of reduction goals and specific programs and projects for achieving those goals (EPA, 2022). The TMDL Action Plans also describe programmatic BMPs, such as community storm sewer inspections, city-wide trash clean ups, and the public education partnership with Clean Valley Council, all help raise awareness of the importance of water quality protection and flood prevention (City of Salem, 2021). 3.4 Regional Efforts & Partners The City of Salem is commited to working with regional partners on flood resilience and mi�ga�on plans and projects. As a contribu�ng member of the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Planning Commission (RVAPC), Salem has helped prepare the Roanoke Valley – Alleghany Regional (RVAR) Hazard Mi�ga�on Plan (2019), Roanoke Valley Regional Stormwater Management Plan (RVR SMP) (Dewberry & Davis, 1997), Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan (2018), City of Salem Resilience Plan 28 2023 Urban Tree Canopy Analysis for the Roanoke Valley (2010) and the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Planning Region Local Wildlife Ac�on Plan (2015). The contribu�ons of the greenway, tree analysis, and wildlife plans to resiliency are discussed in Sec�on 3.6 - Environmental Assets. The RVAR Hazard Mi�ga�on Plan has several recommenda�ons per�nent to flood resiliency, organized around five goals and strategies to achieve each goal, detailed below. GOAL #1: Mi�ga�on of loss of life and property from flooding and flood related disasters. Strategies: In coopera�on with local governments, support a comprehensive public informa�on and educa�on program on flooding, living in the floodplain, flood risks, low-cost simple flood mi�ga�on measures, flood insurance, stream remedia�on, hydrology, floodplain ordinances, and NFIP. Develop and maintain an inventory of flood prone roadways in coopera�on with the Virginia Department of Transporta�on. Develop and maintain an inventory of flood prone cri�cal facili�es such as hospitals, public u�lity sites, airports, etc. Par�cipate in FEMA Hazard Mi�ga�on Programs such as SRL, FMA, PDM, RCL, and HMGP for acquisi�on/demoli�on projects, structure eleva�on, reloca�on, mi�ga�on reconstruc�on, flood-proofing cri�cal facili�es, flood-proofing commercial facili�es, infrastructure upgrades, and technology upgrades. Par�cipate in, and remain in good standing with, the Na�onal Flood Insurance Program by enforcing floodplain management regula�ons that meet federal requirements. Acquisi�on of flood prone proper�es followed by the appropriate mi�ga�on ac�on of flood-proofing, demoli�on, or reloca�on. Soil stabiliza�on along rivers, creeks, and streams to prevent undercu�ng of roads from erosion due to flooding. GOAL #2: Update exis�ng GIS data layers related to natural hazards. Strategies: Consider seeking funding and support programs that update FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Consider par�cipa�on in FEMA’s Coopera�ng Technical Partners (CTP) program that establishes partners with local jurisdic�ons to develop and maintain up-to- date flood maps. RVAR Regional Hazard Mi�ga�on Plan 252 U�lize GIS to inventory at risk infrastructure and public and private structures within flood prone areas. Par�cipate in FEMA’s Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM) program. Support FIRM remapping projects that address areas in the region that have the most serious mapping problems and where flooding is a repe��ve problem. Use HEC-GeoRAS, HEC-GeoHMS, and HAZUS so�ware to model poten�al flood scenarios and iden�fy high-hazard areas. Annual review of floodplain ordinances and make any necessary changes to remain in compliance with NFIP regula�ons. City of Salem Resilience Plan 29 2023 GOAL #3: Provide early warning of flooding. Strategies: Iden�fy areas with recurring flood problems and request addi�onal IFLOW stream/rain gauges as appropriate to ensure that these areas are adequately covered and monitored. Iden�fy areas with recurring flood problems and incorporate the addresses and phone numbers into an early warning database, specifically the Reverse 911 system. GOAL #4: Iden�fica�on of structural projects that could mi�gate the impact of flooding. Strategies: Consider seeking funding to prepare site-specific hydrologic and hydraulic studies that look at areas that have chronic and repe��ve flooding problems. Support Virginia Department of Transporta�on projects that call for improved ditching, replacement of inadequate and undersized culverts, enlargements of bridge openings and drainage piping needed to minimize flooding. Iden�fy congested streams and remove debris to enhance flow and mi�gate flooding. GOAL #5: Maintain an accurate database and map of repe��ve loss proper�es. Strategies: Work with VDEM and FEMA to update list of repe��ve loss proper�es annually. Obtain updated list of repe��ve loss proper�es annually from VDEM/FEMA. Review property addresses for accuracy and make necessary correc�ons. Determine if and by what means each property has been mi�gated. Map proper�es to show general site loca�ons (not parcel specific in order to maintain anonymity of the property owners). Determine if proper�es have been mi�gated and inform FEMA/VDEM through submission of an updated list/database and mapping. Adding to the list, the RVR SMP proposes the following mi�ga�on solu�ons for Salem: clear stream channels, enlarge drainage openings, construct regional deten�on facili�es, and floodproof individual structures. The full list of Salem’s Hazard Mi�ga�on Projects in need of State and Federal Assistance is included in Appendix X. With such a long list of poten�al solu�ons o�en expensive to implement, projects must be priori�zed. The RVAR Hazard Mi�ga�on Plan recommends scoring projects based on benefit-to-cost criteria, mi�ga�ng poten�al, availability of funding, technical capability, and project feasibility. To help fund these projects, the RVR SMP encourages locali�es to charge a regional stormwater u�lity fee. 3.5 Engineered Defenses Engineered stormwater facilities are the gray infrastructure measures used to prevent heavy runoff volume and velocity during and following a precipitation or storm event. Salem has 134 stormwater facilities currently installed throughout the City, including detention, retention, infiltration, bioretention, underground detention system (UGDS), manufactured, and permeable pavement. Due to the anticipated increase in rainfall, citizens need to gain an increased understanding of where these BMPs are located and how they function, before considering potential modifications needed to boost flood resilience. Therefore, the BMP map shown below City of Salem Resilience Plan 30 2023 in Figure 11 is accompanied by an explanation of these BMP types and the key components of each. Figure 11: Salem’s Stormwater BMPs 3.5.1 Detention This City of Salem has 89 detention facilities, with 37 flowing into Mason Creek and 52 into the Roanoke River. Six detention facilities are scheduled to come online in the future to treat stormwater before discharging into the Roanoke River. They are currently in the planning phase or under construction. Detention basins have at least one inflow channel, an embankment/dam, a bottom-level orifice, a principal spillway structure to route drainage through the dam, and an outlet structure (Figure 12). These basins do not have a normal pool and remain dry except during and shortly after storm events. Some extended detention facilities may have a wet marsh with plantings in the bottom for additional pollutant removal. On rare occasions, the extended detention basin may be designed to have a wet normal pool. If a plan does not indicate a wet marsh or normal pool elevation, the constant pool of water may be due to blockage that needs to be removed to ensure functionality. City of Salem Resilience Plan 31 2023 Figure 12: Typical Dry Detention Basin Section 3.5.2 Retention Salem has four retention basins, often referred to as wet ponds, that slowly discharge filtered stormwater into the Roanoke River. Retention basins have at least one inflow channel, an embankment/dam, a principal spillway structure to route the drainage through the embankment, and an outlet structure (Figure 13). Wet ponds consist of a permanent pool of standing water that promotes pollution removal and reduces flooding. In drought conditions, retention basins can also mimic dry facilities. Runoff from each storm enters the pond and raises the normal water level, and the outlet structure releases the drainage at a slower rate over a longer period. This “draw down” or holding time allows pollutants to settle out of the stormwater and lessens the impact of the flow volume on the outlet channel. Figure 13: Typical Retention Facility Plan 3.5.3 Infiltration Salem has sixteen infiltration measures installed, with four draining to Mason Creek and twelve to the Roanoke River. Infiltration practices utilize temporary surface or underground storage that City of Salem Resilience Plan 32 2023 allows the incoming stormwater runoff to settle into underlying soils (Figure 14). Typically, the runoff will first pass through pretreatment mechanisms to trap sediment and organic matter before it reaches the practice and then settles into the underlying soils. As stormwater penetrates the underlying soil, chemical and physical adsorption processes will remove pollutants. Infiltration practices come in many types such as rain gardens, infiltration trenches, vegetated swales, porous pavement, and others. Source: http://www.vwrrc.vt.edu/swc/documents/2013/DEQ%20BMP%20Spec%20No%208_INFILTRATION_Final%20Draft_v1-9_03012011.pdf Figure 14: Possible Infiltration Facility Section 3.5.4 Bioretention Salem has five bioretention areas draining to the Roanoke River. Bioretention facilities are shallow landscaped depressions that incorporate many of the pollutant removal mechanisms that operate in our natural environment (Figure 15). The primary component of a bioretention practice is the filter bed, which has a mixture of sand, soil, and organic material as the filtering media in the ground with a surface mulch layer. During storms, runoff temporarily ponds 6 to 12 inches above the mulch layer and then rapidly filters through the bed. Normally, the filtered runoff is collected in an underdrain and returned to the storm drain system or receiving channel. The underdrain consists of a perforated pipe in a gravel layer installed along the bottom of the filter bed. Bioretention facilities can also be designed to infiltrate runoff into native soils without an underdrain. This can be done at sites with permeable soils, a low groundwater table, and a City of Salem Resilience Plan 33 2023 low risk of groundwater contamination. The second most critical component of bioretention facilities is the landscaping plan and plantings. The plantings are designed specifically for the site and facility and they remove and store pollution. Small residential applications of bioretention are termed rain gardens. Figure 15: Typical Bioretention Facility Schematic 3.5.5 UGDS There are seven underground detention systems installed in the City of Salem. Three UGDS drain to Mason Creek, and four discharge to the Roanoke River. Underground detention facilities, such as vaults, pipes, tanks, and other subsurface structures, are designed to temporarily store stormwater runoff for water quantity control (Figure 16). StormTech®, an underground stormwater chamber system, is an intricate engineered system comprised of polypropylene chambers, aggregate, geotextile, and geomembrane. Together, they collect rainwater, separate sediment material, and allow clean water to percolate into the ground. When it rains, water enters the system through a catch basin and is directed to an isolation area where sediment is flushed. As the water rises, it flows out of the isolation area into adjacent chambers where it passes through fabric and flows back into the ground. The Isolator Row is a row or rows of StormTech thermoplastic chambers that are wrapped in filter fabric and installed below grade. Stormwater enters the chambers and must pass through the filter fabric media where sediments and other contaminants are filtered out as stormwater exits the Isolator Row through the fabric. City of Salem Resilience Plan 34 2023 Some of the unique features of the Isolator Row that contribute to its effectiveness and practicality include: • Vast filtration area – each chamber has a large surface area which permits filtration of stormwater through the bottom filter fabric • Large sediment storage volume • Entire bottom area accessible for cleaning without obstructions within the row • A state-of-the-art structural design that meets AASHTO safety factors for both live loads and permanent dead loads Figure 16: Typical UGDS 3.5.6 Manufactured There is one manufactured hydrodynamic device draining to the Roanoke River. This manufactured facility is a proprietary system guiding stormwater into a separation chamber where water velocities create a swirling vortex (Figure 17). The swirling vortex forces floatables and solids to the center of the separation chamber and sediment settles into an isolated sump. All pollutants remain in these sections of the unit until removed during maintenance. Treated water exits the system. The Stormwater Management StormFilter® is an underground stormwater treatment device comprised of one or more structures that house rechargeable, media-filled cartridges that trap particulates and adsorb pollutants from stormwater runoff, such as total suspended solids, hydrocarbons, nutrients, metals, and other common pollutants. The process for treating stormwater in this manufactured device is as follows:  During a storm, runoff passes through the filtration media and starts filling the cartridge center tube. The air inside the hood is purged through a one-way check valve as the water rises.  When water reaches the top of the float, buoyant forces pull the float free and allow filtered water to exit the cartridge. A siphon is established within each cartridge that draws water uniformly across the full height of the media bed ensuring even distribution of pollutants and prolonged media longevity. City of Salem Resilience Plan 35 2023  After the storm, the water level in the structure starts falling. A hanging water column remains under the cartridge hood until the water level reaches the scrubbing regulators at the bottom of the hood.  Air then rushes through the regulators, breaking the siphon and creating air bubbles that agitate the surface of the filter media, causing accumulated sediment to settle on the treatment bay floor. This unique surface-cleaning mechanism prevents surface blinding and further extends cartridge life. Figure 17: Typical CDS Schematic 3.5.7 Permeable Pavement There is one area of permeable pavement installed at the Parkway Brewery, draining to Mason Creek. Permeable pavements are alternative paving surfaces that allow stormwater runoff to filter through voids in the pavement surface into an underlying stone reservoir, where it is temporarily stored and/or infiltrated. A variety of permeable pavement surfaces are available, including pervious concrete, porous asphalt, and permeable interlocking concrete pavers. While the specific design may vary, all permeable pavements have a similar structure, consisting of a surface pavement layer, an underlying stone aggregate reservoir layer, and a filter layer or fabric installed on the bottom (See Figure 18 below). The reservoir layer serves to retain stormwater and supports the design traffic loads for the pavement. In low-infiltration soils, some or all of the filtered runoff is collected in an underdrain and returned to the storm drain system. If infiltration rates in the native soils permit, permeable pavement can be designed without an underdrain to enable full infiltration of runoff. The major role of permeable pavement is to maximize nutrient City of Salem Resilience Plan 36 2023 removal and runoff reduction. Careful sediment and small debris control is required to avoid clogging. Figure 18: Typical Permeable Pavement Section 3.6 Environmental Assets Environmental assets, such as healthy streams and forests, are natural resources that can help communities become more resilient to extreme weather events and other environmental hazards. The City of Salem’s environmental assets have been expanded and preserved through a network of public and private stakeholders. Given the rising and often conflicting calls for both economic growth and flood resilience, Salem works to balance the ongoing protection and maintenance of existing assets with new development. The subsections below describe the environmental assets in Salem that reduce vulnerability to flooding and can be used to increase community resilience. 3.6.1 Forests & Trees Salem’s forests and trees play a central role in flood protection. Playing an active role in the water cycle, the tree canopy intercepts and slows down rain before hitting the ground, while allowing time for some of the water to evaporate back into the atmosphere. The root systems help water penetrate deep into the soil at a fast rate, reducing surface run-off and increasing water storage in the soil under and around trees. Illustrated in Figure 19, unlike open fields or impervious surfaces such as parking lots, trees release water more gradually into surface waters, significantly reducing the pace of water discharge and its potential to cause floods. Forested tracts of riparian corridors help control stormwater and reduce flooding from adjacent water bodies, and native tree and shrub species can be used in maintenance and restoration efforts to boost resilience (Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, 2015). City of Salem Resilience Plan 37 2023 Figure 19: Relationship between Natural Features and Impervious Cover with Surface Runoff (EPA, 2003) Shown in Figure 20, an estimated 3,722 acres in Salem are currently covered by tree canopy (i.e., Existing urban tree canopy (UTC)), accounting for 40.1% of the City's entire land area cover (Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission et al., 2010), whereas Figure 21 shows an estimated 3,853 acres could potentially accommodate additional urban tree canopy (i.e., Possible UTC). The findings provide a baseline for effectively managing and tracking changes in tree canopy coverage. City of Salem Resilience Plan 38 2023 Figure 20: UTC Cover (Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission et al., 2010) City of Salem Resilience Plan 39 2023 Figure 21: UTC Potential Cover (Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission et al., 2010) City of Salem Resilience Plan 40 2023 3.6.2 Vacant Parcels & Open Space Salem’s open spaces, parks, and recreational facilities are communal public spaces, whereas vacant parcels are privately owned lots or tracts lacking a designated land use or assessed structure (City of Salem, 2012). Both have the potential to play an important part in flood resilience. The City intends to preserve and maintain parks and open spaces on city-owned properties, while exploring additional opportunities to expand or add greenspace to vacant parcels, presently occupying approximately 14% of Salem’s total land area (Figure 22). For example, Mowles Spring Park, previously a landfill, is a large area of city-owned property with vacant land that will house a new athletic complex in 2029 (Capital Improvement Plan, 2023). To encourage private property owners to incorporate parks and open spaces in new development, the City could promote the use of conservation easements or offer high-density development benefits. Figure 22: Salem’s Vacant Parcels & City Owned Properties 3.6.3 Floodplain Floodplains are typically located in level, low-lying areas adjacent to streams and rivers. Floodplains help disperse and absorb the force of floodwaters, as they diffuse and decelerate surging waters during substantial precipitation events. This ability helps prevent downstream damage and loss. FEMA uses FIRMS to designate floodplain areas and delineate the extent of potential flooding. These maps outline critical zones, including the floodway encompassing the stream channel and adjoining lands, the 100-year floodplain subject to a 1% annual chance flood City of Salem Resilience Plan 41 2023 event, and the 500-year floodplain subject to a 0.2% annual chance flood event. In AE Zones, one can obtain information about the flood elevation and flow depth for controlled storm events. Preserving or enhancing the innate and beneficial functions of floodplains remains one of the most economically efficient and impactful strategies for increasing flood resilience. 3.6.4 Greenways Greenways often expand and preserve tree canopies and riparian buffers, which help absorb stormwater and prevent excessive flooding (Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission & Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, 2018). Often running parallel to water bodies, they are in a good position to do so alongside rivers, streams, canals, utility corridors, ridges, or rail lines. However, greenways often flood and require maintenance to repair erosion and clear debris from trails and fencing. Salem’s greenways are shown in Figure 23, and the descriptions below provides an example of how each plays a role in flood resilience: • Roanoke River Greenway: The greenway mitigates runoff into the river and establishes riparian buffers. • Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail: This greenway has native wildflowers planted along the trail. • Mason Creek Greenway: The greenway establishes a north-south corridor connecting the river to Carvins Cove, Havens Wildlife Management Area, Jefferson National Forest, the Appalachian Trail, and neighborhoods in North County. • Elizabeth Greenway: Roanoke College retains ownership of a segment of the Elizabeth Campus used for recreational activities. Once constructed, the greenway will connect to the Hanging Rock Battlefield Trail and Mason Creek Greenway • Gish Branch Greenway: Once constructed, this greenway has the potential to increase riparian corridor connectivity along Gish Branch. City of Salem Resilience Plan 42 2023 Figure 23: Salem’s Greenways, Trails, and Public Parks 3.6.5 Nature-based Solutions As the City searches for ways to improve flood resilience, Salem realizes that one of the most cost-effective ways to alleviate future flooding is to prioritize nature-based solutions (NBS). NBS is an approach that reduces the impacts of flood and storm events through the use of environmental processes and natural systems. NBS may provide additional benefits beyond flood control, including recreational opportunities and improved water quality. This includes a project that reduces these impacts by protecting, restoring, or emulating natural features. At the watershed scale, NBS can refer to land conservation, stream and wetland restoration/protection, floodplain restoration, greenways, and stormwater parks (FEMA, 2021). At the neighborhood scale, NBS include rain gardens, green roofs, permeable pavement, vegetated swales, rainwater harvesting (rain barrels), green streets, and tree canopy. Salem currently uses both to prevent flooding and associated damage. For example, the City is working to preserve existing riparian areas along the Roanoke River through the installation of native plantings and reduced mowing (City of Salem, 2012). There is one area of permeable pavement installed at the Parkway Brewery, draining to Mason Creek, that infiltrates, treats, and stores rain where it falls. Both watershed scale and neighborhood scale NBS can be made off-limits to future development through the acquisition of land, creation of conservation easements, or changes made to the zoning ordinance. The City of Salem (2012) is considering evaluating the impacts City of Salem Resilience Plan 43 2023 of providing developers with density and other incentives in exchange for the preservation of open space areas. The benefits of NBS often go beyond flood protection, bringing the added benefits of reduced sewer system maintenance, improved water quality, and improved quality of life for residents (Huang et al., 2020). 4.0 A PLAN FOR RESILIENCE In this section, the results of the community survey are summarized, and the gap analysis is performed to better understand where flood resilience is not yet covered by existing City efforts. Then, the gaps and community feedback lead to the formulation of a list of studies, projects, and plans that are needed to help the City better prepare for and protect against flooding. The projects are then scored according to DCR criteria. The priorities recommendations are discussed in the final section. 4.1 Community Feedback The City of Salem received a total of 254 responses from the community survey, titled Salem Resilience Plan: Community Feedback Survey, that was administered through the City of Salem Community Development page and social media outlets for several months. The responses, summarized below, helped the City understand the community sentiments and concerns regarding flooding. The survey results reflect the demographic composition of the City. Notably, 66% of respondents fell within the 40-64 age group and 12% are aged 65 or above, demonstrating the active participation of experienced voices. Additionally, 22% are in the 18-39 age bracket, reflecting the engagement of young adults as well. Most of the respondents are White (90%), and many work full-time (79%), indicating the commitment of the working population to engage in flood resilience. As to the perceptions regarding flood risk, almost half of respondents (49%) perceive flooding as a moderate challenge, and 21% believe it is a serious challenge. Looking ahead, many respondents believe flooding will continue to be a moderate challenge (37%) or serious challenge (32%) in the future. Table 5: Demographic and Flood Risk Responses Age Responses (%) 18-39 22 40-64 66 65+ 12 Race No answer 6 White 90 Black/African American 2 Hispanic/Latino 0.4 Asian/Asian American 0.8 City of Salem Resilience Plan 44 2023 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.8 Occupation Unemployed 0.4 Full time employed 79 Part time employed 8 Retired 11 Other 2 Current flood risk Not a challenge 5 Minor challenge 22 Moderate challenge 49 Serious challenge 21 Extreme challenge 4 Future flood risk Not a challenge 5 Minor challenge 15 Moderate challenge 37 Serious challenge 32 Extreme challenge 11 Survey Question: What type of flooding hazards have you witnessed in your community? For Salem residents, it seems most prevalent flooding hazards stem from river and creek flooding, localized drainage issues related to rainfall, and extreme storms and flash floods. Of the respondents who responded that they have experienced home flooding (25%), many attributed the problem to inadequate drainage infrastructure and sewer system blockages. Fewer residents (5%) reported flooding in businesses. 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% None of the above Extreme Storms/Flash Floods Development/Construction Caused Flooding or… Rainfall or Local Drainage Problems Channel/Bank Erosion River/Creek Flooding All of the above Other (please specify) City of Salem Resilience Plan 45 2023 Survey Question: What type of property damage have you experienced resulting from a flood event? Many respondents (40%) have not encountered any property damage due to flooding, though among those who have, basement flooding, standing water around buildings, and street flooding were prominent issues. Survey Question: What type of negative impacts have you experienced resulting from a flood event? 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Basement flooding First floor damage inside home Structural or foundation damage Siding, roofing, windows, doors, and other exterior… Plumbing, sewer, or septic damages, issues, or… Utility damage (hvac, electrical, natural gas) Damage to secondary buildings/structures (shed,… Damaged/rotting wood features (exterior or… Mold/Mildew problems due to flooding Standing water on property (around buildings) Loss of vegetation (trees, shrubs, gardens) Soil washout or erosion damage Debris/Trash deposits Street flooding Vehicle damage due to flooding I have not experienced any property damage… Other (please specify) 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Damage to transportation networks (e.g., flooded… Loss of electricity / phone or landline loss Lack of access to clean drinking water Injury, illness, and/or concerns for personal safety Limited access to services (e.g., closure of… Damage to personal possessions (including… Sewer overflows Inability to perform work duties Riprap damage / Soil loss due to erosion Vibrio/E.Coli/Waterborne illness Mental health/Anxiety Debris/Trash deposits need to be cleaned up Evacuation / Temporary housing required I have not experienced any negative impacts… Other (please specify) City of Salem Resilience Plan 46 2023 Transportation networks seem to bear the brunt of flood-related damages, with a large majority of respondents (70%) citing damage to these as the major issue. These types of damages encompass flooded roadways, road closures, and transportation delays. Survey Question: Do you currently have any prevention or mitigation measures in place on your property(ies)? Currently, 34% of respondents lack any flood prevention measures, leaving them vulnerable to future damage. Those who have taken proactive steps often employ strategies such as French drains or yard drains and sump pump installations to safeguard their basements. Survey Question: Have you ever considered moving to another location (inside or outside the City of Salem) to avoid future flood losses, impacts, or damage? 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Flood insurance Elevation of property and utilities Use of flood-resistant materials (e.g., using tile in… Floodproofing of property, including basements Installation of flood vents in building foundation Generator usage during a flood Installation of a sump pump for basement flooding Installation of a sewer-backflow prevention valve Use of flood-resistant insulation / reinforced… Green Infrastructure (rain garden, planting trees,… French Drains / Yard Drains Berms/Ditches/Swales or lawn grading for… Riprap / Erosion control measures Water collection (rain barrels/cisterns, permeable… Soil replenishment/fill My property does not have measures in place to… Other (please specify) 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Yes –I am looking at buying/renting at a new location in the near future. Yes –I am considering buying/renting if flood events become more frequent. Yes –I have considered relocating but there are conditions that prevent me from doing so. No –I considered leaving but I have nowhere else to go. No –I do not want to leave my current location. No –My property never floods so it is not a concern. Other (please specify) City of Salem Resilience Plan 47 2023 Despite flood risks, many respondents (42%) indicated they do not intend on relocating, with some (35%) saying their property never floods so it is not a concern, demonstrating a strong attachment of respondents to their homes. Some respondents (10%) did say yes, they had considered relocating but conditions prevented them from doing so. Survey Question: Do you believe any of the project types listed below would provide benefits to your community? There seemed to be a general consensus among respondents about which projects should rank high on the City’s priority list, including: • Preserving and creating natural floodwater storage spaces; • Implementing design standards and building codes to minimize flooding and damage; • Increasing the size and capacity of drainage infrastructure; and • Instituting real estate sale disclosures for flood-prone properties. Respondents were given an opportunity to describe their own recommendations. They recommended making flood insurance more affordable, introducing stormwater management fees, incentivizing rainwater collection, and providing increased educational resources on flood resilience. Last, most respondents indicated a preference for email communication, with Facebook being the preferred social media platform for outreach. These insights provide valuable guidance to the City of Salem, as they plan future flood resilience and engagement strategies. The second phase of community engagement will focus on presentation of the Resilience Plan for public comment. The City will place the Plan on the City’s website to solicit additional community feedback. The feedback will be used to drive resilience priorities aimed at reducing flood impacts. 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Preserve/create natural spaces for floodwater storage Buy-outs of properties in flood prone areas Design standards/building codes to minimize flooding/flood damage Increase size/capacity of bridges and drainage pipes Increase community engagement, planning, and education Provide funding to property owners for floodproofing Real estate sale disclosures for flood prone properties Other (please specify) City of Salem Resilience Plan 48 2023 4.2 Gap Analysis Though Salem has implemented a range of programs, plans, and policies with flood resilience components, a review of these documents revealed areas where the City could expand efforts and implement addi�onal measures to bolster resilience. The following gap analysis iden�fies these areas and recommends logical next steps to move forward with improving resilience. Current Efforts Gaps Recommendations Plans • City plans do not address strategies to increase flood resilience. • Develop Watershed Management Plans. • Conduct a Repetitive Loss Areas Analysis. • Conduct a City-Wide Flood Study and Modeling. • Update Stormwater Management Plan. Community Outreach • Evaluate the effectiveness of outreach initiatives across the community. • Develop a Stormwater Facebook Page.* • Consider the creation of a committee or board composed of citizens, city staff, and strategic partners that will pinpoint areas with flooding issues and develop a plan of action for the city to address with a timeline. * • Conduct training for Building Inspectors, Code Enforcement Officers, and Zoning staff on FEMA guidelines. * Programs • Lack of involvement and updates in FEMA programs. • Consider adopting the FEMA Community Rating System (CRS). • Update FEMA Flood Hazard Maps and Modeling. • Participate in FEMA Hazard Mitigation Programs such as FMA, PDM, and HMGP for acquisition of flood prone properties or floodproofing projects. Policies • Lack of flood resilience policies in existing plans. • Consider incorporating flood resilience policies in the next Salem Comprehensive Plan. • Consider preserving and maintaining parks and open spaces on city-owned properties, while exploring additional opportunities to expand or add greenspace to vacant parcels. • Consider evaluating the impacts of providing developers with density and other incentives in exchange for the preservation of open space areas. City of Salem Resilience Plan 49 2023 4.3 Priority Recommendations Drawing from the literature review, gap analysis, and feedback from the community and city staff, a list of potential flood resilience projects, studies, and capacity and planning activities is summarized in Table 6 and described below. Table 6 is a matrix showing how each priority aligns with Commonwealth Resilience Planning Principles. The City will continue developing and expanding this project-specific list in the future and amend the plan accordingly. Projects • Inadequate flood mitigation measures in flood prone areas. • Lack of gray and green infrastructure that contribute to flood resilience. • Repair headwalls, erosion, and pipe issues and stabilize riverbanks to reduce road undercutting. • Install outlet and upgrade downstream system for stormwater pond located at Texas and Idaho Street. • Design a stream restoration project at different locations in the City to address issues related to erosion, water quality, habitat degradation, and overall stream health. • Consider expanding urban forest overlay district and the species list. • Conduct maintenance on open drainage system. • Consider the design and construction of installing additional storm drains at Broad and Academy Street to improve drainage. * • Conduct closed Stormwater system construction, upgrades, and repairs. • Stabilization of floodplain around bridges that have vegetation, erosion, or debris issues in their last bridge inspection. • Dredging of river and stream channels. Regulations • Regulations guided by state code provisions presently do not incorporate factors related to climate change, increased rainfall, and flooding. • Evaluate the impacts of updating precipitation data and IDF information. • Conduct annual review of floodplain ordinance. Funding • Lacks funding mechanisms that would enable the City to increase its flood resilience efforts through various projects and studies. • Implement a Stormwater Utility Fee. • Consider applying for grants that support flood resilience projects and studies. *Recommendations from the Community Engagement Survey City of Salem Resilience Plan 50 2023 Table 6: Priority Recommendations and Commonwealth Resilience Planning Principles Matrix Project Focused on Flood control and resilience Enhances Green/Nature- based Solutions Enhances Equity Community and regional coordination & planning Incorporates climate change and best available science Texas/Idaho Stormwater Basin x x x Outfall Stabilization x x x x Stream Restoration x x x x x Stormwater System Upgrades/Repair x x x x Bridge Floodplain Restoration x x x x x Dredging x x x x Study Citywide Flood Study & Modeling x x x x Storm Drain Evaluation x x x x Watershed Management Plan x x x x x Update FEMA Flood Hazard Maps and Modeling x x x x Update Stormwater Management Plan x x x x x Repetitive Loss Area Analysis x x x x x Evaluate the Impacts of Updating Precipitation and IDF data x x x x Capacity/Planning Flood Resilience Policies x x x x FEMA Community Rating System x x x x Green City-owned and Vacant Properties x x x x x Preservation & Conservation Incentives x x x x x City of Salem Resilience Plan 51 2023 Urban Forest Overlay x x x x x FEMA Hazard Mitigation Programs x x x x Stormwater Utility Fee x x x Grant Funding x x x x Stormwater Facebook Page x x x x Flood Resilience Committees x x x x x Annual Review of Floodplain Ordinance x x x x Maintenance on Open Drainage System x x x x x FEMA Staff Training x x x 4.3.1 Projects The projects mapped in Figure 24 and described below involve the development of flood protection facilities, acquisition of land, restoration of natural features, and other activities that involve design, construction, or installation of facilities. Activities, such as design and specifications, are necessary to ensure projects achieve their goals and are considered part of the project. Feasibility studies will be needed prior to the implementation, restoration, or remediation of any stormwater facility, outfall or bridge, or stream channel. Each project was ranked by a scoring matrix based on DCR criteria. Projects received points for nature-based solutions, restoration efforts, if located in a socially vulnerable or low-income area, expected lifespan, and the community scale of benefits. Additional information on the scoring matrix and criteria is included in Appendix A. City of Salem Resilience Plan 52 2023 Figure 24: Potential Project Sites Stormwater Basin Project Texas/Idaho Pond Type: Gray Infrastructure Score: 45 The City wants to install a proper outlet structure in this stormwater basin and upgrade the downstream stormwater system. Outlet structures typically include a principal spillway and an emergency overflow and would accomplish the design functions of the facility. The principal spillway would convey the design storm without allowing flow to enter an emergency outlet. If site restrictions prevent the use of an emergency spillway, then the principal spillway would be sized to safely pass the 100-yr design storm without overtopping the facility. The designer would consider partial clogging (50%) of the principal spillway during the 100-yr design storm to ensure the facility would not be overtopped. For this SWM basin, selecting a flood magnitude for sizing the emergency outlet would be consistent with the potential threat to downstream life and property if the basin embankment were to fail. The minimum flood used to size the emergency spillway would be the 100-yr design storm flood. The sizing of the outlet structure would be based on results of hydrologic routing calculations. City of Salem Resilience Plan 53 2023 Preliminary assessment of this large pond suggests water quality benefits in support of local MS4 and TMDL goals may be achieved through retrofitting. Further study is needed to understand the potential design constraints and cost-per-pound benefits. The location is valuable due to its highly visible location, and the pond could potentially be transformed from a maintenance burden and eye-sore into an ecological and recreational asset. Photo 1: Texas/Idaho Pond Outfall Stabilization Projects Type: Gray Infrastructure The City is looking at several outfall areas in need of repairs to alleviate headwall, erosion, and pipe issues. Stabilization measures are needed in the surrounding banks to reduce road undercutting and prevent backflow and flooding. Damaged outfalls require stabilization measures and improvements through the use of rip-rap, bioengineering techniques and/or vegetation. This would help reduce the amount of sediment, erosion, and flooding in the downstream channels and wetlands. Field assessments of the highest scoring outfalls with the most severe conditions, according to GIS desktop analysis and City staff, are included below. Mowles Spring Park Stream Reach Outfalls 270-01/270-03/270-04 Score: 20 The channel areas in the southeastern portion of the site upstream of Outfall 270-01 are severely incised, highly confined and actively eroding. The channel instability appears to stem from past land-use activities (logging, etc.). Restoration in this reach could offer significant water quality benefits to downstream receiving waters by limiting the loss of sediment and sediment attached pollutants. This reach offers little ancillary benefit in terms of enhanced protection of vulnerable City of Salem Resilience Plan 54 2023 utilities and/or flood mitigation, as the site is rural and confinement is only topographic and not associated with surrounding development. This reach offers good restoration potential, subject to limitations on property use. Further upstream, outfalls 270-03 and 270-04 are existing metal culverts which appear to have been installed to support past land use activities. Past activities (including the installation of the two culverts) have resulted in severe channel downcutting and erosion with channel depths now exceeding 10-ft in the area of the culverts. Restoration efforts aimed at limiting erosion would likely result in water quality benefits to downstream receiving waters. Photo 2: Mowles Spring Park Stream Reach Photo 3: Outfall 270-03 City of Salem Resilience Plan 55 2023 Outfall 263-02 Score: 20 This outfall is downstream of the existing triple box culvert near the intersection of Franklin Street and Tyler Way. Severe erosion has occurred at the outfall location as the stream has shifted toward the outfall. Field inspection found the last section of the CMP pipe to be completely disconnected from the rest, creating a significant channel obstruction. This end section should be removed and riprap outlet protection installed at the new outlet location to avoid issues resulting from the loose section washing downstream and creating an obstruction at the next crossing. Photo 4: Outfall 263-02 Outfall 060-05 Score: 38 Located at Stonewall Street, this suburban stream reach shows signs of significant erosion, largely due to land management practices on private property. Though the identified outfall does show signs of localized erosion, instability is limited and likely not severe enough to warrant action beyond post-storm monitoring. This area is best addressed through landowner outreach and education to encourage owners to plant and preserve riparian vegetation to limit future erosion. City of Salem Resilience Plan 56 2023 Photo 5: Outfall 060-05 Outfall 068-01 Score: 20 This outfall discharges into Dry Branch at Salem Municipal Golf Course and is severely unstable. See the Dry Branch stream restoration assessment for details on the stream and surrounding area. Photo 6: Outfall 068-01 City of Salem Resilience Plan 57 2023 Outfall 133-03 Score: 20 This outfall pipe is an existing CMP pipe protruding from a steep wooded bank between Butt Hollow Road and Fletcher Street. The pipe is fed by street drainage and appears to be severely undercut with the pipe emanating from the slope at an elevation approximately 8-10 feet above the stream invert. There is significant erosion around the outlet, but the large cobble in the stream bed has prevented a continued progression. Though this outfall is not an immediate maintenance concern, it should be monitored annually due to the fact that any failure in the storm drainage system on this steep slope could lead to geotechnical failure, posing a risk to houses along Fletcher Street. Photo 7: Outfall 133-03 Outfall 144-01 Score: 35 Though the outfall pipe and outfall area remain relatively stable, channel downcutting has exposed a utility crossing pipe that is now exposed approximately one foot above the surrounding Dry Branch stream bed. See the Dry Branch stream restoration assessment for details on the stream and surrounding area. City of Salem Resilience Plan 58 2023 Photo 8: Outfall 144-01 Outfall 160-02 Score: 35 Heavy vegetation and Market Street development surround this outfall. Floodplain analysis is needed to assess capacity potential. Multiple storm drainage outfalls flow into the stream corridor in this location and surrounding land use strongly impacts downstream water quality. Photo 9: Outfall 160-02 City of Salem Resilience Plan 59 2023 Outfall 160-09 Score: 35 This outfall is generally stable, conveying surface drainage from within the existing bus lot into Snyder Branch. The inlet of the outfall is located near the garage door of a bus maintenance area. Land use activities should be carefully managed in this lot to avoid contamination of downstream water resources and drainage system modifications considered to lessen potential environmental impacts. Photo 10: Outfall 160-09 Outfall 171-04 Score: 20 This outfall conveys drainage along Howard Drive under Butt Hollow Road and into the stream system. The existing CMP pipe is severely degraded, with the bottom rusted through and prone to failure. Photo 11: Outfall 171-04 City of Salem Resilience Plan 60 2023 Outfall 206-03 Score: 20 The concrete flume is in good condition and there do not seem to be any pressing issues requiring immediate remediation. Some channel erosion is seen downstream of the flume outfall, but does not present an immediate maintenance need. Photo 12: Outfall 206-03 Outfall 217-04 Score: 20 This outfall is located near the Eddy Ave bridge and discharges into the Roanoke River. Minor erosion is observed in the floodplain surrounding the outfall. See the Eddy Ave bridge assessment for more details on the bridge and surrounding area. Photo 13: Outfall 217-04 City of Salem Resilience Plan 61 2023 Outfall 233-05 Score: 35 This outfall on the Roanoke River at the Graham-White facility did not show any obvious signs of instability at the interface with the main river. Photo 14: Outfall 233-05 Stream Restoration Projects Type: Green Infrastructure/Nature-based Solution These projects aim to restore and enhance the ecological and environmental integrity of water bodies. They would be designed to address issues related to erosion, water quality, habitat degradation, and overall stream health. Additional flood reduction benefits may also be possible as part of restoration Funding would be used to reestablish the general structure, function, and dynamic, self-sustaining behavior of streams. The restoration would help mitigate erosion and flood risk by restoring floodplains and associated wetlands, increasing the capacity to absorb floodwaters and storm water runoff. Snyder Branch at Roanoke College Score: 35 Field assessment characterized this reach by actively eroding channel areas, especially through the forested corridor between Hawthorn Road (upstream) and the culvert entrance where flow is conveyed under college campus buildings adjacent to the existing athletic fields (Photo X). Bed material in this stream is generally finer-grained than other area streams, likely contributing to the ongoing erosion observed. This reach may offer excellent restoration potential if Roanoke College (as the landowner) will support restoration efforts. Downstream areas between the City of Salem Resilience Plan 62 2023 campus and Main Street are highly fragmented by piped sections, limiting the viability and effectiveness of restoration efforts downstream of Market Street. Restoration of the upstream reach may also provide an excellent educational opportunity for college staff and students. Photo 15: Snyder Branch at Roanoke College Salem High School Score: 35 This stream segment is highly confined by fencing on school property and adjacent property/structures along Goodwin Ave. The topography is moderately confining, more so on the high school side than on the east private property side. Field observation indicates significant erosion throughout the system. The stream is a reasonable candidate for stream restoration with buy-in from private landowners. Erosion is worst at the downstream end of the system along the athletic field and down to Big Lots. Erosion throughout the system threatens various elements of infrastructure, including high school fencing and storm sewer pipes near the downstream end. The gabion baskets around the inlets and outlets are approaching failure. Restoration would necessitate coordination and permission from numerous small lot landowners along Goodwin Ave. Restoration of this reach should prioritize integrating increased floodplain capacity to reduce flooding issues seen on properties in this area. City of Salem Resilience Plan 63 2023 Photo 16: Salem High School Branch Forest Drive Score: 35 This site consists of a stormwater pond and stream channel. The existing stormwater pond at the east end of Forest Drive provides little benefit or protection for the downstream receiving channel in its current configuration. Retrofitting and installing a staged riser structure along with limited channel restoration of the heavily eroded channel downstream of the pond outlet may offer meaningful water quality benefits to demonstrate MS4 and TMDL progress towards nutrient reductions. Photo 17: Forest Drive Pond City of Salem Resilience Plan 64 2023 Photo 18: Forest Drive Stream Butt Hollow Branch Score: 35 This section of stream is heavily confined and frequent driveway crossings create multiple constriction points between Howard Drive and Main Street. Restoration in this area would require buy-in from multiple private property owners. Any restoration efforts should seek to integrate flood mitigation strategies - which may help in garnering community support. Photo 19: Butt Hollow Branch City of Salem Resilience Plan 65 2023 Dry Branch Score: 35 Dry Branch at the Salem Municipal Golf Course is highly confined, with large cobble and gravel substrate. Erosion has been caused by confinement and straightening. The cobble substrate limits downcutting, and the system appears to be severely widened with late-stage lateral bank retreat limited by the surrounding property management activities. The surrounding land is held as an HOA common area with houses set back from the riparian corridor. Land ownership in this area may be conducive to restoration due to areas being held by a single entity. The area includes the severely unstable 068-01 outfall. Channel conditions at and upstream of the northern terminus of Highfield Road are improved due to shallow bedrock features. Photo 20: Dry Branch at the Salem Municipal Golf Course Dry Branch from Burwell Street to 4th Street is a highly confined urban system with cobble substrate, with limited ongoing erosion. The system is severely constrained by road crossings and surrounding development, limiting the conveyance capacity of the stream and increasing the potential flood impacts to surrounding properties. This reach includes Outfall 144-01, and the riparian corridor is comprised of mainly invasive species, including English Ivy and Japanese Knotweed. City of Salem Resilience Plan 66 2023 Photo 21: Dry Branch from Burwell Street to 4th Street Snyder Branch – White Oak Road to Carver Elementary Score: 50 The section of stream from White Oak Road to Carver Elementary is severely straightened, heavily constrained, and deeply incised due to the surrounding development and modifications made to the stream corridor. Erosion along this channel is a minor issue, but flooding and geotechnical issues are the major system issues. Outfall 160-09 discharges to the stream. Heavy use of gabion baskets throughout portions of this section will require future maintenance, as the wire corrodes and the baskets fail. Preliminary assessment did not observe any gabions where failure appears imminent. An additional concern is that Salem 911 operations and emergency services facilities are located within the Snyder Branch floodway. In the event of a major flood event, EMS operations may be severely hampered. A preliminary review of FEMA data indicates FEMA modeling information was last updated in 2007, and additional study to identify flood mitigation measures may be appropriate to minimize flood impacts to critical facilities. City of Salem Resilience Plan 67 2023 Photo 22: Snyder Branch – White Oak Road to Carver Elementary 12 O’Clock Branch Score: 35 This reach is surrounded by a highly confined, relatively steep valley, with large cobble substrate. Erosion has been caused by the confinement and straightening of the channel. The cobble limits ongoing erosion except in very incised areas near the lower end of the system along Mountain Avenue. Additional field assessment on private property is necessary to understand the full extent of the erosion issues. Implementing restoration measures would likely require the participation of more than a dozen property owners. Photo 23: 12 O’Clock Branch City of Salem Resilience Plan 68 2023 Mill Race to Mill Lane to Roanoke River Confluence Score: 50 Though this project scores high, this project would be a big undertaking. The reach from Mill Race to Mill Lane directly impacts the Roanoke River system, and restoration or outfall stabilization on the Roanoke River or adjacent Mill Race would likely be a risky endeavor in terms of feasibility, unforeseen impacts and cost. The risk of negatively impacting these large systems is just too great to warrant intervention unless conditions pose an immediate risk to public safety and health. Photo 24: Mill Race to Mill Lane to Roanoke River Confluence Horner’s Branch Score: 35 Minor erosion is occurring at the downstream end of this reach, with the road protected by a concrete wall. Most of the channel is not accessible without access through private property. Severe erosion was observed from Windsor Avenue crossing. Based on preliminary field investigation and the surrounding topography, this stream segment may be a good candidate for restoration if approximately six landowners with large lots are supportive. Additional landowner coordination and field investigation is necessary to better understand restoration potential. City of Salem Resilience Plan 69 2023 Photo 25: Horner’s Branch Bridges Type: Floodplain Stabilization Projects The following bridges had vegetation, erosion, or debris issues, which can affect the conveyance capacity and lead to flooding, cited during their last bridge inspections. Field assessments of the highest scoring bridges with the most severe conditions, according to GIS desktop analysis and City staff, are included below. Bridge 1802 Score: 43 This bridge under Apperson Drive is limited more by surrounding grade downstream of the bridge than by the bridge opening itself. Photo 26: Bridge 1802 City of Salem Resilience Plan 70 2023 Bridge 8001 Score: 43 This bridge on Mason Creek at Roanoke Blvd, east of Easton Drive appears to be in good condi�on but is somewhat limited in conveyance capacity. The road embankment and surrounding topography are more conducive to capacity modifica�ons and may allow for boring of floodplain culverts, subject to evalua�on of u�lity conflicts. Photo 27: Bridge 8001 Bridge 8004 Score: 46 This bridge on W. Burwell Street is one of the few locations where bridge condition issues were more evident. Though overall condition is fair, erosion at the downstream end of the concrete apron is causing subsidence. During the field visit staff also noted that the roadway adjacent to the bridge is lower than the bridge deck. When major repairs or replacement of this bridge become necessary it may be possible to adjust the grade around the bridge to reduce potential flooding for surrounding properties. Photo 28: Bridge 8004 City of Salem Resilience Plan 71 2023 Bridge 8006 Score: 28 This bridge on Carrollton Avenue over Dry Branch appears to be in good condi�on and provides adequate conveyance capacity for all but the largest storms. Photo 29: Bridge 8006 Bridge 8003 Score: 46 This bridge on Garst Street along Kessler Mill Road is somewhat capacity limited but is founded on bedrock. Topography and surrounding land use (highly constrained by an industrial building and residence) likely make conveyance capacity retrofits at this loca�on more difficult and expensive. Photo 30: Bridge 8003 City of Salem Resilience Plan 72 2023 Bridge 8000 Score: 38 This bridge on Mason Creek at Lynchburg Turnpike appears to have a lower conveyance capacity rela�ve to the upstream Electric Road bridge. Though bridge condi�on appears to be good, flooding issues to surrounding proper�es may warrant addi�onal study and evalua�on of alterna�ves to increase capacity. Photo 31: Bridge 8000 Bridge 1821 Score: 38 This bridge on Mason Creek downstream of Lakeside shopping center appears to be in good condi�on and provides adequate conveyance capacity for all but the largest storms. Retrofit to increase capacity during major floods is likely costly due to roadway configura�on and surrounding land use. Photo 32: Bridge 1821 City of Salem Resilience Plan 73 2023 Bridge 1817 Score: 43 This bridge on the Roanoke River under Electric Road does not appear to have any major condi�on issues and conveyance appears adequate for all but the largest storms. Photo 33: Bridge 1817 Bridge 1815 Score: 38 This bridge along Main Street east of Kessler Mill Road is in good condi�on and conveyance appears adequate for all but the largest storms. This bridge loca�on is highly confined by surrounding infrastructure and development, likely making flood capacity retrofits difficult and expensive. Photo 34: Bridge 1815 City of Salem Resilience Plan 74 2023 Bridge 8008 Score: 28 Minor debris build-up, mainly on the downstream side of the crossing. Maintenance dredging should be considered in the short to medium term (1-5 years). Photo 35: Bridge 8008 Bridge 1811 Score: 43 This bridge along 4th Street over Dry Branch has minor debris build- up and erosion around the concrete apron. A floodplain analysis may be needed for an addi�onal study and evalua�on of alterna�ves to increase capacity. Photo 36: Bridge 1811 City of Salem Resilience Plan 75 2023 Stormwater System Improvements Type: Gray Infrastructure The following capital improvement projects are needed to prevent flooding, protect water quality, and ensure the resilience of urban infrastructure: • Storm Sewer Upgrades – 4th Street/Union Score: 35 • Culvert Replacement – Chamberlain Lane Score: 38 • Storm Drain-Boulevard Upgrades Score: 35 • Storm Drain Construction – Florida Street Score: 35 • Storm Drain Planning and Construction – Market and Clay Street Score: 20 Dredging River and Stream Channels Type: Gray Infrastructure The following were identified by the City as areas in need of dredging to provide the room needed to access and perform maintenance on bridges and culverts. Downstream from Eddy Ave Bridge Score: 43 The bridge is downstream of the Mill Lane bridge but less prone to inundation than Mill Lane. The floodplain in this area is relatively low sloping with broad, flat cobble benches flanking the baseflow channel. Only minor erosion was observed around the bridge and in downstream areas. There is limited potential for restoration or dredging in this area. Photo 37: Eddy Ave Bridge City of Salem Resilience Plan 76 2023 Rotary Park Score: 43 This area offers limited benefit from dredging or other restoration activities. The corridor shows little sign of erosion, and the gravel/cobble deposition is predominantly a product of the surrounding topography. Given the size of the stream system and upstream bridges, preliminary assessment indicates little long-term conveyance capacity benefit may be achieved from dredging operations. Photo 38: Rotary Park Downstream at the Mill Lane Bridge Score: 38 Maintenance dredging may improve conveyance capacity and limit flooding to surrounding infrastructure and properties. Further study is needed to evaluate the potential benefits of dredging and should include an assessment of sediment transport dynamics to determine the long-term viability of dredging efforts. Photo 39: Mill Lane Bridge City of Salem Resilience Plan 77 2023 4.3.2 Studies The following studies aim to collect critical data and develop innovative tools designed to promote flood resilience on a local, regional, and statewide scale. These comprehensive efforts incorporate social vulnerability data and low-income areas for a robust approach to flood management. Citywide Flood Study & Modeling Score: 95 A citywide flood study and modeling will assess and mitigate flood risks within the City’s boundaries. This study aims to evaluate the city's vulnerability to flooding, analyze historical flood data, assess the impact of climate change, and develop strategic plans for flood prevention and emergency response. The study would utilize hydraulic and hydrologic studies of floodplains to aid in the creation of tools to identify and display information on citywide flood risks. This would encompass all of Salem, including two low-income geographic areas. Storm Drain Evaluation Score: 75 The City is considering the design and construction of installing additional storm drains at Broad and Academy Street in response to citizen complaints in the community engagement survey regarding insufficient drainage during storm events. Addressing this concern would help reduce the risk of flooding and enhance the quality of life for residents relying on effective stormwater management systems. The City can utilize this study for potential land use strategies that reduce damage from riverine flooding as Broad and Academy Street are two main roads in the City. As part of Broad Street is located in a low-income area, this would be valuable opportunity to create a crowd-sourced mapping platform that gathers data points about real-time flooding in order to decide the most efficient areas for storm drain installation. Watershed Management Plans Score: 70 Salem does not have any Watershed Management Plans (WMPs). Developing these plans would help the city understand, restore, and protect the quality and quantity of lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands in a given watershed. Once these are understood, the City could plan which measures would be most beneficial to increasing flood resilience. The WMPs may utilize hydrologic and hydraulic studies of floodplains to include watershed scale evaluation, updated estimates of rainfall intensity, or other information. These plans would cover each watershed in Salem, prioritizing the ones located in the City’s two low-income geographic areas. Update FEMA Flood Hazard Maps and Modeling Score: 70 Updating Salem’s flood maps would help mortgage lenders determine insurance requirements and help the City develop strategies for reducing flood risk. The mapping process would help the City make more informed decisions about how to reduce or manage flood risk in low-income geographic areas. New or updated delineations may be incorporated into FEMA Flood Hazard City of Salem Resilience Plan 78 2023 Maps, using modeling to determine areas of recurrent flooding and stormwater flooding. The potential of more intense rainfall events in the future or other relevant flood risk factors may be evaluated by conducting hydrologic and hydraulic studies of floodplains. Update Stormwater Management Plan Score: 70 The City’s Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) was developed in 1997 and therefore needs an update to prevent any unmanaged stormwater from causing erosion and flooding. The process of updating the SWMP will help ensure measures are in place to recharge groundwater and protect land and streams from erosion, flooding and pollutants. Without proper management in place, there is the potential for runoff stormwater to overflow drainage ditches, sewer systems, and storm drains. The Salem SWMP would contain material describing methods to manage the quality and quantity of runoff resulting from any land-disturbing activity that (i) disturbs one acre or more of land or (ii) disturbs less than one acre of land and is part of a larger common plan of development or sale that results in one acre or more of land disturbance. The plan would delineate areas with known stormwater flooding and include projects for future conditions based on more intense rainfall events or other relevant flood risk factors. This effort will help prevent any excess flow of water from leading to flooding throughout the City, including two low-income geographic areas. Repetitive Loss Area Analysis Score: 55 This analysis is a comprehensive assessment that would examine areas prone to repetitive flood losses. The analysis would evaluate historical flood damage data, flood insurance claims, repetitive flooding in low income geographic areas, and flood mitigation efforts in specific regions in the city to identify patterns of recurrent flood events. New or updated delineations of areas of recurrent flooding and stormwater flooding may include projections for future conditions based on more intense rainfall events or other relevant flood risk factors. Evaluate the impacts of updating precipitation data and IDF information Score: 55 The City would evaluate the impacts (social, environmental, economic) of updating precipitation and IDF information (rain intensity, duration, frequency estimates) including such data at a sub- state or regional scale on a periodic basis. In anticipation of new stormwater design elements that may soon be required by regulatory agencies, the City would like to proactively conduct a comprehensive assessment of incorporating new climate change factors into stormwater management and design. This would encompass all of Salem, including two low-income geographic areas. 4.3.3 Capacity Building & Planning Capacity building and planning projects are aimed at improving the ability of Salem to assess flood risk and resilience capabilities and to identify and mitigate flood risk and flood impacts. City of Salem Resilience Plan 79 2023 This is done through training of existing staff, hiring personnel, contracting with expert consultants or advisors, and other related actions described below. Flood Resilience Policies Score: 60 The findings from the gap analysis indicated that policies focused on flood resilience are largely missing from City plans. Thus, the City intends to incorporate flood resiliency policy into the next iteration of the Comprehensive Plan. Goals, objectives, and strategies for decreasing flood risk and increasing adaptability would be considered. The impacts of new flood resilience policies on economic development, education, government services, housing and neighborhoods, land use and community appearance, open space, and transportation and infrastructure would be evaluated, and new gray/green infrastructure and nature-based solutions would be included on existing and future land use maps. FEMA Community Rating System (CRS) Score: 50 The City is considering participating in the FEMA CRS. Costing an estimated $20,000 (Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2019), participation could lead to substantial benefits for communities throughout the City in terms of flood mitigation and preparedness and reductions in flood insurance rates. The City would conduct the assessments and formulate the planning and strategies needed to achieve the three goals of the program: (1) Reduce and avoid flood damage to insurable property, (2) Strengthen and support the insurance aspects of the National Flood Insurance Program, and (3) Foster comprehensive floodplain management. Green City-owned & Vacant Properties Score: 50 The City is evaluating the potential of using city-owned properties and/or vacant parcels to improve flood resilience and achieve other planning goals. Preserving and maintaining parks and open spaces on these properties has the potential to not only manage stormwater and mitigate flooding but also foster recreational opportunities and enhance quality of life for a wide variety of residents. As Salem continues to grow and develop economically, these open spaces will compete with other land uses, such as residential, commercial, and industrial development, and Salem will need to balance these competing land uses with the goal of increasing resilience (City of Salem, 2012). Preservation & Conservation Incentives Score: 45 The City plans on evaluating the impacts of implementing various policy incentives, aimed at increasing the amount of preserved or conserved areas in communities throughout the City. Providing developers with incentives, such as density bonuses in exchange for preserving or conserving open space, would encourage developers to include green spaces and natural areas in their designs that are capable of absorbing floodwaters and buffering nearby residents from flood damage. Incorporating preservation/conservation areas into new developments can also City of Salem Resilience Plan 80 2023 enhance property values and help the City achieve growth and density objectives. This effort would help move forward some of the strategies outlined in Salem’s Comprehensive Plan (City of Salem, 2012) that call for preservation of existing wooded areas, vegetation, recreational and open space, and parks. Urban Forest Overlay Score: 45 The City is considering expanding the Urban Forest Overlay District to flood-prone areas throughout the City to enhance the natural stormwater management and flood mitigation capabilities of urban forests. The City is evaluating areas in need of tree planting or increased protection. Increasing the specimen list of trees within the district to include more native species and expanding canopy tree requirements to all development (City of Salem, 2012) would expand the coverage and benefits of urban forests to flood resilience and contribute to the sustainability of the City by promoting ecological diversity and improving air quality. FEMA Hazard Mitigation Programs Score: 40 Salem is considering applying to FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs to obtain funding for the acquisition of flood prone properties or flood-proofing projects. The effort would cost an estimated $500,000 and potentially provide funding for acquisition/demolition projects, structure elevation, mitigation reconstruction, flood-proofing critical facilities and commercial structures, infrastructure upgrades, and technology upgrades (Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2019). FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance focuses on reducing or eliminating the risk of repetitive flood damage to buildings and structures insured by the NFIP, and with NFIP-participating communities. Receiving this assistance would require the City to conduct resource assessments and develop strategies for reducing flood risk and damage to these properties. Stormwater Utility Fee Score: 40 The gap analysis revealed a general lack of funding sources available to the City to fund stormwater and resilience projects and studies. By instituting a regional stormwater utility fee, Salem could establish a dedicated source of revenue to conduct resource assessments, planning, strategies, and development. These projects would encompass stormwater management system improvements, drainage enhancements, and floodplain management and mitigation solutions. These projects are pivotal in mitigating the destructive impacts of floods and bolstering resilience. Grant Funding Score: 40 The City will consider additional federal, state, and local grant funding opportunities to enhance its resilience efforts through a range of projects and studies. It is crucial to explore alternative City of Salem Resilience Plan 81 2023 sources of revenue to address flood resilience initiatives that close the gaps within Salem's current flood resilience endeavors. Stormwater Facebook Page Score: 35 The response from the Salem Resilience Plan: Community Feedback Survey suggested the City develop a Stormwater Facebook Page to facilitate communication between Salem and the public regarding vital strategies for flood preparedness. This could provide an additional way for the City to engage a diverse range of stakeholders and provide them with guidance on how to obtain insurance coverage while raising awareness about potential flood hazards, particularly in RLAs. Flood Resilience Committee Score: 35 A recommendation that came from the Salem Resilience Plan: Community Feedback Survey was the creation of a Flood Resilience Committee, comprised of a wide range of members representing communities throughout the City. Salem is considering the creation of a committee or board composed of citizens, city staff, and strategic partners, tasked with pinpointing areas with flood issues. The committee could establish goals for evaluation and implementation of flood resilience measures, including a timeline for the City to address priority areas of concern. Annual Review of Floodplain Ordinance Score: 35 Conducting an Annual Review of the Floodplain Ordinance was a goal included in the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan (2019). The review is vital for the City to maintain its eligibility and good standing with the FEMA NFIP and provide guidance for development. This would ensure that Salem's floodplain management practices remain in compliance with FEMA guidelines, helping to safeguard its residents, infrastructure, and access to crucial flood insurance benefits in the event of flood disasters. Maintenance on Open Drainage System Score: 35 The City is evaluating the best approach for performing maintenance on the open drainage system throughout the City. Over time, the City’s drainage system has become obstructed by debris, causing water flow problems and increasing the risk of flooding in various areas. Cleaning and clearing these drainage systems would help the City improve stream flow and mitigate flooding, clear debris and repair banks to prevent backup, prevent erosion and flooding of existing drainage systems (Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2019). It would cost an estimated $100,000 for the City to develop a long term maintenance strategy. FEMA Staff Training Score: 15 Feedback from the Salem Resilience Plan: Community Feedback Survey recommended that City provide training for Building Inspectors, Code Enforcement Officers, and Zoning staff on FEMA City of Salem Resilience Plan 82 2023 guidelines. The training would help facilitate an integrated, whole community, risk-informed, capabilities-based approach to flood preparedness; staff would learn what to do before, during, and after the hazards their communities may face. The training would address urgent and emerging preparedness gaps for the state and region, helping communities to better prepare for incidents and develop disaster response plans. 5.0 CONCLUSION This Resilience Plan represents the City of Salem’s first step toward a coordinated resilience effort for the entire City. The goal is to build greater flood resilience in both natural and human systems, balancing development and growth with the need to better prepare for and recover from flooding. While many of the City’s ongoing resilience efforts are already underway, this Plan brings together old and new initiatives to move the City forward. The Plan serves as a basis to apply for additional state funding to support resiliency efforts. City leadership will take the next steps in identifying where funding is needed to implement the most cost-effective and equitable solutions while continuing to align planning and actions with regional hazard mitigation efforts. Through this ongoing and iterative process, Salem remains committed to engaging with the community and regional partners to improve its understanding of flood issues and resilience. City leaders will continue to evolve and update this Plan as conditions, data, and technologies change. 6.0 REFERENCES Carpenter, D. H. (1990). Floods in West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, November 1985: Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4213. United States Geological Survey. https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1988/4213/report.pdf Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry/ Geospatial Research, Analysis, and Services Program (CDC/ATSDR). (2018). CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index. Retrieved from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/placeandhealth/svi/index.html City of Salem. (2023). Capital improvement plan. https://salemva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4016/2023-to-2024-Proposed-Budget City of Salem. (2012). Comprehensive plan of the City of Salem. https://salemva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2476/Comprehensive-Plan-for-the-City-of- Salem-PDF?bidId= City of Salem (2016). Downtown plan. https://salemva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2489/Downtown-Plan-PDF?bidId= City of Salem. (n.d.) Flood zones. https://www.salemva.gov/234/Flood-Zones City of Salem. (2022). Municipal separate storm sewer system annual report. https://www.salemva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2743/2021-to-2022-City-of-Salem-MS4- Annual-Report-PDF City of Salem. (2020). Post-construction stormwater management program manual. https://salemva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2731/Salem-Post-Construction-SWM-Manual- 2020-PDF City of Salem. (2021). Roanoke River sediment TMDL action plan. https://salemva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2725/City-of-Salem-Sediment-TMDL-Action- Plan-PDF City of Salem Resilience Plan 83 2023 City of Salem. (2020). Salem recognizes Va. Flood Awareness Week. https://www.salemva.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=36 City of Roanoke (2018). Stormwater Advisory Committee Meeting Notes. https://www.roanokeva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13328/RVRC-Local-and-Regional- Stormwater-Advisory-Committee-Meeting-Minutes City of Salem. (2018). Stormwater education and public participation program services and items to be provided by Clean Valley Council, inc. until june 30, 2019, and each renewal period that may be exercised thereafter. https://www.salemva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2737/CVC-Scope-of-Services-for-Salem- City-PDF Clean Valley Council. (n.d.) About Us. https://www.cleanvalley.org/learn-more Climatedata.ca (n.d.) Best practices for using IDF curves. https://climatedata.ca/resource/best- practices-for-using-idf-curves/ Commonwealth of Virginia. (2021). Virginia Coastal Resilience Master Plan. https://www.dcr.virginia.gov/crmp/plan Corrigan, P. (2020). The floods of November, 1985: then and now. National Weather Service. https://www.weather.gov/media/rnk/past_events/Flood%20of%201985_Then- Now_2020.pdf Cutter, S. L., Barnes, L., Berry, M., Burton, C., Evans, E., Tate, E., & Webb, J. (2008). A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 598-606. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). (2023). Stormwater local assistance flood. https://www.deq.virginia.gov/our-programs/water/clean-water-financing-and- assistance/stormwater-local-assistance-fund-slaf Dewberry & Davis. (1997). Roanoke Valley regional stormwater management plan. https://rvarc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/volume1.pdf Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. (n.d.). CREAT Climate Change Scenarios Projection Map. https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=3805293158d54846a29f750 d63c6890e EPA. (2022). Overview of total maximum daily loads (tmdl). https://www.epa.gov/tmdl/overview-total-maximum-daily-loads-tmdls EPA. (2003). Protecting water quality from urban runoff. htps://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/nps_urban-facts_final.pdf EPA. (n.d.) Streamflow Projections Map. https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=48dcf8ca136a49a298a60e3 1422d58f0 EPA . (2021). Stormwater best management practice: urban forestry. htps://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-11/bmp-urban-forestry.pdf Everbridge. (n.d.). City of Salem, VA instant info. https://member.everbridge.net/892807736725735/login City of Salem Resilience Plan 84 2023 Ewea, H. A., Elfeki, A. M., Bahrawi, J. A., & Al-Amri, N. S. (2018). Modeling of IDF curves for stormwater design in Makkah Al Mukarramah region, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Open Geosciences, 10(1), 954-969. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2021). Building community resilience with nature-based solutions: A guide for local communities. htps://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_riskmap-nature-based-solu�ons- guide_2021.pdf FEMA. (2023). Flood mitigation assistance grant program. https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/floods FEMA. (2005). Floodplain management requirements. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema-480_floodplain-management- study-guide_local-officials.pdf FEMA. (2011). Guidance for severe repetitive loss properties. https://www.fema.gov/pdf/nfip/manual201205/content/20_srl.pdf FEMA. (2020b). Laws and Regulations. https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/rules-legislation/laws FEMA. (2007). Risk management series: design guide for improving critical facility safety from flooding and high winds. https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 8/fema543_design_guide_complete.pdf FEMA. (2018). Stopping the could have, should have, and would have: why mitigation just makes sense.https://www.fema.gov/news-release/20200220/stopping-could-have-should-have-and- would-have-why-mitigation-just-makes Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration. (n.d.). Critical facilities and higher standards. Federal Emergency Management Agency. http://data.wvgis.wvu.edu/pub/RA/_resources/CF/FPM_1_Page_CriticalFacilities_and_Higher Standards.pdf Firehock, K. (2012). Evaluating and conserving green infrastructure across the landscape: A practitioner's guide. Charlotesville, Virginia. General VPDES Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, Va. Admin Code § 9VAC25-890-40 (2005). https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title9/agency25/chapter890/section40/ Homefacts. (2023). Hurricane Information For Salem, VA. https://www.homefacts.com/hurricanes/Virginia/Salem-City-County/Salem.html Huang, Y., Tian, Z., Ke, Q., Liu, J., Irannezhad, M., Fan, D., ... & Sun, L. (2020). Nature-based solu�ons for urban pluvial flood risk management. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water , 7(3), e1421. IPCC. (2023). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 1-34, doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.001 Konrad, C. P. (2016). Effects of urban development on floods. United States Geological Survey. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs07603/#:~:text=Removing%20vegetation%20and%20soil%2C%20g rading,floods%20increase%20in%20nearby%20streams. City of Salem Resilience Plan 85 2023 Lallemant, D., Hamel, P., Balbi, M., Lim, T. N., Schmit, R., & Win, S. (2021). Nature-based solu�ons for flood risk reduc�on: A probabilis�c modeling framework. One Earth, 4(9), 1310- 1321. Ling, T. Y., Lin, J. S., Lin, C. T., & Lin, C. H. (2022). Citizen engagement under climate change-local communication practice toward resilience. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 100184. Miro, M. E., DeGaetano, A. T., López-Cantú, T., Samaras, C., Webber, M., & Grocholski, K. R. (2021). Developing Future Projected Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) Curves: A Technical Report on Data, Methods, and IDF Curves for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Virginia. RAND. Miro, M., DeGaetano, A., Samaras, C., & Wood, D. (2021, August 12). Understanding the new Chesapeake By climate-change informed IDF curves. [Webinar]. Chesapeake Stormwater Network. https://chesapeakestormwater.net/resource/webcast-recording-understanding- the-new-chesapeake-bay-climate-change-informed-idf-curves/ Montalto, F., Hoover, F., Miro, M., Grove, K., & Wood, D. (2021, March 16). Climate change and extreme rainfall: Translating future projections into more resilient urban communities. [Webinar]. Chesapeake Stormwater Network. https://chesapeakestormwater.net/resource/recording-climate-change-and-extreme-rainfall- translating-future-projections-into-more-resilient-urban-communities/ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Framing the challenge of urban flooding in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25381. Roanoke River Blueway. (n.d). Welcome to the Roanoke River Blueway. https://www.roanokeriverblueway.org Roanoke Stormwater. (2021). NFIP community rating system repetitive loss area analysis. https://www.roanokeva.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16542/Roanoke-RLAA-2021- Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (RVAR) (2019). Regional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Committee. https://rvarc.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/05/Appendix_A_Committee_Meetings.pdf Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional (RVAR) Commission. (2019). Roanoke Valley-Alleghany regional hazard mitigation plan. https://rvarc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/RVAR_Hazard_Mitigation_Plan_2019.pdf Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, Virginia Department of Forestry, & Virginia Department of Conserva�on and Recrea�on. (2010). A report on the city of Salem’s exis�ng and possible urban tree canopy. htps://rvarc.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/01/UTC_Report_Salem_2010.pdf Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission & Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission. (2018). 2018 Roanoke valley greenway plan. 1-100. Summers, J. K., Harwell, L. C., Smith, L. M., & Buck, K. D. (2018). Measuring community resilience to natural hazards: The natural hazard resilience screening index (NaHRSI)—development and application to the United States. GeoHealth, 2(12), 372-394. U.S. Census Bureau (2020). QuickFacts Salem city, Virginia. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/salemcityvirginia# City of Salem Resilience Plan 86 2023 US Census Bureau (2020). Salem city; Salem city; Virginia. https://data.census.gov/profile?g=060XX00US5177595547 USDA. (n.d). Riparian forest buffers. htps://www.fs.usda.gov/nac/prac�ces/riparian-forest- buffers.php Virginia Agency Property System. 2003. Critical facility information. https://vaps.trs.virginia.gov/application/help.htm#CriticalFacilityInformation Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation (VA DCR). (2005). The floodplain management plan of the Commonwealth of Virginia. https://www.dcr.virginia.gov/dam-safety-and-floodplains/document/2005-The-Floodplain- Management-Plan-commonwealth.pdf Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. (2015). Roanoke valley-Alleghany planning region local action plan. htp://bewildvirginia.org/wildlife-ac�on- plan/pdf/22%20Roanoke%20Valley%20Planning%20Region%20Final%20July%202016.pdf Wood, D. (2021, May 20). Climate change vulnerabilities and resilient design considerations for stormwater BMPs. [Webinar]. Chesapeake Stormwater Network. https://chesapeakestormwater.net/resource/recording-climate-change-vulnerabilities-and- resilient-design-considerations-for-stormwater-bmps/ APPENDIX A: SCORING MATRIX & CRITERIA PROJECT Census Tract(s) Census Block(s) Social Vulnerability (SV) Score (Level of SV) Project Area SV points (Up to 10) Low Income Geographic Area (Yes 10, No 0) Wetland/floodplain restoration, Construction of swales and settling ponds, Stream bank restoration or stabilization, Restoration of floodplains to natural and beneficial function. (25) Other projects (10) Expected Lifespan (Up to 10) TOTAL SCORE Stormwater Basin Texas/Idaho Pond 010100 Block Group 2 -1.32 (Very Low) 0 10 25 0 10 45 Outfall Stabilization 060-05 010100 Block Group 3 1.13 (High) 8 10 0 10 10 38 068-01 010200 Block Group 2 Block Group 3 2: -0.38 (Low) 3: -1.16 (Very Low) 0 0 0 10 10 20 133-03 010200 Block Group 5 -1.05 (Very Low) 0 0 0 10 10 20 144-01 010300 Block Group 4 0.99 (Moderate) 5 10 0 10 10 35 160-02 010300 Block Group 2 0.68 (Moderate) 5 10 0 10 10 35 160-09 010300 Block Group 2 0.68 (Moderate) 5 10 0 10 10 35 171-04 010200 Block Group 5 -1.05 (Very Low) 0 0 0 10 10 20 206-03 010502 Block Group 1 -1.25 (Very Low) 0 0 0 10 10 20 217-04 010502 Block Group 3 -0.61 (Low) 0 0 0 10 10 20 233-05 010300 Block Group 2 0.68 (Moderate) 5 10 0 10 10 35 263-02 010501 Block Group 2 -0.13 (Low) 0 0 0 10 10 20 270-01 010502 Block Group 4 -0.24 (Low) 0 0 0 10 10 20 270-03 010502 Block Group 4 -0.24 (Low) 0 0 0 10 10 20 270-04 010502 Block Group 4 -0.24 (Low) 0 0 0 10 10 20 Stream Restoration Projects Butt Hollow Branch 010200 Block Group 5 -1.05 (Very Low) 0 0 25 0 10 35 Salem High School 010200 Block Group 4 -0.28 (Low) 0 0 25 0 10 35 Dry Branch 010200 Block Group 3 -1.16 (Very Low) 0 0 25 0 10 35 Snyder Branch at Roanoke College 010200 Block Group 1 -1.94 (Very Low) 0 0 25 0 10 35 Williams Branch – White Oak Road to Carver Elementary 010300 Block Group 2 0.68 (Moderate) 5 10 25 0 10 50 12 O'Clock Branch 010502 Block Group 1 -1.25 (Very Low) 0 0 25 0 10 35 Mill Race – Mill Ln. to Roanoke River Confluence 010300 Block Group 4 0.99 (Moderate) 5 10 25 0 10 50 Horner's Branch 010200 Block Group 5 -1.05 (Very Low) 0 0 25 0 10 35 Forest Drive 010501 Block Group 3 -1.97 (Very Low) 0 0 25 0 10 35 Stormwater System Improvements Storm Sewer Upgrades 010300 Block Group 2 Block Group 4 2: 0.68 (Moderate) 4: 0.99 (Moderate) 5 10 0 10 10 35 Culvert Replacement 010100 Block Group 4 1.31 (High) 8 10 0 10 10 38 Storm Drain 010100 010300 101: Block Group 2 103: Block Group 2 101: 2: -1.32 (Very Low) 103: 2: 0.68 (Moderate) Avg: -0.32 (Moderate) 5 10 0 10 10 35 Storm Drain Construction 010300 Block Group 2 0.68 (Moderate) 5 10 0 10 10 35 Storm Drain Planning and Construction 010200 Block Group 1 -1.94 (Very Low) 0 0 0 10 10 20 Floodplain Stabilization around Bridges 1802 010501 010300 105: Block Group 2 103: Block Group 2 105:2: -0.13 (Low) 103:2:0.68 (Moderate) Avg: 0.55 (Moderate) 5 10 25 0 3 43 8001 010300 Block Group 1, Block Group 3 1:0.84 (Moderate) 3: 1.00 (High) Avg: 0.92 (Moderate) 5 10 25 0 3 43 8004 010300 Block Group 4 1.31 (High) 8 10 25 0 3 46 8006 010200 Block Group 3 -1.16 (Very Low) 0 0 25 0 3 28 8003 010100 Block Group 1 1.17 (High) 8 10 25 0 3 46 8000 010100 010300 101: Block Group 2 103: Block Group 3 2:-1.32 (Very Low) 3: 1.00 (High) Avg: -0.16 (Low) 0 10 25 0 3 38 1821 010100 Block Group 2 -1.32 (Very Low) 0 10 25 0 3 38 1817 010501 010300 501: Block Group 1 103: Block Group 1 501:1: 0.62 (Moderate) 0.84 (Moderate) Avg: 0.73 (Moderate) 5 10 25 0 3 43 1815 010100 Block Group 2, Block Group 1 2: -1.32 (Very Low) 1: 1.17 (High) Avg: -0.08 (Low) 0 10 25 0 3 38 8008 010200 Block Group 5 -1.05 (Very Low) 0 0 25 0 3 28 1811 010300 Block Group 4 0.99 (Moderate) 5 10 25 0 3 43 Dredging Stream Channels Downstream from the Eddy Ave bridge 010502 010300 502: Block Group 3 300: Block Group 2 3: -0.61 (Low) 2: 0.68 (Moderate) Avg: 0.07 (Moderate) 5 10 25 0 3 43 Rotary Park 010501 010300 501: Block Group 2 300: Block Group 2 501: 2: -0.13 (Low) 300:2: 0.68 (Moderate) Avg: 0.55 (Moderate) 5 10 25 0 3 43 Downstream at the low water bridge (Mill Ln.) 010502 010300 502: Block Group 1 502: Block Group 2 300: Block Group 4 502: 1: -1.25 (Very Low) 502: 2: -1.01 (Very Low) 300: 0.99 (Moderate) Avg: -1.27 (Very Low) 0 10 25 0 3 38 STUDY Creating tools or applications to identify, aggregate, or display information on flood risk or creating a crowd-sourced mapping platform that gathers data points about real- time flooding (25) Conducting hydrologic and hydraulic studies of floodplains (15) Studies and Data Collection of Statewide and Regional Significance Points (Up to 45) Low Income Geographic Area (Yes 10, No 0) TOTAL SCORE Citywide Flood Study & Modeling 25 15 45 10 95 Storm Drain Evaluation 25 0 40 10 75 Watershed Management Plans 0 15 45 10 70 Update FEMA Flood Hazard Maps and Modeling. 0 15 45 10 70 Update Stormwater Management Plan 0 15 45 10 70 Repetitive Loss Area Analysis 0 0 45 10 55 Evaluate the Impacts of Updating Precipitation and IDF data. 0 0 45 10 55 CAPACITY BUILDING & PLANNING Eligible Capacity Building and Planning Activities. (Up to 100) Low Income Geographic Area Yes 10, No TOTAL SCORE Flood Resilience Policies 60 0 60 FEMA Community Rating System (CRS). 40 10 50 Greening City-owned and Vacant Properties 40 10 50 Preservation/Conservation Incentives 35 10 45 Urban Forest Overlay 35 10 45 FEMA Hazard Mitigation Programs 40 0 40 Stormwater Utility Fee 40 0 40 Grant Funding 40 0 40 Stormwater Facebook page 35 0 35 Flood Resilience Committee 25 10 35 Annual Review of Floodplain Ordinance 35 0 35 Maintenance on Open Drainage System 25 10 35 FEMA Staff Training 15 0 15 Scoring Criteria Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Virginia Community Flood Preparedness Fund Grant Program SCORING CRITERIA PER CATEGORY Projects Eligible Projects, up to 30 points. •Acquisition (30) •Wetland/floodplain restoration, Construction of swales and settling ponds, Living shorelines and vegetated buffers, Permanent conservation of undeveloped lands identified as having flood resilience value by ConserveVirginia’s floodplain and flooding Resilience layer or a similar data driven analytic tool, Dam removal, Stream bank restoration or stabilization, Restoration of floodplains to natural and beneficial function. (25) •Other nature-based approach (20) •Hybrid approach resulting in nature-based solution (15) •All other projects (10) Social Vulnerability Index Score, up to 10 points. •Very High Social Vulnerability (More than 1.5) (10) •High Social Vulnerability (1.0 to 1.5) (8) •Moderate Social Vulnerability (0.0 to 1.0) (5) •Low Social Vulnerability (-1.0 to 0.0) (0) •Very Low Social Vulnerability (Less than -1.0) (0) Community scale of benefits, up to 30 points. •More than one census block (30) •50-100% of census block (25) •25-49% of census block (20) •Less than 25% of census block (0) Expected lifespan of project, up to 10 points. •10 -14 Years (3) •15 - 20 Years (5) •Over 20 Years (10) Remedy for NFIP probation or suspension (yes 5, no 0) Proposed project part of a low-income geographic area (yes 10, no 0) Proposed project implements a Chesapeake Bay TMDL BMP (yes 5, no 0) Studies Revising floodplain ordinances to maintain compliance with the NFIP or to incorporate higher standards that may reduce the risk of flood damage, 30 points. Creating tools or applications to identify, aggregate, or display information on flood risk or creating a crowd-sourced mapping platform that gathers data points about real-time flooding. This could include a locally or regionally based web-based mapping product that allows local residents to better understand their flood risk, 25 points. Conducting hydrologic and hydraulic studies of floodplains. Applicants who create new maps must apply for a Letter of Map Change through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 15 points. Studies and Data Collection of Statewide and Regional Significance. Funding of studies of statewide and regional significance and proposals will be considered for the studies listed below, Up to 45 points. • Updating precipitation data and IDF information (rain intensity, duration, frequency estimates) including such data at a sub-state or regional scale on a periodic basis. (45) • Regional relative sea level rise projections for use in determining future impacts. (45) • Vulnerability analysis either statewide or regionally to state transportation, water supply, water treatment, impounding structures, or other significant and vital infrastructure from flooding. (45) • Flash flood studies and modeling in riverine regions of the state. (45) • Statewide or regional stream gauge monitoring to include expansion of existing gauge networks. (45) • New or updated delineations of areas of recurrent flooding, stormwater flooding, and storm surge vulnerability in coastal areas that include projections for future conditions based on sea level rise, more intense rainfall events, or other relevant flood risk factors. (45) • Regional flood studies in riverine communities that may include watershed scale evaluation, updated estimates of rainfall intensity, or other information. (45) • Regional hydrologic and hydraulic studies of floodplains. (45) • Studies of potential land use strategies that could be implemented by a local government to reduce or mitigate damage from coastal or riverine flooding. (40) • Other proposals that will significantly improve protection from flooding on a statewide or regional basis (35) Social Vulnerability Index Score, up to 10 points. • Very High Social Vulnerability (More than 1.5) (10) • High Social Vulnerability (1.0 to 1.5) (8) • Moderate Social Vulnerability (0.0 to 1.0) (5) • Low Social Vulnerability (-1.0 to 0.0) (0) • ery Low Social Vulnerability (Less than -1.0) (0) Remedy for NFIP probation or suspension (yes 5, no 0) Proposed project part of a low-income geographic area (yes 10, no 0) Proposed project implements a Chesapeake Bay TMDL BMP (yes 5, no 0) Capacity Building and Planning Eligible Capacity Building and Planning Activities. Up to 100 points. Development of a new resilience plan (95) Revisions to existing resilience plans and modifications to existing comprehensive and hazard mitigation plans (60) Resource assessments, planning, strategies, and development (40) Policy management and/or development (35) Stakeholder engagement and strategies (35) Goal planning, implementation, and evaluation (25) Long term maintenance strategy (25) Other proposals that will significantly improve protection from flooding on a statewide or regional basis approved by the Department (15) Social Vulnerability Index Score, up to 10 points. • Very High Social Vulnerability (More than 1.5) (10) • High Social Vulnerability (1.0 to 1.5) (8) • Moderate Social Vulnerability (0.0 to 1.0) (5) • Low Social Vulnerability (-1.0 to 0.0) (0) • Very Low Social Vulnerability (Less than -1.0) (0) Community scale of benefits, up to 30 points. • More than one census block (30) • 50-100% of census block (25) • 25-49% of census block (20) • Less than 25% of census block (0) Remedy for NFIP probation or suspension (yes 5, no 0) Proposed project part of a low-income geographic area (yes 5, no 0)