Stadium Amendments on the Docket Tonight 

click to enlarge Opponents and proponents of the Shockoe Bottom stadium proposal packed City Council's chambers Monday night.

Ned Oliver

Opponents and proponents of the Shockoe Bottom stadium proposal packed City Council's chambers Monday night.

Here are the amendments City Council members have proposed and will consider before they vote tonight on a resolution that advances the mayor’s ballpark proposal:

  • Councilman Jon Baliles proposed striking language that commits the city to cover bonds issued for the project by the Richmond Economic Development Authority. In the event that the project fails to meet financial projections, the amendment would prevent city tax payers from being forced to pick up the tab. Outcome: Approved Unanimously.

  • Baliles and Samuels both introduced amendments that add financial guarantees to the development, requiring developers to put of performance guarantees and personal bonds. Outcome: Approved Unanimously (Baliles' version).

  • Samuels proposed amendments that call for an archeological excavation at the project sites before construction is allowed to begin. The amendment calls for the Historic Richmond Foundation to select the archeological firm and requires developers to pay the cost of the work. Outcome: Voted down 4-5, with Agelasto, Hilbert, Trammell, Samuels in favor and Baliles, Graziano, Mosby, Newbille, Robertson against.

  • On the related Boulevard development, Samuels proposed an amendment that requires “significant citizen input” on any new development. The amendment would require the Boulevard development proposal process be completed before City Council issues permits for the Shockoe Bottom development. Outcome: Voted down 4-5, with Agelasto, Hilbert, Trammell, Samuels in favor and Baliles, Graziano, Mosby, Newbille, Robertson against.

  • Samuels also proposed an amendment that requires a full traffic study on the “anticipated effects of the Shockoe development … that will be presented for review by the council.” Outcome: Voted down 4-5, with Agelasto, Hilbert, Trammell, Samuels in favor and Baliles, Graziano, Mosby, Newbille, Robertson against.

  • Councilwoman Cynthia Newbille proposed an amendment that would require firm financial commitments for the slave heritage site before council offers final approval for other elements of the plan. Outcome: Approved unanimously.

David Hicks, the mayor's senior policy advisor, said the administration won't oppose any of the amendments, though he questioned whether they were all practical.

"It sounds as though council is trying to find a comfort level to move forward," he said. "And that's something we're obviously interested in doing - anything that's a path forward."

Comments (5)

Showing 1-5 of 5

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-5 of 5

Add a comment

  • Re: Fists and Facebook

    • My understanding is that crime in the city of Richmond has been decreasing over the…

    • on April 24, 2015
  • Re: Flash Forward

    • "$50-$60 million is certainly a huge amount of money, but how many billions do we…

    • on April 24, 2015
  • Re: Balloon-Release Regulations Deflate

    • I feel as though these senators are worried about the potential impacts to the clown…

    • on April 24, 2015
  • More »
  • Facebook Recommendations

    Latest in News and Features

    More by Ned Oliver

    Copyright © 2015 Style Weekly
    Richmond's alternative for news, arts, culture and opinion
    All rights reserved
    Powered by Foundation